ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Metzia 88
BAVA METZIA 88 (6 Adar) - dedicated by the Feldman family in memory of their
father, the Tzadik Harav Yisrael Azriel ben Harav Chaim (Feldman) of
(a) Rebbi Yanai learns from the Pasuk "Bi'arti ha'Kodesh min ha'Bayis" -
that Tevel only becomes subject to Ma'aser once it enters the house.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan learn from the Pasuk "Ve'achlu bi'She'arecha ve'Save'u" -
that entering the Chatzer is sufficient to render it subject to Ma'aser if
(c) Rebbi Yochanan learns from "Bi'arti ha'Kodesh min ha'Bayis" - that the
Chatzer must be guarded (like a Bayis normally is).
(d) Whereas Rebbi Yanai learns from "Ve'achlu bi'She'arecha ve'Save'u" - the
Tevel must enter the house through the front-door, and not via roofs and
(a) Rebbi Chanina Chuza'a cites the above-mentioned Beraisa "ke'Nafshecha",
'ke'Nafsho shel Ba'al ha'Bayis', exempting the laborer from having to
Ma'aser what he eats - implying that a purchaser would be obligated to
(b) Assuming that the Tana is speaking in the field - we see that Tevel
becomes subject Ma'aser even in the field, and there is no S'vara that
Mekach should create the obligation to Ma'asering in a case where G'mar
Melachah does not (posing a Kashya on both Rebbi Yanai and Rebbi Yochanan)
(c) To answer the Kashya, Rav Papa establishes the Beraisa, by a fig-tree
which is growing in the garden, but which overhangs ...
1. ... the Chatzer, according to Rebbi Yochanan.
(d) The Kashya then arises, that in that case, why is the owner Patur from
Ma'asros, seeing as at the time of G'mar Melachah (when the fruit is
picked), it is inside the Chatzer or the house? We answer it - by drawing a
distinction between a purchaser, who is concerned with the fruit that he
bought (which is indeed in a location which obligates it), and the owner,
who is concerned about all the fruit on his tree (not just the overhanging
branch), most of which is still in a location which is Patur from Ma'asros.
2. ... the house, according to Rebbi Yanai.
(a) We query the need for a Pasuk to preclude a laborer from the Din of a
purchaser, on the grounds that it should not be necessary - since even a
purchaser is not Chayav to Ma'aser min ha'Torah.
(b) The Beraisa attributes the fact that the shops of Beis Hino were
destroyed three years before Yerushalayim - because they kept the Torah law
of not Ma'asering purchased fruit (even though the Rabbanan obligated it).
(c) Chazal learn from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Aser Te'aser ... Ve'achalta" - 've'Lo Mocher'.
2. ... "Tevu'as Zar'echa" - 've'Lo Loke'ach'.
(a) The Tana nevertheless learned from "ke'Nafshecha", that a laborer is
Patur from Ma'asros (seeing as even Mekach is) - by way of Asmachta (as if
Mekach was needed to be Ma'asered mi'd'Oraysa).
(b) The Tana really learns from "ke'Nafshecha" - 'ke'Nafshecha, Im Chasamta,
Patur ... ' (that if the employer stipulated that he would pay the laborer
for not eating, or forced him physically to desist from eating, he is not
subject to the La'av of "Lo Sachsom Shor be'Disho" [see Shitah Mekubetzes]).
(a) The Mishnah in Ma'asros gives the stage that squash and pumpkins as
'mi'she'Yipaksu', which Rav Asi interprets to mean - from the time the fluff
on its end is removed.
(b) On the assumption that the Tana is speaking in the field, Rav Asi asks
from this Mishnah on Rebbi Yanai and Rebbi Yochanan (who require the fruit
to have entered the house and the Chatzer respectively. Rav Asi declines to
establish the Mishnah in the Chatzer or the house - because then, seeing as
the Tana is coming to teach us that even entering the house does not
determine the obligation to Ma'aser until its fluff has been removed, the
Tana ought to have said (not 'mi'she'Yipaksu' but) 'Ad she'Yipaksu'.
(c) To counter Rav Asi's Kashya, we establish the Mishnah - in the Chatzer
or the house. And the reason the Tana uses the Lashon 'mi'she'Yipaksu',
because, had he said 'Ad she'Yipaksu', we would have thought that it only
reaches the stage of Ma'aser when all the fluff has been removed.
'mi'she'Yipaksu' on the other hand, conveys the (correct) impression that
all that is required, is for the fluff to begin coming off.
(a) The Beraisa gives the G'mar Melachah as 'Hachnasasan'. Assuming this
to mean in the field, Mar Zutra B'rei de'Rav Nachman - who interprets the
word 'Hachnasasan' - to mean gathering into a pile, asks from here on Rebbi
Yanai and Rebbi Yochanan.
(b) We counter his Kashya however - by interpreting 'Hachnasasan' to mean
gathering into the house.
(c) The ramifications of these interpretations are - from which stage a
person will be Chayav for eating Tevel (and from which stage it will be
forbidden to eat from the fruit, even casually).
(a) Alternatively, Rebbi Yanai differentiates between two different kinds of
fruits. Hachnasasan le'Sadeh is Kove'a - by produce, where the Torah
specifically writes 'Goren' (in Re'ei ["Ma'asar *Degancha*", which is
synonymous with Goren]), whereas Rebbi Yanai is speaking about fruit, which
does not have its own Goren.
(b) The Sugya in Pesachim assumes that the crops left behind by a deceased
Chaver were never Tevel (that needed to be Ma'asered), because maybe the
Chaver did like Rebbi Oshaya - who permits a person to avoid Ma'asering his
crops, by taking them into his house together with the chaff to enable his
animal to eat from it, and to exempt him from having to Ma'aser it.
(c) That Sugya clearly holds - like the first interpretation of Rebbi Yanai,
which considers the house the Goren with regard to crops and fruit alike.
(a) We have discussed Adam bi'Mechubar. The Pasuk that teaches us that a
Shor may eat be'Talush is - "Lo Sachsom Shor be'Disho" (Ki Seitzei).
(b) We try to learn Adam be'Talush from a 'Kal va'Chomer' - from an animal,
whom the Torah allows to eat, even though it does not specifically allow it
to eat by Mechubar. If so, Adam, whom the Torah *does* specifically allow to
eat by Mechubar, should certainly be allowed to eat by Talush.
(c) The Pircha on this 'Kal va'Chomer' is - that we cannot learn Adam from
Beheimah, since we find one instance where the Torah protects Beheimah more
than Adam, inasmuch as one receives Malkos for muzzling an animal, but not
for muzzling a person, as we learned above.
(d) We have already cited the D'rashah from "ke'Nafshecha", which precludes
a laborer from being subject to the La'av of Chasimah. Otherwise, we would
have learned from a 'Kal va'Chomer' that he is included - from the fact that
one is obligated to sustain a person but not an animal.
(a) So we learn Adam be'Talush from the fact that the Torah writes "Kamah"
twice - using the principle of 'Im Eino Inyan' (because, seeing as we don't
need two Pesukim by Mechubar, we use one of them to teach us Talush).
(b) Rebbi Ami dispenses with the need for this D'rashah. He extrapolates
Adam be'Talush from the Pasuk "Ki Savo be'Kerem Re'echa" - which
incorporates a case where the laborer was employed to carry the picked
grapes from the vineyard to the wine-press, yet the Torah permits him to
(a) We attempt to learn Beheimah by Mechubar from Adam, using the same 'Kal
va'Chomer' (though in reverse) as we used earlier to try and learn Adam
be'Talush from Beheimah. The Pircha we ask on this is - 'Mah le'Adam,
she'Kein Metzuvin Le'hachyoso'.
(b) We suggest that perhaps one ought to be Chayav to sustain a Beheimah
from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Adam - since one is not forbidden to muzzle the
latter, whereas one is, the former.
(c) We counter this suggestion however - by Darshening "ve'Chei Achicha
Imach", 'Achicha, ve'Lo Shor'.
(a) We finally learn Beheimah bi'Mechubar from the fact that the Torah
writes "Re'echa" twice by Adam by Mechubar - that 'Im Eino Inyan' regarding
Adam, the second Pasuk permitting eating from Mechubar must pertain to
(b) Ravina dispenses with the need for this D'rashah. He learns it from "Lo
Sachsom Shor be'Disho", from the superfluous word "Shor" - since the Torah
ought to have written - "Lo Sadush ba'Chasimah".
(c) Consequently, from "Lo Sachsom Shor ... ", he compares the muzzler
(Adam) to the muzzled (Beheimah), to permit Adam to eat be'Talush; and the
muzzled to the muzzler, to permit Beheimah bi'Mechubar.
(d) He knows that the Torah did not write "Shor" to preclude other animals
from the concession to eat - because we learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah'
"Shor" "Shor" from Shabbos, that wherever the Torah writes "Shor", it
incorporates all animals, like it does by Shabbos.