בבא מציעא 90

90:1

or thresh terumah and tithes, there is no prohibition of, Thou shalt not muzzle [the ox when he treadeth out — i.e., threshes — his corn]; but for the sake of appearances he must bring a handful of that species and hang it on the nosebag at its mouth. R. Simeon b. Yohai said: He must bring vetches and hang them up for it, because these are better for it than anything else. Now the following contradicts it: When cows are stamping on grain, there is no prohibition of, Thou shalt not muzzle; but when they thresh terumah or tithes, there is. When a heathen threshes with an Israelite's cow, that prohibition is not transgressed; but if an Israelite threshes with a heathen's beast, he does. Thus the rulings on terumah are contradictory, and likewise those on tithes. Now, as for the rulings on terumah, it is well, and there is no difficulty: the one refers to terumah [itself]; the other to the produce of terumah; but as for the rulings on tithes, these are certainly difficult. And should you answer, there is no contradiction in the rulings on tithes either, one referring to tithes and the other to the produce of tithes — as for the produce of terumah, the answer is fitting, since it is terumah; but the produce of tithes is hullin. For we learnt: The produce of tebel and the produce of the second tithe are hullin! — But there is no difficulty: the one refers to the first tithe; the other to the second. Alternatively, both refer to the second tithe, yet there is no difficulty: the one [sc. the first Baraitha] agrees with R. Meir; the other with R. Judah. [Thus:] The one agrees with R. Meir, who maintained that the second tithe is sacred property; the other with R. Judah, who held it secular property. [And] how is it conceivable? — E.g., if he [the owner] anticipated [the tithing] whilst it was yet in ear. But [even] on R. Judah's view, does it not require the wall [of Jerusalem]? — He threshed it within the walls of Beth Pagi. Another alternative is this: there is no difficulty: one refers to a certain tithe, the other to a doubtful tithe. Now that you have arrived at this [solution], there is no contradiction between the two rulings on terumah too: the one refers to certain terumah, the other to doubtful terumah. Now, that is well with respect to a doubtful tithe, which exists. But is there a doubtful terumah? Has it not been taught: He also abolished the widuy and enacted the law of demai. Because he sent [messengers] throughout the territory of Israel, and saw that only the great terumah was rendered! — But there is no difficulty: the one refers to terumah of the certain tithe; the other to terumah of the doubtful tithe. The scholars put a problem to R. Shesheth: What if it ate and excreted? Is it [sc. the prohibition of muzzling] because it [the crops] benefits her, whereas here it does not; or because it sees and is distressed [through inability to eat], and here too it is distressed [if muzzled]? — R. Shesheth replied: We have learnt it: R. Simeon b. Yohai said: He must bring vetches and hang them up for her, because these are better for her than anything else. This proves that the reason is that it benefits her. This proves it. The scholars propounded: May one say to a heathen, 'Muzzle my cow and thresh therewith'? Do we say, the principle that an instruction to a heathen is a shebuth applies only to the Sabbath, [work] being forbidden on pain of stoning; but not to muzzling, which is prohibited merely by a negative precept: or perhaps there is no difference? — Come and hear: If a heathen threshes with the cow of an Israelite, he [the Israelite] does not infringe the precept, Thou shalt not muzzle! [This implies,] He merely does not infringe it, yet it is forbidden! — Actually, it is not even forbidden; but because the second clause states that if an Israelite threshes with a heathen's cow, he does infringe; the first clause too teaches that he does not infringe. Come and hear: For they [the scholars] sent to Samuel's father: What of those oxen

—

90:2

which Arameans steal [at the instance of the owners] and castrate? He replied: Since an evasion was committed with them, turn the evasion upon them [their owners], and let them be sold! — R. Papa replied: The Palestinian scholars hold with R. Hidka, viz., that the Noachides are themselves forbidden to practise castration, and hence he [the Israelite, in instructing the heathen to do it,] violates, Ye shall not put a stumbling block before the blind. Now, Raba thought to interpret: They must be sold for slaughter. Thereupon Abaye said to him: It is sufficient that you have penalised them to sell. Now, it is obvious that an adult son is as a stranger; but what of a minor son? — R. Ahi forbade it; whilst R. Ashi permitted it. Meremar and Mar Zutra — others state, certain two hasidim — interchanged with each other. Rami b. Hama propounded: What if one put a thorn in its [sc. the animal's] mouth? [You ask, What] if one put [a thorn in its mouth]? Surely that is real muzzling! — But [the problem is], what if a thorn stuck in its mouth? [Similarly,] What if one caused a lion to lie down outside [the field in which the ox was threshing]? 'What if one caused a lion to lie down?' Surely that is actual muzzling! — But [the problem is], What if a lion lay down outside [of its own accord]? What if one placed its [sc. the animal's] young outside the field? What if it thirsted for water [and so could not eat]? What if he spread a leather cover over the grain to be threshed? — Solve one of these problems from the following [Baraitha]. For it has been taught: The owner of the cow may let it go hungry, that it should eat much of the grain it threshes; whilst on the other hand, the landowner may untie a bundle of [trodden] sheaves before the cow, that it should not eat much of the threshing! — There it is different, because it does eat nevertheless. Alternatively [it means], the field owner may untie a bundle of [trodden] sheaves in front of the cow before the commencement [of the threshing], so that it should not eat much of the corn that is threshed. R. Jonathan asked R. Simai: What if he muzzled it outside? Does Scripture mean, [Thou shalt not muzzle] an ox when [i.e., at the time that] it thresheth, href="#90b_23" 23 whilst this is not [done] when it thresheth? Or perhaps Scripture meant, Thou shalt not thresh with a muzzled ox? — He replied: You may learn from your father's house. Do not drink wine or strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye enter [into the tabernacle etc.]. Now, is it forbidden only when ye enter, yet one may drink before and then enter? But Scripture saith, And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy! Hence, just as there, when the priest has entered there must be no drunkenness, so here too: when threshing, the ox must not be in a muzzled state. Our Rabbis taught: He who muzzles an ox or harnesses together [two] heterogeneous animals is exempt [from punishment], and only he who threshes or drives them is flagellated. It has been stated: If one frightened it off with his voice, or drove them [sc. the yoke of heterogeneous animals] with his voice: R. Johanan held him liable to punishment, the movement of the lips being an action; Resh Lakish ruled that he is not, because [the use of] the voice is not an action. R. Johanan raised an objection to Resh Lakish:

—