Bava Metzia

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