Bava Metzia

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 — 10 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: