## Bava Metzia Daf 87b

###### Bava Metzia 87b:1
[Bava Metzia 87b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/87b:1)

בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאֵין גְּמַר מְלָאכָה, וּבְתָלוּשׁ מִן הַקַּרְקַע מֵאַחַר שֶׁנִּגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ, וּבְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין גִּידּוּלוֹ מִן הָאָרֶץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**not at the time of the completion of** its **work,** i.e., while it is still growing; **and** a laborer who works **with** produce **detached from the ground after the completion of its work,** when it is sufficiently processed and therefore subject to tithes; **and** a laborer who works **with an item whose growth is not from the land.**


###### Bava Metzia 87b:2
[Bava Metzia 87b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/87b:2)

**גְּמָ׳** מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי תָבֹא בְּכֶרֶם רֵעֶךָ וְאָכַלְתָּ״. אַשְׁכְּחַן כֶּרֶם, כֹּל מִילֵּי מְנָא לַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters,** that a laborer may eat from produce attached to the ground, derived? The Gemara answers: **As it is written: “When you come into your neighbor’s vineyard, then you may eat** grapes until you have enough at your own pleasure; but you shall not put any in your vessel” (Deuteronomy 23:25). The Gemara asks: **We find** a source for **a vineyard; from where do we** derive that a laborer may likewise eat from **any** other **type** of produce?


###### Bava Metzia 87b:3
[Bava Metzia 87b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/87b:3)

גָּמְרִינַן מִכֶּרֶם: מָה כֶּרֶם מְיוּחָד, דָּבָר שֶׁגִּידּוּלֵי קַרְקַע, וּבִשְׁעַת גְּמַר מְלָאכָה פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ – אַף כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁגִּידּוּלֵי קַרְקַע, בִּשְׁעַת גְּמַר מְלָאכָה פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **We derive** it **from** a comparison to the case of **a vineyard: Just as a vineyard is unique** in that it is **an entity whose growth is from the ground, and the laborer eats** from **it at the time of the completion of** its **work,** i.e., when he is harvesting the grapes, **so too** with regard to **any entity whose growth is from the ground** and it is **at the time of the completion of** its **work, a laborer may eat** from **it.**


###### Bava Metzia 87b:4
[Bava Metzia 87b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/87b:4)

מָה לְכֶרֶם – שֶׁכֵּן חַיָּיב בְּעוֹלֵלוֹת! גָּמְרִינַן מִקָּמָה. קָמָה גּוּפַהּ מְנָא לַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי תָבֹא בְּקָמַת רֵעֶךָ וְקָטַפְתָּ מְלִילוֹת בְּיָדֶךָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this derivation: **What** is notable **about a vineyard?** It is notable **in that** the owner of a vineyard is **obligated in** the mitzva of ***olelot*,** the obligation to leave incomplete clusters of grapes for the poor (see Leviticus 19:10). Accordingly, one should not be able to derive the *halakha* of other types of produce from the *halakha* of a vineyard. The Gemara explains: **We derive** the *halakha* that a laborer may eat from other crops **from** the *halakha* that he may eat **standing** grain. The Gemara asks: **And from where do we** derive that he may eat **standing** grain **itself?** The Gemara answers: **As it is written: “When you come into your neighbor’s standing grain, then you may pluck ears with your hand;** but you shall not move a sickle on to your neighbor’s standing grain” (Deuteronomy 23:26).


###### Bava Metzia 87b:5
[Bava Metzia 87b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/87b:5)

מָה לְקָמָה שֶׁכֵּן חַיֶּיבֶת בַּחַלָּה! וּמִמַּאי דְּהַאי קָמָה קָמָה דְּמִתְחַיֶּיבֶת בְּחַלָּה הִיא? דִּלְמָא כֹּל קָמָה קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **What** is notable **about standing** grain? It is notable **in that** the owner of dough prepared from grain is **obligated in** the mitzva of ***ḥalla*.** The Gemara asks an incidental question: **And from where** do you know **that this standing** grain mentioned in the verse **is** the same **standing** grain **whose** owner is **obligated in** the mitzva of ***ḥalla*? Perhaps the Merciful One is discussing any standing** produce, not only the five grains from which *ḥalla* must be separated.


###### Bava Metzia 87b:6
[Bava Metzia 87b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/87b:6)

אָתְיָא ״קָמָה״ ״קָמָה״, כְּתִיב הָכָא ״כִּי תָבֹא בְּקָמַת רֵעֶךָ״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם ״מֵהָחֵל חֶרְמֵשׁ בַּקָּמָה״. מָה הָתָם קָמָה דְּמִיחַיְּיבָא בְּחַלָּה, אַף הָכָא נָמֵי קָמָה דְּמִיחַיְּיבָא בְּחַלָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The matter **is derived** by means of a verbal analogy between the term **“standing”** written here and the term **“standing”** written elsewhere. **It is written here: “When you come into your neighbor’s standing grain”** (Deuteronomy 23:26), **and it is written there,** with regard to harvesting the barley for the *omer* offering: “Seven weeks you shall count for yourself; **from the time the sickle is first put to the standing grain”** (Deuteronomy 16:9). **Just as there,** in the verse referring to the harvesting of the *omer*, it is the owner of **standing** grain **who is obligated in** the mitzva of ***ḥalla*,** as barley is one of the five grains, **so too here,** with regard to a laborer, it is discussing **standing** grain **whose** owner **is obligated in** the mitzva of ***ḥalla*.**


###### Bava Metzia 87b:7
[Bava Metzia 87b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/87b:7)

אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְקָמָה שֶׁכֵּן חַיֶּיבֶת בְּחַלָּה! כֶּרֶם יוֹכִיחַ. מָה לְכֶרֶם שֶׁכֵּן חַיָּיב בְּעוֹלֵלוֹת! קָמָה תּוֹכִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara resumes its discussion by reiterating its earlier question. The comparison between standing grain and other produce **can be refuted** as follows: **What** is notable **about standing** grain? It is notable **in that** the owner of dough prepared from grain is **obligated in** the mitzva of ***ḥalla*.** The Gemara answers: **Let** the case of **a vineyard prove** that this comparison is valid, as the mitzva of *ḥalla* does not apply to the produce of a vineyard, and yet a laborer may eat from it. The Gemara asks: **What** is notable **about a vineyard?** It is notable **in that** its owner is **obligated in** the mitzva of ***olelot*.** The Gemara responds: **Let** the case of **standing** grain **prove** that this is not a decisive factor, as its owner is not obligated in the mitzva of *olelot* and even so a laborer may eat from it.


###### Bava Metzia 87b:8
[Bava Metzia 87b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/87b:8)

וְחָזַר הַדִּין: לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה. הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן – שֶׁכֵּן דָּבָר שֶׁגִּידּוּלֵי קַרְקַע, וּבִשְׁעַת גְּמַר מְלָאכָה פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ. אַף כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁגִּידּוּלֵי קַרְקַע בִּשְׁעַת גְּמַר מְלָאכָה פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Since no exact comparison can be drawn to either a vineyard or standing grain alone, the Gemara suggests a combined solution: **The inference has reverted** to its starting point. **The aspect of this** case, a vineyard, **is not like the aspect of that** case, standing grain. **Their common denominator is that** each one **grows from the earth and at the time of the completion of** its **work** the **laborer may eat** from **it. So too,** with regard to **any type** of produce **that grows from the earth, at the time of the completion of** its **work, a laborer may eat** from **it.**


###### Bava Metzia 87b:9
[Bava Metzia 87b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/87b:9)

מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ בָּהֶן צַד מִזְבֵּחַ. וַאֲתָא נָמֵי זַיִת, דְּאִית בֵּיהּ צַד מִזְבֵּחַ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is unique **about their common denominator?** It is unique **in that they have an aspect** relating to the **altar,** i.e., the products of both a vineyard and standing grain differ from other types of produce in that they are both offered on the altar. Wine is brought for libations and flour in meal-offerings. The Gemara suggests tangentially: **An olive** should **also be derived** through this category of those products which a laborer may eat, **as it** too **has an aspect** relating to the **altar,** in the oil of meal-offerings.


###### Bava Metzia 87b:10
[Bava Metzia 87b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/87b:10)

וְזַיִת בְּמָה הַצַּד אָתֵי? הוּא גּוּפֵיהּ כֶּרֶם אִיקְּרִי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּבְעֵר מִגָּדִישׁ וְעַד קָמָה וְעַד כֶּרֶם זָיִת״! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: ״כֶּרֶם זַיִת״ – אִקְּרֵי, ״כֶּרֶם״ סְתָמָא – לָא אִקְּרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this suggestion: **And** is the *halakha* of **an olive derived from the common factor** of the two types of produce mentioned earlier? But **it itself is called** the fruit of **a vineyard [*kerem*], as it is written: “And he burned up both the piles of produce and the standing grain, and also the olive yards [*kerem zayit*]”** (Judges 15:5). **Rav Pappa said:** This verse does not mean that an olive is considered the product of a vineyard, as in the verse **it is called olive yard [*kerem zayit*],** and it is **not called a plain vineyard.** Therefore, the *halakha* of olives must be derived by analogy from the common denominator.


###### Bava Metzia 87b:11
[Bava Metzia 87b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/87b:11)

מִכׇּל מָקוֹם קַשְׁיָא! אֶלָּא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אָמַר קְרָא ״וְחֶרְמֵשׁ״ לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל בַּעֲלֵי חֶרְמֵשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara resumes its discussion: **In any case,** it is **difficult,** as there still has not been found a source according to which the *halakha* that a laborer may eat when he is working applies to all types of produce. **Rather, Shmuel said: The verse states** with regard to a laborer who may eat produce: **“But** you shall not move **a sickle”** (Deuteronomy 23:26). This serves **to include all** types of produce **that are** cut **with a sickle.**


###### Bava Metzia 87b:12
[Bava Metzia 87b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/87b:12)

וְהַאי ״חֶרְמֵשׁ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ: בִּשְׁעַת חֶרְמֵשׁ – אֱכוֹל, שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת חֶרְמֵשׁ – לָא תֵּיכוֹל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But this** word **“sickle” is necessary** to teach a different *halakha* with regard to a laborer: **At the time of the sickle,** i.e., when the work has been completed and the produce is being picked, **you may eat.** But **when it is not** yet **the time of the sickle, you may not eat.** If so, how can Shmuel use the term “sickle” as the source for the *halakha* that a laborer may eat all kinds of produce that are cut with a sickle?


###### Bava Metzia 87b:13
[Bava Metzia 87b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/87b:13)

הָהוּא מִ״וְּאֶל כֶּלְיְךָ לֹא תִתֵּן״ נָפְקָא. תִּינַח דְּבַר חֶרְמֵשׁ, דְּלָאו בַּר חֶרְמֵשׁ מְנָא לַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **That** *halakha*, with regard to when a laborer may eat, **is derived from** the verse: **“But you may not put any in your vessel”** (Deuteronomy 23:25), as the Gemara will explain later. Therefore, the word “sickle” is not required to teach that *halakha* and can be used as the source of the *halakha* that a laborer may eat all kinds of produce that are cut with a sickle, as stated by Shmuel. The Gemara asks: Shmuel’s derivation **works out well** for any type of produce **that requires a sickle** for its harvest. But **from where do we** derive that the same applies to a type of produce **that does not require a sickle** for its harvest?


###### Bava Metzia 87b:14
[Bava Metzia 87b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/87b:14)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: אָמַר קְרָא ״קָמָה״ לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל בַּעֲלֵי קֹמָה. וְהָא אָמְרַתְּ: ״קָמָה״, קָמָה דְּמִיחַיְּיבָא בְּחַלָּה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rabbi Yitzḥak said** that the *halakha* concerning which produce a laborer may eat is derived from a different source. **The verse states: “Standing [*kama*]”** (Deuteronomy 23:26), and the unmodified term *kama* serves **to include any standing** produce. The Gemara asks: **But didn’t you say** earlier that the term **standing** is referring specifically to **standing** produce **whose** owner is **obligated in** the mitzva of ***ḥalla*,** and not to other produce?


###### Bava Metzia 87b:15
[Bava Metzia 87b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/87b:15)

הָנֵי מִילֵּי מִקַּמֵּי דְּנֵיתֵי ״חֶרְמֵשׁ״, הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵי ״חֶרְמֵשׁ״ – אִיתְרַבִּי לֵיהּ כֹּל דְּבַר חֶרְמֵשׁ, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא מִיחַיַּיב בְּחַלָּה. ״קָמָה״ לְמָה לִי – לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל בַּעֲלֵי קֹמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **That matter** applies **before we derived** a *halakha* from the mention of **“sickle.” Now that** a *halakha* **was derived from “sickle,” any type** of produce that requires **a sickle** for its harvesting **is included,** as stated earlier, **and** this applies **even though** the owner of that particular produce **is not obligated in** the mitzva of ***ḥalla*.** Accordingly, **why do I** need the term **“standing”?** It serves **to include any standing** produce.


###### Bava Metzia 87b:16
[Bava Metzia 87b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/87b:16)

וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּנָפְקָא לַן מֵחֶרְמֵשׁ וּמִקָּמָה ״כִּי תָבֹא בְּכֶרֶם רֵעֶךָ״ לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And now that** we **have derived** the *halakha* concerning which produce a laborer is entitled to eat both **from** the mention of **“sickle” and from “standing,” why do I** need the earlier verse: **“When you come into your neighbor’s vineyard,** then you may eat grapes until you have enough at your own pleasure; but you may not put any in your vessel” (Deuteronomy 23:25)?


###### Bava Metzia 87b:17
[Bava Metzia 87b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/87b:17)

אָמַר רָבָא, לְהִלְכוֹתָיו. כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״כִּי תָבֹא״, נֶאֱמַר כָּאן בִּיאָה, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״לֹא תָבוֹא עָלָיו הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ״, מָה לְהַלָּן בְּפוֹעֵל הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אַף כָּאן בְּפוֹעֵל הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that **Rava said:** This verse is required **for its** unique ***halakhot*, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that the phrase **“when you come [*tavo*]”** is interpreted as follows: **Coming [*bia*] is stated here, and coming is also stated there:** “In the same day you shall give him his wages, **and the sun shall not go down [*tavo*] upon it”** (Deuteronomy 24:15). **Just as there,** in Deuteronomy, chapter 24, **the verse is speaking of a laborer, so too here,** in Deuteronomy, chapter 23, **the verse is speaking of a laborer,** despite the fact that this detail is not stated explicitly in the verse.


###### Bava Metzia 87b:18
[Bava Metzia 87b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/87b:18)

״בְּכֶרֶם רֵעֶךָ״, וְלֹא בְּכֶרֶם נׇכְרִי. הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר גֶּזֶל נׇכְרִי אָסוּר, הַיְינוּ דְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְמִישְׁרֵי פּוֹעֵל. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר גֶּזֶל נׇכְרִי מוּתָּר – הַשְׁתָּא גְּזֵילָה מוּתָּר, פּוֹעֵל מִיבַּעְיָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues analyzing the verse: The phrase **“in your neighbor’s vineyard”** indicates that it is prohibited for a laborer to put the grapes in his vessel only while he is working in the vineyard of a Jew, **but not in the vineyard of a gentile,** where he may place grapes in his vessel. The Gemara digresses to discuss this point: **This** explanation **works out well according to the one who says** that **robbery** from **a gentile is prohibited; this is why it was necessary for the verse to permit a laborer** to eat the gentile’s grapes. **But according to the one who says** that **robbery** from **a gentile is permitted, now** that **robbery** itself **is permitted, is** it **necessary** to teach that **a laborer** in the vineyard of a gentile is permitted to put grapes in his vessel?


###### Bava Metzia 87b:19
[Bava Metzia 87b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/87b:19)

מוֹקֵים לַהּ: ״בְּכֶרֶם רֵעֶךָ״ – וְלֹא שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ. ״וְאָכַלְתָּ״ – וְלֹא מוֹצֵץ. ״עֲנָבִים״ וְלֹא עֲנָבִים וְדָבָר אַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The one who maintains that robbery from a gentile is permitted **interprets** the phrase **“in your neighbor’s vineyard”** as teaching that a laborer may eat produce only in his neighbor’s vineyard, **but** he **may not** eat produce **of consecrated** property. The *baraita* continues: The term **“then you may eat”** indicates that a laborer must eat the entire grape **and may not suck** its juice and cast the rest away. The word **“grapes”** teaches that a laborer may eat only grapes by themselves **and not grapes and something else,** i.e., he may not use a condiment to make the grapes more palatable to enable him to eat an excessive amount.


###### Bava Metzia 87b:20
[Bava Metzia 87b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/87b:20)

״כְּנַפְשְׁךָ״ – כְּנֶפֶשׁ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת כָּךְ נַפְשׁוֹ שֶׁל פּוֹעֵל. מָה נַפְשְׁךָ אוֹכֵל וּפָטוּר, אַף נַפְשׁוֹ שֶׁל פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל וּפָטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The term: “At your own pleasure [*kenafshekha*]” (Deuteronomy 23:25), can also mean: As you are. Consequently, the term ***kenafshekha*** teaches that just as the *halakha* is concerning **the owner** of the vineyard **himself, so is** the *halakha* concerning **you, the laborer himself: Just as** the owner, alluded to by the term ***nafshekha*, may eat** from the produce before its labor is complete **and** is **exempt** from separating tithes, **so too, the laborer himself may eat** and is **exempt** from tithes.


###### Bava Metzia 87b:21
[Bava Metzia 87b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/87b:21)

״שׇׂבְעֶךָ״, וְלֹא אֲכִילָה גַּסָּה. ״וְאַל כֶּלְיְךָ לֹא תִתֵּן״, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאַתָּה נוֹתֵן לְכֶלְיוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת – אַתָּה אוֹכֵל, וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁאִי אַתָּה נוֹתֵן לְכֶלְיוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת – אִי אַתָּה אוֹכֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The expression: “until **you have enough”** indicates that a laborer may eat until he is satiated, **but** he **may not** engage in **excessive eating.** The phrase **“but you may not put any in your vessel”** teaches that **at a time when you put** the grapes **in the owner’s vessels,** i.e., when harvesting the grapes, then **you may eat, but at a time when you are not putting** the grapes **in the owner’s vessels,** i.e., if the laborer is performing other tasks in the vineyard before harvesting, **you may not eat.**


###### Bava Metzia 87b:22
[Bava Metzia 87b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/87b:22)

אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: אֵין הַטֶּבֶל מִתְחַיֵּיב בְּמַעֲשֵׂר

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Yannai says:** The owner of **untithed produce is not obligated in** the mitzva of **tithing**