## Bava Metzia Daf 88a

###### Bava Metzia 88a:1
[Bava Metzia 88a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/88a:1)

עַד שֶׁיִּרְאֶה פְּנֵי הַבַּיִת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בִּעַרְתִּי הַקֹּדֶשׁ מִן הַבַּיִת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**until it sees the front of the house** through which people enter and exit, and it is brought into the house through that entrance, **as it is stated** in the formula of the declaration of the tithes: **“I have removed the consecrated from the house”** (Deuteronomy 26:13), which indicates that the obligation to tithe produce whose purpose has not yet been designated applies only when it is brought into the house.


###### Bava Metzia 88a:2
[Bava Metzia 88a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/88a:2)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ חָצֵר קוֹבַעַת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאָכְלוּ בִשְׁעָרֶיךָ וְשָׂבֵעוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even** bringing produce into the **courtyard determines** that the production process of the produce has been completed and that the produce is therefore subject to tithes, **as it is stated** in the confession of the tithes: “And I have given to the Levite, the stranger, the orphan, and the widow, **and they shall eat in your gates and be satisfied”** (Deuteronomy 26:12).


###### Bava Metzia 88a:3
[Bava Metzia 88a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/88a:3)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן נָמֵי, הָא כְּתִיב ״מִן הַבַּיִת״! אָמַר לָךְ: חָצֵר – דֻּמְיָא דְּבַיִת: מָה בַּיִת הַמִּשְׁתַּמֵּר – אַף חָצֵר הַמִּשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** according to **Rabbi Yoḥanan also, isn’t it written: “From the house”?** The Gemara answers: **He** could have **said to you** that the term “house” is not to be taken literally. Rather, it indicates that bringing untithed produce into **a courtyard is similar to** bringing it into **a house,** in the following way: **Just as a house** is **a secured** area, **so too, the courtyard** must be **secured.** An area that is accessible to the public is not considered a courtyard for the purposes of this *halakha*.


###### Bava Metzia 88a:4
[Bava Metzia 88a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/88a:4)

וְרַבִּי יַנַּאי נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב ״בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ״! הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ דִּמְעַיֵּיל לֵיהּ דֶּרֶךְ שַׁעַר, לְאַפּוֹקֵי דֶּרֶךְ גַּגּוֹת וְקַרְפֵּיפוֹת דְּלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** according to **Rabbi Yannai also, isn’t it written: “In your gates”?** The Gemara answers: **That** term **is necessary** to teach **that** this *halakha*, that the production process is considered complete, applies only **when one brings** the produce into his house **through the gate,** i.e., the entranceway, **to the exclusion of** produce that was brought in **through rooftops and enclosures,** in **which** case the produce is **not** subject to tithes.


###### Bava Metzia 88a:5
[Bava Metzia 88a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/88a:5)

מֵתִיב רַב חֲנִינָא חוֹזָאָה: ״כְּנַפְשְׁךָ״ – כָּךְ נַפְשׁוֹ שֶׁל פּוֹעֵל, מָה נַפְשְׁךָ אוֹכֵל וּפָטוּר, אַף נַפְשׁוֹ שֶׁל פּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל וּפָטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥanina Ḥoza’a raises an objection** from a statement of the *baraita* mentioned earlier (87b): The term “at your own pleasure [*kenafshekha*]” 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 **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 88a:6
[Bava Metzia 88a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/88a:6)

הָא לוֹקֵחַ חַיָּיב, מַאי לָאו בַּשָּׂדֶה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The objection of Rav Ḥanina Ḥoza’a is as follows: This indicates that only an owner and a laborer may eat from produce without tithing it; **but one who buys** produce is **obligated** by Torah law to separate tithes before partaking of it. **What, is it not** correct to conclude that this is the *halakha* even when he purchased the produce while it was still **in the field,** i.e., he is obligated to tithe the produce even though it has not entered his house or courtyard?


###### Bava Metzia 88a:7
[Bava Metzia 88a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/88a:7)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הָכָא בִּתְאֵנָה הָעוֹמֶדֶת בְּגִינָּה וְנוֹפָהּ נוֹטֶה לְחָצֵר עָסְקִינַן, וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְבַיִת – לְבַיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said: Here,** in the *baraita*, **we are dealing with a fig tree that is standing in a garden** outside a courtyard **and its leaves are leaning into a courtyard, or, according to the one who says** that the obligation to separate tithes applies when the produce is brought **into the house,** the branches are leaning **into the house.** Therefore, the produce entered the courtyard or house.


###### Bava Metzia 88a:8
[Bava Metzia 88a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/88a:8)

אִי הָכִי בַּעַל הַבַּיִת נָמֵי נִיחַיַּיב! בַּעַל הַבַּיִת עֵינָיו בִּתְאֵנָתוֹ, וְלוֹקֵחַ עֵינָיו בְּמִקָּחוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so, the homeowner** himself, not only the buyer, **should also be obligated** to separate tithes, as the produce is in either the courtyard or the house. The Gemara answers: **The homeowner’s eyes are on his fig tree,** i.e., his primary concern is the tree, not its produce, and the main part of the tree is outside the courtyard. **But the buyer’s eyes are on his purchase,** i.e., his focus is on the produce itself, which is in the space of the courtyard or house.


###### Bava Metzia 88a:9
[Bava Metzia 88a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/88a:9)

וְלוֹקֵחַ מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא מִי מִחַיַּיב? וְהָתַנְיָא: מִפְּנֵי מָה חָרְבוּ חֲנוּיוֹת שֶׁל בֵּית הִינוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים קוֹדֶם יְרוּשָׁלַיִם – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֶעֱמִידוּ דִּבְרֵיהֶם עַל דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה. שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹמְרִין:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And is a buyer obligated by Torah law** to tithe the produce he purchases? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **For what reason were the shops of Beit Hino,** a town near Jerusalem, **destroyed three years before** the destruction of **Jerusalem** itself? It was **because they based their practices** strictly **on matters of Torah,** i.e., they did not adhere to the rabbinic safeguards. The *baraita* explains **that they would say**