## Bava Metzia Daf 89b

###### Bava Metzia 89b:1
[Bava Metzia 89b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/89b:1)

לְאַכְשׁוֹרֵי גַּבְרָא לָא קָמִיבַּעְיָא לַן, כִּי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לַן לְאַכְשׁוֹרֵי פֵּירָא, מַאי? תָּא שְׁמַע: פּוֹעֲלִין אוֹכְלִין עֲנָבִים בְּרָאשֵׁי אוּמָּנִיּוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶם, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהַבְהֲבוּ בָּאוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this proof: **We did not raise** the **difficulty with regard to the fitness of the man** himself to eat, as it is obvious that one may act in advance so that he will be able to eat a great deal. **When** this dilemma **was raised to us,** it was with regard **to the fitness of the produce** for eating. May they be prepared by singeing? **What,** then, is the *halakha*? The Gemara offers another suggestion: **Come** and **hear** a proof from a *baraita*: **Laborers may eat grapes at the end of their rows** of vines, **provided that they do not singe** the grapes **in fire.**


###### Bava Metzia 89b:2
[Bava Metzia 89b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/89b:2)

הָתָם מִשּׁוּם בִּיטּוּל מְלָאכָה, כִּי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לַן, הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו, מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this claim: This affords no proof, as the prohibition **there** is not because of his use of the fire but **due to** his **neglect** of his **labor,** as he has no right to busy himself with other matters during his work time. **When the dilemma is raised to us,** it is with regard **to** a case where he does not have to stop his work, e.g., **when** he **has his wife and children** with him, who can singe the fruit for him without him having to pause in his labor. **What** is the *halakha* in a case of this kind?


###### Bava Metzia 89b:3
[Bava Metzia 89b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/89b:3)

תָּא שְׁמַע: לֹא יְהַבְהֵב בָּאוּר וְיֹאכַל, וְלֹא יִכְמוֹר בַּאֲדָמָה וְיֹאכַל, וְלֹא יַפְרִיךְ עַל גַּבֵּי הַסֶּלַע וְיֹאכַל, אֲבָל מְפָרֵיךְ עַל יָד עַל יָד וְאוֹכֵל. הָתָם מִשּׁוּם בִּיטּוּל מְלָאכָה. הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ מִשּׁוּם מַתּוֹקֵי פֵּירָא – סֶלַע מַאי מַתּוֹקֵי פֵּירָא אִיכָּא? אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּלָא מְמַתֵּיק פּוּרְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara again suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from a *baraita*: A laborer **may not singe** produce **in fire and eat, and he may not heat** produce **in the ground and eat, and he may not break** produce **on rocks and eat, but he may break** it **little by little and eat.** Once again, the Gemara refutes the proof: **There** too, the reason is **due to** his **neglect** of his **labor.** The Gemara comments: **So too, it is reasonable** that this is the case. **As, if it enters your mind** that it is prohibited **due to** his **sweetening of the produce, what sweetening of the produce is there** in his use of **a rock?** The Gemara responds: This is not a conclusive argument, as it is **impossible that** the produce **would not be sweetened a little.**


###### Bava Metzia 89b:4
[Bava Metzia 89b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/89b:4)

תָּא שְׁמַע: פּוֹעֲלִין שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹדְרִים בִּתְאֵנִים וְגוֹדְרִים בִּתְמָרִים וּבוֹצְרִים בַּעֲנָבִים וּמוֹסְקִין בְּזֵיתִים – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אוֹכְלִים, וּפְטוּרִים, שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה זִיכְּתָה לָהֶם. בְּפִיתָּם לֹא יֹאכְלוּ, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נָטְלוּ רְשׁוּת מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת. וְלֹא יִסְפּוֹת בַּמֶּלַח וְיֹאכַל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from a *baraita*: With regard to **laborers who were plucking figs, or plucking dates, or harvesting grapes, or harvesting olives, they may eat and they are exempt** from separating tithes, **as the Torah entitled them** to eat. Nevertheless, **they may not eat** these fruits together **with their bread unless they received permission from the homeowner.** Similarly, **one may not dip [*lo yispot*]** these fruits **in salt and eat.** This indicates that it is prohibited to sweeten the fruit.


###### Bava Metzia 89b:5
[Bava Metzia 89b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/89b:5)

מֶלַח וַדַּאי כַּעֲנָבִים וְדָבָר אַחֵר דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof as well: **Salt is certainly considered like grapes and something else,** as one is adding an ingredient, which is undoubtedly prohibited. By contrast, one who singes produce in fire has not added anything, and therefore it is possible that this practice is permitted. Consequently, the Gemara’s question is left unresolved.


###### Bava Metzia 89b:6
[Bava Metzia 89b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/89b:6)

וְלֹא יִסְפּוֹת בַּמֶּלַח וְיֹאכַל. וּרְמִינְהוּ: הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל לְעַדֵּר וּלְקַשְׁקֵשׁ תַּחַת הַזֵּיתִים – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יֹאכַל, שְׂכָרוֹ לִבְצוֹר שְׂכָרוֹ לִמְסוֹק שְׂכָרוֹ לְלַקֵּט – הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹכֵל וּפָטוּר, שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה זִיכְּתָה לָהֶן. קָצַץ אַחַת וְאַחַת – יֹאכַל, שְׁתַּיִם שְׁתַּיִם – לֹא יֹאכַל, וְסוֹפֵת בַּמֶּלַח וְיֹאכַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The *baraita* mentioned earlier taught: **And he may not dip** these fruits **in salt and eat. And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** to this from a *baraita*: In the case of **one who hires a laborer to till and dig a circle under olives, this one may not eat** from the olives. But if **he hired him to harvest** grapes, **or hired him to harvest** olives, or **hired him to gather** any other fruit, **this one may eat and he is exempt** from separating tithes, **as the Torah entitled** these laborers to eat. In a case where **he stipulated** with the owner beforehand that he may eat even when he is not entitled to do so by Torah law, if he eats the fruit **one by one, he may eat** without separating tithes, but if he consumes **two by two he may not eat** without separating tithes. **And he may dip** these fruits **in salt and eat.**


###### Bava Metzia 89b:7
[Bava Metzia 89b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/89b:7)

אַהֵיָיא? אִילֵּימָא אַסֵּיפָא – כֵּיוָן דְּקָצַץ, כֹּל הֵיכִי דְּבָעֵי לֵיכוֹל, אֶלָּא לָאו אַרֵישָׁא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes this last statement: **To which** section of the *baraita* is this referring? **If we say** that it is referring **to the latter clause,** in which the laborer had an agreement with the owner, it is superfluous: **Since** the laborer **stipulated** that he may eat **in any manner he wishes, he may** certainly **eat** with salt. **Rather, is it not** referring **to the first clause** of the *baraita*, concerning a laborer who eats by Torah law? This would prove that a laborer may dip fruit in salt without separating tithes.


###### Bava Metzia 89b:8
[Bava Metzia 89b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/89b:8)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא קַשְׁיָא. כָּאן – בָּאָרֶץ, כָּאן – בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. בָּאָרֶץ קָבְעָא סְפִיתָא, בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ לָא קְבַעָא סְפֵיתָא. אָמַר רָבָא: מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּבָאָרֶץ קְבַעָא סְפֵיתָא מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ לֹא קִבְעָא סְפֵיתָא, וּמוּתָּר לְכַתְּחִילָּה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said:** This is **not difficult,** as **here** it is prohibited because he is **in Eretz** Yisrael, whereas **there** he is **outside of Eretz** Yisrael. The reason for the difference is as follows: **In Eretz** Yisrael, **dipping** fruit in salt **establishes** his consumption as a fixed meal, which renders the fruit subject to tithes. **Outside of Eretz** Yisrael, by contrast, **dipping** fruit in salt **does not establish** his consumption as a meal, as the mitzva of tithes does not apply outside of Eretz Yisrael by Torah law. **Rava said: Is there any** produce with regard to which the *halakha* is **that in Eretz** Yisrael **dipping establishes** it as a meal **by Torah law, and** yet **outside Eretz** Yisrael **dipping does not establish** it as a meal **and it is** even **permitted *ab initio*?** It cannot be that there is such a great difference between these places, as the enactments of the Sages are modeled on Torah law.


###### Bava Metzia 89b:9
[Bava Metzia 89b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/89b:9)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: בֵּין בָּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, חֲדָא לָא – קִבְעָא סְפֵיתָא, תַּרְתֵּי – קְבַעָא סְפֵיתָא. קָצַץ: בֵּין סָפַת וּבֵין לֹא סָפַת, אַחַת אַחַת – אוֹכֵל, שְׁתַּיִם שְׁתַּיִם – לֹא יֹאכַל. לֹא קָצַץ וְלֹא סָפַת – אוֹכֵל שְׁתַּיִם שְׁתַּיִם, סָפַת: אַחַת אַחַת – אוֹכֵל, שְׁתַּיִם שְׁתַּיִם – לֹא יֹאכַל, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּנָטַל רְשׁוּת מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת, דְּאִיטְּבִיל לְהוּ לְמַעֲשֵׂר וְקָבְעָא סְפִיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava** rejected Abaye’s answer and **stated** a different resolution: **Whether in Eretz** Yisrael or **outside of Eretz** Yisrael, if he ate **one** fruit, its **dipping** in salt **does not establish** it as anything more than a casual meal, but if he ate **two, dipping** in salt **does establish** it as a meal. Therefore, in a case where **he stipulated** that he may eat, **whether he dipped** in salt **or did not dip** in salt, **he may eat one by one,** but **he may not eat two by two.** If **he did not stipulate and did not dip** in salt, he **may eat two by two.** If he **dips** in salt he **may eat one by one,** but **he may not eat two by two, even though he received permission** to eat two at a time **from the homeowner.** The reason is **that they have** already **been rendered untithed produce with regard to tithes,** because the **dipping established** them as ready for tithing. Consequently, the laborer may not partake of them until he has separated tithes.


###### Bava Metzia 89b:10
[Bava Metzia 89b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/89b:10)

וְתַרְתֵּי דְּקָבְעָא סְפִיתָא מְנָא לַן? אָמַר רַב מַתְנָא, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״כִּי קִבְּצָם כֶּעָמִיר גֹּרְנָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And from where do we** derive this *halakha* **that** with regard to eating fruit **two** at a time, **dipping** in salt **establishes** that they are subject to tithes? **Rav Mattana said** that it is **as the verse states: “For He has gathered them as the sheaves to the threshing-floor”** (Micah 4:12). This verse shows that one who gathers items together, an act that involves at least two items, is considered to have brought them into his granary. Consequently, if he also dips them in salt he has established his consumption as a fixed meal, which means that he must separate tithes.


###### Bava Metzia 89b:11
[Bava Metzia 89b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/89b:11)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: פָּרוֹת הַמְרַכְּסוֹת בִּתְבוּאָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught:** In the case of **cows that tread on produce** for which the work has been completed but which is threshed again in this manner as part of its preparation into food,