## Bava Metzia Daf 91b

###### Bava Metzia 91b:1
[Bava Metzia 91b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/91b:1)

אִלּוּ נֶאֱמַר ״בְּהֶמְתְּךָ לֹא תַרְבִּיעַ״ הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: לֹא יֶאֱחוֹז אָדָם אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה עָלֶיהָ זָכָר, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כִּלְאַיִם״. כִּלְאַיִם הוּא דְּאָסוּר, הָא מִין בְּמִינוֹ – שְׁרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Had** the Torah merely **stated: “You shall not let your cattle copulate,” I would have said** that **a person may not hold the** female **animal when a male mounts it.** Therefore, **the verse states: “With a diverse kind”** (Leviticus 19:19). This shows that **it is** a crossbreed of **diverse kinds that is prohibited,** from which it may be inferred that mating an animal of one **species with** an animal **of its** own **species is permitted.**


###### Bava Metzia 91b:2
[Bava Metzia 91b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/91b:2)

וּמִין בְּמִינוֹ נָמֵי: אֲחִיזָה אִין, הַכְנָסָה – לָא! מַאי ״אֲחִיזָה״ – הַכְנָסָה, וְאַמַּאי קָרֵי לֵיהּ ״אֲחִיזָה״ – לִישָּׁנָא מְעַלְּיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami infers from the *baraita*: **And even** concerning mating an animal of one **species with** an animal **of its** own **species,** with regard to **holding, yes,** this is permitted, but with regard to **inserting, no,** this is not allowed. The fact that the *tanna* specifies the act of holding indicates that inserting is prohibited even in the case of two animals of the same species. The Gemara again rejects this claim: **What is** the meaning of **holding** in this context? It means **inserting. And why does** the *tanna* **call it holding?** It is **a euphemism.**


###### Bava Metzia 91b:3
[Bava Metzia 91b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/91b:3)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הָא מִילְּתָא בְּעוֹ מִינַּאי דְּבֵי רַב נְחֶמְיָה רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא: מַהוּ לְהַכְנִיס מִין וּמִינוֹ וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ לַדִּיר? כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא מִינֵיהּ – בָּתַר מִינֵיהּ גְּרִיר. אוֹ דִלְמָא אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי לָא? וּפְשַׁטִי לְהוּ לְאִיסּוּרָא דְּלָא כְּהִלְכְתָא, מִשּׁוּם פְּרִיצוּתָא דְּעַבְדֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: This matter was asked of me** by the members **of the house** of **Rav Neḥemya, the Exilarch: What is** the *halakha* with regard to **bringing into** the same **pen** an animal of one **species** with two other animals, one **of its** own **species and** the other **of a species different from it?** Is the *halakha* that **since there is** another animal of **its** own **species, it will be drawn after its species,** and therefore there is no concern whatsoever with regard to diverse kinds, **or perhaps** one should **not** act **even** in **this** manner, in case it leads to crossbreeding? **And I resolved** it **for them** by saying **that** there is **a prohibition,** but this was **not in accordance with the *halakha*.** The reason for my decision was **due to the immorality of the slaves.** I reasoned that if they are permitted to engage in this practice, they will intentionally crossbreed and claim that it occurred without their intervention.


###### Bava Metzia 91b:4
[Bava Metzia 91b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/91b:4)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה בְּיָדָיו אֲבָל לֹא בְּרַגְלָיו, בְּרַגְלָיו אֲבָל לֹא בְּיָדָיו, אֲפִילּוּ בִּכְתֵיפוֹ – הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹכֵל. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה בְּיָדָיו וּבְרַגְלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If a laborer **was performing** labor **with his hands but not with his feet,** or **with his feet but not with his hands,** e.g., pressing grapes, or **even** if he was performing labor only **with his shoulder, this one may eat** the produce of the field. **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says:** A laborer may not eat **unless he performs** labor **with his hands and with his feet.**


###### Bava Metzia 91b:5
[Bava Metzia 91b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/91b:5)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי טַעְמָא? ״כִּי תָבֹא בְּכֶרֶם רֵעֶךָ״, בְּכֹל מַאי דְּעָבֵיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for the ruling of the Rabbis stated in the first clause of the mishna? The Gemara explains that the verse states: **“When you come into your neighbor’s vineyard”** (Deuteronomy 23:25). Since the Torah does not specify a particular kind of task, it is understood as referring **to any** labor **he performs.**


###### Bava Metzia 91b:6
[Bava Metzia 91b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/91b:6)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה בְּיָדָיו וּבְרַגְלָיו. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? כִּי שׁוֹר, מָה שׁוֹר עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה בְּיָדָיו וּבְרַגְלָיו – אַף פּוֹעֵל עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה בְּיָדָיו וּבְרַגְלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches that **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says:** A laborer may not eat **unless he performs** labor **with his hands and with his feet.** The Gemara asks: **What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda?** The Gemara explains: This *halakha* is **like** that of a threshing **ox; just as** one is not required to let **an ox** feed **unless it is performing** labor **with its hands and with its feet,** as it uses all four of its legs to thresh, **so too a laborer** is not entitled to eat **unless he is performing** labor **with his hands and with his feet.**


###### Bava Metzia 91b:7
[Bava Metzia 91b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/91b:7)

בָּעֵי רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: דָּשׁ בַּאֲווֹזִין וְתַרְנְגוֹלִים, לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַהוּ? בְּכׇל כֹּחוֹ בָּעֵינַן – וְהָא אִיכָּא, אוֹ דִלְמָא בְּיָדָיו וּבְרַגְלָיו בָּעֵינַן – וְהָא לֵיכָּא. תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to a similar issue, **Rabba bar Rav Huna raised a dilemma:** If one **threshed with geese and chickens,** rather than four-legged animals, **what is** the *halakha* **according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda?** The Gemara clarifies the sides of the dilemma: Do **we require** threshing **with all its force,** as it is for this reason that an ox must thresh with all four of its legs, **and** that condition **is** fulfilled **here,** as these birds perform labor with all their strength, **or perhaps we require** that the animal must actually perform labor **with its hands and with its feet,** i.e., with all four legs, **and this** is **not** the case here? No answer was found, and the Gemara says that the dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Bava Metzia 91b:8
[Bava Metzia 91b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/91b:8)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: פּוֹעֲלִים, עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִילְּכוּ שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב בַּגַּת – אוֹכְלִין עֲנָבִים וְאֵין שׁוֹתִין יַיִן. מִשֶּׁהִילְּכוּ שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב בַּגַּת – אוֹכְלִין עֲנָבִים וְשׁוֹתִין יַיִן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman says** that **Rabba bar Avuh says:** With regard to **laborers** in a vineyard, **until they have walked lengthwise and crosswise in the winepress,** the first stage of the making of wine, **they may eat grapes,** as they are performing labor with grapes, but **they may not** yet **drink wine,** since their labor has not produced wine. **Once they have walked lengthwise and crosswise in the winepress,** they are now performing labor with wine as well, and therefore **they may eat grapes and drink wine.**


###### Bava Metzia 91b:9
[Bava Metzia 91b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/91b:9)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה בִּתְאֵנִים – לֹא יֹאכַל בַּעֲנָבִים. בַּעֲנָבִים – לֹא יֹאכַל בִּתְאֵנִים. אֲבָל מוֹנֵעַ אֶת עַצְמוֹ עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לִמְקוֹם יָפוֹת וְאוֹכֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If a laborer **was performing** labor **with figs he may not eat grapes;** if he was performing labor **with grapes he may not eat figs,** as he may eat only the type of food with which he is working. This is the *halakha* even if he was employed to perform labor with both types of produce but is currently performing labor with only one of them. **But** he **may hold himself back** from eating **until he reaches a place of good**-quality grapes or figs **and eat** from these, as they are the same type of food.


###### Bava Metzia 91b:10
[Bava Metzia 91b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/91b:10)

וְכוּלָּן לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה, אֲבָל מִשּׁוּם הָשֵׁב אֲבֵידָה לַבְּעָלִים אָמְרוּ: פּוֹעֲלִין אוֹכְלִין בַּהֲלִיכָתָן מֵאוֹמָן לְאוֹמָן, וּבַחֲזִירָתָן מִן הַגַּת, וּבַחֲמוֹר כְּשֶׁהִיא פּוֹרֶקֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** with regard to **all of these** cases the Sages **said** that he may eat **only at the time of work. But due to** the obligation to **restore lost property to its owners,** i.e., so that workers would not neglect their task, **they said** that **laborers may eat as they walk from** one **row** of a vineyard or plantation **to** another **row, and upon their return from the winepress. And with regard to a donkey,** it is permitted to eat **when it is being unloaded.** This statement will be explained in the Gemara.


###### Bava Metzia 91b:11
[Bava Metzia 91b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/91b:11)

**גְּמָ׳** אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: עוֹשֶׂה בְּגֶפֶן זֶה, מַהוּ שֶׁיֹּאכַל בְּגֶפֶן אַחֵר? מִמִּין שֶׁאַתָּה נוֹתֵן לְכֵלָיו שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת בָּעֵינַן – וְהָא אִיכָּא, אוֹ דִלְמָא מִמַּה שֶׁאַתָּה נוֹתֵן לְכֵלָיו שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת בָּעֵינַן – וְהָא לֵיכָּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages with regard to the ruling of the mishna: If a laborer was **performing** labor **on this vine, what is** the *halakha* concerning the possibility **that he may eat from another vine?** Do **we require** only that the food must be **from the type that you are placing into the homeowner’s vessels, and** this condition **is** fulfilled **here, or perhaps we require** that it must be **from that** very food **which you are placing into the homeowner’s vessels, and** this is **not** the case **here?**


###### Bava Metzia 91b:12
[Bava Metzia 91b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/91b:12)

וְאִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר עוֹשֶׂה בְּגֶפֶן זֶה לֹא יֹאכַל בְּגֶפֶן אַחֵר, שׁוֹר בִּמְחוּבָּר הֵיכִי אָכֵיל? אָמַר רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: בִּשְׁרָכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say** that one who was **performing** labor **on this vine may not** in fact **eat from another vine,** a further question arises: With regard to **an ox** performing labor **with** produce **attached** to the ground, **how can** one enable it to **eat?** The ox is tied to the front of the wagon, while the laborers are working on a vine adjacent to the wagon. Consequently, it is impossible for the ox to eat from the vine on which labor is being performed. **Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said:** In the case **of long branches** it is possible for the animal to perform labor at one end of the branch while eating from the other.


###### Bava Metzia 91b:13
[Bava Metzia 91b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/91b:13)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה בִּתְאֵנִים – לֹא יֹאכַל בַּעֲנָבִים. הָא תְּאֵנִים וּתְאֵנִים דּוּמְיָא דִּתְאֵנִים וַעֲנָבִים – אוֹכֵל. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ: עוֹשֶׂה בְּגֶפֶן זֶה אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל בְּגֶפֶן אַחֵר, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? אָמַר רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: בְּמוּדְלֵית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This difficulty has been resolved, but the original dilemma remains. The Gemara therefore suggests: **Come** and **hear** a resolution from the mishna: If a laborer **was performing** labor **with figs he may not eat grapes.** This indicates that if the two types of produce are **figs and** other **figs, similar to** the **figs and grapes** mentioned in the mishna, **he may eat. Now, if you say** that one who was **performing** labor **on this vine may not eat from another vine, how can you find these** circumstances? **Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said:** The ruling of the mishna is stated **with regard to a hanging** vine, and he eats from one edge of the branch while working on the other side.


###### Bava Metzia 91b:14
[Bava Metzia 91b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/91b:14)

תָּא שְׁמַע: אֲבָל מוֹנֵעַ אֶת עַצְמוֹ עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לִמְקוֹם הַיָּפוֹת, וְאוֹכֵל. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ עוֹשֶׂה בְּגֶפֶן זֶה אוֹכֵל בְּגֶפֶן אַחֵר, נֵיזִיל וְנֵיתֵי וְנֵיכוֹל! הָתָם מִשּׁוּם בִּיטּוּל מְלָאכָה לָא קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לַן, כִּי קָא מִבַּעְיָא לַן הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו, מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara offers another suggestion: **Come** and **hear** another resolution from the mishna: **But** he **may hold himself back** from eating **until he reaches a place of good**-quality fruit **and eat. And if you say** that one who was **performing** labor **on this vine may eat from another vine, let him go and bring and eat.** Why must he wait until he reaches that particular vine? The Gemara answers: **There,** the reason is **due to** the **neglect of work** caused by the laborer walking to the other vine. **We do not raise the dilemma** with regard to that case, as he may certainly not stop performing labor to go and eat elsewhere. **When** the **dilemma was raised before us,** it was with regard to a case **where his wife and children are** present. **What** is the *halakha* as to whether his family members, who are not performing labor, may bring him fruit?


###### Bava Metzia 91b:15
[Bava Metzia 91b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/91b:15)

תָּא שְׁמַע: וְכוּלָּם לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה, אֲבָל מִפְּנֵי הָשֵׁב אֲבֵידָה לַבְּעָלִים אָמְרוּ: פּוֹעֲלִים אוֹכְלִים בַּהֲלִיכָתָן מֵאוֹמָן לְאוֹמָן וּבַחֲזִירָתָן מִן הַגַּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Once again the Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a resolution from the mishna: **And** with regard to **all of these** cases **they said** that he may eat **only at the time of work. But due to** the mitzva to **restore lost property to its owners,** the Sages **said** that **laborers may eat as they walk from** one **row to** another **row, and upon their return from the winepress.**


###### Bava Metzia 91b:16
[Bava Metzia 91b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/91b:16)

סַבְרוּהָ מְהַלֵּךְ כְּעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה דָּמֵי, וּמִשּׁוּם הָשֵׁב אֲבֵידָה לִבְעָלִים הוּא דְּאָכֵיל, מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לָא אָכֵיל. אַלְמָא עוֹשֶׂה בְּגֶפֶן זֶה אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל בְּגֶפֶן אַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the attempted resolution: The Sages **assumed** that the basic principle of this *halakha* is that a laborer who was **walking is considered like** one who was **performing** his **labor,** and it is therefore permitted for him to eat. **And** yet, **it is due to** the mitzva to **restore lost property to its owner that he may eat,** whereas **by Torah law he may not eat.** But if he is performing labor, why is he not allowed to eat? **Apparently,** this indicates that **one who** was **performing** labor **on this vine may not eat from another vine,** and therefore once he starts walking and is no longer alongside the vine he may not partake of it by Torah law.


###### Bava Metzia 91b:17
[Bava Metzia 91b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/91b:17)

לָא, לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ: עוֹשֶׂה בְּגֶפֶן זֶה אוֹכֵל בְּגֶפֶן אַחֵר, וּמְהַלֵּךְ לָאו כְּעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this argument: **No; actually, I** could **say to you** that **one who** was **performing** labor **on this vine may** even **eat from another vine,** but a laborer who was **walking is not considered like** one who was **performing** his **labor.** The reason that he is not permitted to eat by Torah law is not because he is performing labor on a different vine, but because he is walking at the time.


###### Bava Metzia 91b:18
[Bava Metzia 91b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/91b:18)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי סַבְרוּהָ מְהַלֵּךְ לָאו כְּעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה דָּמֵי. וְהַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לָא אָכֵיל – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָאו כְּעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה דָּמֵי, הָא עוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה – אָכֵיל מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, אַלְמָא עוֹשֶׂה בְּגֶפֶן זֶה אוֹכֵל בְּגֶפֶן אַחֵר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites an alternative version of this discussion. **There are** those **who say** as follows: The Sages **assumed** that a worker who was **walking is not** considered **like** one who was **performing** his **labor, and this is the reason that** the *baraita* says that **he may not eat by Torah law: Because he is not** considered **like** one who was **performing** his **labor. This** indicates that if he is **performing** his **labor, he may eat by Torah law. Apparently,** it may be inferred **that one who** was **performing** labor **on this vine may eat from another vine.**


###### Bava Metzia 91b:19
[Bava Metzia 91b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/91b:19)

לָא. לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ: עוֹשֶׂה בְּגֶפֶן זֶה אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל בְּגֶפֶן אַחֵר,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this claim: **No;** this is not a proof, as **actually I** could **say to you** that **one who** was **performing** labor **on this vine may not eat from another vine,**