ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Metzia 90
(a) 'Bal Tachsom' does does apply to 'Paros ha'Meraksos bi'Tevu'ah'. This
results in what is known as 'Chushla' - barley that is soaked in water and
dried before being threshed by cows, in order to remove the shells. The
reason for this Halachah is - because Miru'ach (flattening the pile of grain
that constitutes the G'mar Melachah for produce [see Tosfos on the previous
Amud, DH 'ha'Meraksos']) was already performed before the cows began
threshing (Shitah Mekubetzes).
(b) The Tana also precludes animals that are threshing T'rumos and Ma'asros
from 'Bal Tachsom' - because normally, the Ma'asering only takes place after
the Miru'ach, which follows the threshing (in which case, the Torah is
referring to un'Ma'asered crops. In our case however, the owner must have
Ma'asered the crops 'be'Shibalin' (when they were still in their stalks
[before the threshing began]).
(c) To get round the problem of 'Mar'is ha'Ayin', the Tana Kama requires a
Bul of whichever species the cow is threshing to be placed in a Traskal
around its neck.
1. ... a Bul is - a fistful.
(d) According to Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai - he would place a fistfull (not of
the species the animal happened to be threshing, but) - of vetch (or
horse-bean), which is healthier for the cows.
2. ... Traskal - is a basket (though it might could just as well be place
in a sack).
(a) Another Beraisa states that in a case where...
1. ... a Nochri is threshing with a cow belonging to a Jew - 'Bal Tachsom'
does not apply.
(b) To answer the discrepancy regarding Terumah, we draw a distinction
between Terumah and Gidulei Terumah. The first Beraisa (which permits Dishah
with regard to Terumah) is speaking about the original Terumah (d'Oraysa),
which *does not fall under the category of "be'Disho"* (as we explained
above); whereas the second Beraisa is speaking about Gidulei Terumah
(mi'de'Rabbanan) which *does* (seeing as min ha'Torah, it is Chulin).
2. ... a Jew is threshing with the cow belonging to a Nochri - 'Bal Tachsom'
3. ... one's cow is threshing Terumah or Ma'aser - 'Bal Tachsom' applies
(creating a discrepancy between this Beraisa and the previous one).
(c) Chazal decreed 'Gidulei Terumah' - in the list of the eighteen cases
where Beis Shamai outvoted Beis Hillel (in the first Perek of Shabbos).
(d) They considered it Terumah, despite the fact that min ha'Torah, it has a
Din of Chulin - because they were afraid either that the Yisrael might plant
it in order to avoid having to give it to the Kohen, or that the Kohen might
retain his Tamei Terumah for a long period of time, waiting for the ideal
moment to plant it, in order to dispense with the Tum'ah (and in the course
of time, forget that it was Tamei and eat it).
(a) To explain why we do not answer the Kashya on Ma'aser in the same
manner, we quote a Mishnah in Terumos. The Tana there says ...
1. ... 'Gidulei Tevel (which refers to Tevel which, after Miru'ach, the
owner re-planted) - Chulin'.
(b) Chazal did not extend the decree of Gidulin to Tevel and Ma'aser -
because the reasons that we cited earlier regarding Gidulei Terumah do not
apply to them.
2. ... 'Gidulei Ma'aser (Sheini) - Chulin'.
(c) So we reconcile the discrepancy by Ma'aser by differentiating between
Ma'aser Rishon and Ma'aser Sheini - inasmuch as Ma'aser Sheini is Mamon
Gavohah (and does not therefore fall under the category of "be'Disho"),
whereas Ma'aser Rishon is Chulin.
(d) Alternatively, we might establish even the Beraisa that includes it in
Bal Tachsom by Ma'aser Sheini - by establishing the author as Rebbi Yehudah
(who holds Ma'aser Sheini Mamon Hedyot Hu').
(a) According to the S'vara of Rebbi Yehudah (see Maharsha DH 'Rashi,
Mamon'), Terumah does not fall under the category of "be'Disho" - because
the Tana is speaking about the animal of a Yisrael, which may not be fed
(b) Nor will the fact that the Kohen rented the cow from the Yisrael make
any difference - since we learn in the Mishnah in Terumos that even though a
Kohen who hires a cow from a Yisrael is obligated to feed it, he may not
feed it Karshinei Terumah (because hiring does not acquire the object
(c) We have already explained that the Ma'asros must have been separated
be'Shibalin for the Ma'aser to have taken effect before the threshing, and
that according to Rebbi Yehudah, Ma'aser Sheini is Mamon Hedyot (which is
why it falls under the category of "be'Disho". It is true that Ma'aser
Sheini outside the walls of Yerushalayim, where it cannot be eaten, are not
considered "be'Disho" either. The Tana is speaking however - within the
walls of Beis Pagi (presumably, further inside that point, there was no
location where they could possibly have threshed).
(d) Beis Pagi is the outer wall of Yerushalayim, which the Sanhedrin added
later to the town.
(a) Alternatively, we establish both the Mishnah and the Beraisa by Ma'aser
Sheini according to Rebbi Meir, and it is possible for Ma'aser Sheini to
fall under the category of "be'Disho", according to Rebbi Meir - by Ma'aser
Sheini shel D'mai, which is only a Chumra de'Rabbanan.
(b) We cannot give the same answer to reconcile the discrepancy with regard
to Terumah - because Terumah Gedolah is not subject to D'mai.
(c) Raban Yochanan ben Zakai ...
1. ... did not institute D'mai with regard to Terumah Gedolah - because, he
saw that, due to the Chiyuv Miysah (bi'Yedei Shamayim) that goes with eating
Terumah Gedolah, all the Amei ha'Aretz were particular to give it to the
(d) We nevertheless establish the Beraisa by Terumah, even according to
Rebbi Meir, not by Terumah Gedolah, but - by Terumas Ma'aser (which the Levi
gave to the Kohen from his Ma'aser, and which, in spite of the fact that it
too, was subject to a Chiyuv Miysah, the Amei ha'Aretz were lax).
2. ... negated Viduy Ma'asros every fourth and seventh year - because since
Ezra punished the Levi'im and instituted that Ma'aser Rishon should be given
to the Kohen, how could one possibly say "ve'Gam Nesativ la'Levi".
(a) They asked Rav Sheishes about a cow that contracted diarrhea from the
food it was threshing - whether the reason for the Isur of Bal Tachsom is
because it is healthy for the animal to eat (which does not apply here), or
because the animal enjoys eating (in which case it will apply here as well).
(b) Rav Sheishes resolved the She'eilah from Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah -
who, in the case involving Mar'is ha'Ayin, requires feeding the animal
Karshinim, because they are healthy (see Tosfos DH 'Amar Lehu').
(a) We ask whether one is permitted to stipulate to a Nochri that he should
muzzle his (the Jew's) cow and thresh his corn (see Tosfos DH 'Chasom') with
it. Despite the fact that the Chachamim forbade Amirah le'Nochri on Shabbos,
that 'Sh'vus' might not apply here - because it is only an Isur La'av,
unlike Shabbos which is an Isur Kareis (see Tosfos DH 'Aval').
(b) We try to resolve the She'eilah from the Beraisa cited above 'Nochri
ha'Dash be'Paraso shel Yisrael Eino Over' - implying that although the
Nochri does not commit a sin, the Jew is nevertheless forbidden to ask him
to do so.
(c) We cannot then resolve our She'eilah from here however - because it may
well be that there is no Isur on the part of the Jew either, and the reason
that the Tana uses this Lashon in the Reisha, is to balance the Seifa,
where he says 'Yisrael ha'Dash be'Paraso shel Nochri, *O'ver*'.
(a) The Nochrim who stole the oxen belonging to their Jewish friends - would
castrate them (because this improves their plowing ability) and return them
to their owners.
(b) The B'nei Ma'arva (the Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael) ruled - that, because
they (the owners, who seem to have encouraged the Nochrim to do this [see
Tosfos Amud Alef, DH 'de'Ganvin']) had used deceitful means to benefit from
an Isur, they were forbidden to retain the animals involved, and were
obligated to sell them.
(c) Rav Papa refuted the proof from here that the Chachamim extended the
decree of 'Amirah le'Nochri' even to Isurei La'av, on the grounds that the
B'nei Ma'arva hold like Rebbi Chidka - who forbids Nochrim too, to castrate
animals, and it is because the Jews transgressed the La'av of "Lifnei Iver
Lo Siten Michshol" (causing others to sin) that the B'nei Ma'arva penalized
(a) Rava thought that the animals in the previous case could only be sold
for Shechitah (but not for plowing) - to prevent the owners from benefitting
from the increase in value that resulted from the castration.
(b) But Abaye objected to this, on the grounds - that Chazal's penalty was
resricted to forcing the owner to sell his animal, and no more.
(c) Everyone agrees that a grown-up son in this regard is considered like a
stranger, and that the owner of the castrated animal may therefore sell the
animal (or give it as a gift?) to him. Rav Achi forbids however, selling it
to his young son who is still a minor. According to Rav Ashi - this too, is
(d) When this (inadvertently, see Tosfos) happened to their animals,
Mereimar and Mar Zutra (or those two Chasidim) - simply swapped animals.
(a) We ask whether the owner is permitted to stick a thorn into the cow's
mouth whilst it is threshing, or to place a lion outside the
threshing-floor, both of which result in the animal not being able to eat
whilst it is threshing. This is clearly incorrect - because it is obvious
that he will have transgressed 'Bal Tachsom'.
(b) What we really mean to ask is - whether, if a thorn got stuck in the
animal's mouth or a lion came and stood outside the threshing-barn, he is
obligated to remove them or not.
(c) We also ask whether the owner of the corn may place its son outside the
threshing-barn (so that its lowing will prevent it from wanting to eat [see
Tosfos DH 'Amad']), whether he is obligated to water the thirsty cow, whose
thirst is preventing it from eating - or whether he is permitted to place a
leather mat on top of the corn, to prevent the animal from seeing the corn
as it threshes.
(a) In an attempt to resolve at least one of the She'eilos, we cite a
Beraisa. The Tana there - permits ...
1. ... the owner of the cow to starve it prior to the threshing, so that it
will eat more whilst it is threshing?
(b) We are trying to resolve the last She'eilah (from the latter case) - to
permit the placing of a leather mat on top of the corn, thereby preventing
the animal from seeing the corn as it threshes.
2. ... the owner of the corn to place some loose stalks in front of the cow
so that it is does not notice the corn that it is threshing.
(c) And we counter this proof - by pointing out that in the case of the
loose stalks, the animal is at least able to able something (which is why it
is permitted), whereas in the case of the mat it is not.
(d) Alternatively, we refute the proof from there by slightly amending the
wording in this latter case - by adding the word 'Me'ikara', meaning that
one is permitted to place the loose stalks prior to the threshing, so that
the animal simply has no appetite whilst it is threshing (but it may well be
forbidden to do so during the threshing).
(a) Rebbi Yonasan asked Rebbi Sima'i whether the owner is permitted to
muzzle his cow before he enters the threshing-barn (taking a lenient stance
in the previous She'eilos of the thorn and the lion], which are clearly
based on Rebbi Sima'i's answer). He wanted to know - whether "Lo Sachsom
Shor be'Disho" is to be understood literally, in which case, muzzling the
animal prior to the threshing would be permitted; or whether the Torah is
prohibiting threshing with a muzzled ox (irrespective of when it was
(b) Rebbi Sima'i resolved the She'eilah from the obvious interpretation of
the Pasuk "Yayin ve'Sheichar Al Teisht ... be'Vo'achem" - where the Torah is
clearly forbidding a Kohen to come and serve in a state of drunkenness.
(c) The Torah cannot mean literally that the Kohen may not drink wine once
he enters the Azarah, but that he may do so before entering - because it
writes there 'u'Lehavdil Bein ha'Kodesh u'Vein ha'Chol", insinuating that
the reason for the prohibition is for the Kohen to distinguish between an
Avodah that is sacrosanct and one that is profane (irrespective of when the
Kohen drank the wine?).
(d) And when Rebbi Sima'i introduced his proof with the words 'mi'Beis
Avicha Atah Lameid', he was referring to Rebbi Yonasan, who was a Kohen (and
the Pasuk is talking about Kohanim).
(a) When the Tana of the Beraisa exempts from Malkos someone who ...
1. ... muzzles a cow- he is referring to a case where Reuven muzzles the cow
but Shimon threshes with it.
(b) In both cases, Reuven would be Chayav.
2. ... harnesses two different animals to a wagon - he is referring to a
case where Reuven does the harnessing but Shimon, the driving.
(c) Rebbi Yochanan obligates someone who muzzles an ox or who leads two
animals harnessed to a wagon using verbal commands - because, he holds, the
movement of the lips is considered an act.
(d) According to Resh Lakish - both are Patur, because the emission of a
voice is not considered an act.