Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 12, scan section 39

with their bread, however, they are not allowed, unless they do so with the consent of the owner. Neither may they use salt in eating them (hence to heat over fire is all the less allowed). (Says the Gemara:) Neither from this is anything to be in- ferred, as salt is certainly equal to grapes with something else, which is not allowed, as stated above. The rabbis taught: Cows which are engaged in separating the shells from barley that has been dried in an oven, or which are threshing grain of heave offering or of tithe, there is no transgression when one muzzles them. However, that people who are not aware the grain is of such a kind may not be mis- led, a handful of the grain may be taken and put in a sack and 234 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. hung on their necks. R. Simeon b. Johai, however, said: He may put spelt in sacks and hang them on their necks, as spelt is better for the cow in every instance. There is a contradiction from the following: "Cows that are engaged in shelling grain when they are muzzled, there is no transgression ; if, however, they are threshing heave offering or tithe, there is transgression if they are muzzled. The same is the case when an Israelite does the threshing with the cow of a Gentile; if, however, a Gentile threshes with the cow of an Israelite, there is no trans- gression." Hence there is a contradiction in the statements of the Boraithas in the case of heave offerings and tithes ? It pre- sents no difficulty. One Boraitha treats of the heave offering of the tithe, which is not doubted; and the other treats of a suspicious one (De Mai). The schoolmen questioned R. Shesheth: " How is the law if the animal is sick and the consuming of grain injures it ? May it be muzzled ?" Shall we assume that, when commanded not to muzzle the animal, it is because what it may consume is good for it, so that, in the case questioned, muzzling is allowed ; or is the above commandment because of the suffering of the animal on seeing the grain and not being able to eat of it, in which event the muzzling is prohibited even in the case mentioned ? And he answered: This we have learned in the Boraitha men- tioned above, as Simeon b, Johai said: " He may bring spelt, etc., because spelt is better for the cow." Hence we see that the reason for prohibiting muzzling is because the grain is good for the cow. The schoolmen propounded a question: " May one say to a Gentile: Muzzle my cow and thresh with it ? Shall we assume that the rabbinical prohibition to do through a Gentile what is prohibited for an Israelite to do himself is only concerning Sab- bath, the violation of which is a crime, but that the prohibition of muzzling, which is only a negative commandment, does not exist in such a case, or is there no difference?" Come and hear! "When a Gentile threshes with the cow of an Israelite, the Israelite does not transgress if the animal was muzzled." Is it not to be inferred that he does not transgress the commandment, but that, nevertheless, the muzzling is prohibited ? Nay; from this ex- pression nothing is to be inferred, as it may be that it is used only because of the same expression in the case of an Israelite threshing with the cow of a Gentile, in which it was necessary to state that he commits a transgression. (Then) come and TRACT BABA METZIA (MIDDLE GATE). 235 hear! A message was sent to the father of Samuel with the following question : When Gentiles steal bulls and castrate * them, and return them to the owners, may the Israelites use them or not ? And his answer was : " There is craft used in doing this thing. Use the same with the owners, and make them sell the animals " (to Gentiles, so that the owners may not use them for ploughing. Hence we see that the violation of even a nega- tive commandment, which is not a crime, must not be com- mitted through a Gentile). R. Papa, however, said: "The people of the west, who sent the above question, hold with R. Hidga, who maintains that the children of Noah {i.e., others than Jews) are warned biblically against castration, and the owners of the above-mentioned castrated oxen transgressed the commandment [Lev. xix. 14]: "Thou shalt not put a stum- bling-block before the blind." Rabbi meant to say that the answer of the father of Samuel, " Make them sell them," meant that they were to be sold for slaughtering, so that no one should use them any more. Said Abayi to him: "It is sufficient fine for the owner that he must sell them for any purpose, and to any one, Israelite or Gentile." There is no doubt that a son of full age is considered a stranger to his father that he may sell to his son ; but how is the law with a minor son ? R. A'hi prohibits, and R. Ashi allows. Maremar and Mar Zutra, according to others, two cer- tain pious men, used to exchange between themselves the oxen in question for other ones. Rami bar Hamai questioned : " Does one transgress if he has placed the young one of the cow on the outside of her for the purpose of keeping the cow from consum- ing the grain while threshing, or if he has engaged it while it is thirsty, or if he has spread a xaraftoXy'} on the grain ? " One of the questions at least may be resolved from the following Bo- raitha : The owner of the cow is allowed to make it hungry that it may eat more while threshing ; he may also give it sufficient food beforehand, that it may not consume much while thresh- ing (and this can be compared to spreading a katabole, hence it is allowed). R. Jonathan questioned R. Simai: " How is the law if he has muzzled the animal outside of the field ? Shall we assume that the Scripture prohibits muzzling it while threshing only, or * Castrating is prohibited to Israelites biblically, and the Gentiles, who were friends of the Israelites, used to steal the bulls for this purpose, and return them afterwards. Hence the question. 336 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. does the Scripture mean that grain shall not be threshed with a muzzled animal ? " And he answered : " This can be deduced from [ibid. x. 9] : " Wine or strong drink shalt thou not drink, when you go in unto the tabernacle"; from which it could be inferred that this is prohibited when you go in, but not previously. However, it reads [ibid., ibid. 10]: " So that you may be able to distinguish between the holy," etc., which means you must not go in while drunk (no matter when you have used the strong drink). The same is the meaning here : there shall be no muzzling while threshing. The rabbis taught: " He who muzzles a cow and he who pairs two kinds of animals in one wagon is exempt from the punishment of stripes, as it applies only to the threshers and the leader of them." It was taught: " If one has muzzled a cow only with his voice {e.g., when the animal is about to eat of the grain he stops