LASHES FOR MUZZLING
(R. Yochanan): If Reuven muzzled a threshing cow through his voice (he yelled to stop it from eating) or caused diverse species to lead a wagon, he is liable;
(Reish Lakish): He is exempt.
R. Yochanan holds that moving one's mouth (to make voices) is considered an action. Reish Lakish says that it is not.
Question (R. Yochanan - Mishnah): ...We do not say that one may make Temurah (say that a Chulin animal should be in place of a Korban), rather, if one did, he receives forty lashes.
Answer (Reish Lakish): That is according to R. Yehudah, who says that one is lashed even for a Lav without an action.
Question: The Mishnah cannot be R. Yehudah. The Reisha says 'anyone can make Temurah, both men and women.'
Question: What does 'anyone' come to include?
Answer: It includes an heir.
Summation of question: This is unlike R. Yehudah. He says that an heir cannot make Temurah or do Semichah (lean on the neck of the Korban)!
Answer: The Tana holds like R. Yehudah about lashes, and argues with him about heirs.
(Beraisa): If Reuven muzzled Shimon's cow (which he was renting or borrowing) and threshed with it, he is lashed and pays four Kavim (the estimated amount it would have eaten). For muzzling a donkey, he is lashed and pays three Kavim.
Question: The general rule is, one does not pay and receive lashes for one transgression!
Answer #1 (Abaye): The Beraisa is R. Meir, who says that one pays and is lashed.
Answer #2 (Rava): The Torah disqualifies an Esnan (a harlot's hire) from being a Korban, even if a man hired his mother. (Even though he is liable to death for Bi'ah with her, so Beis Din cannot make him pay, if he pays, it is disqualified. It is called an Esnan because he truly owes her. To fulfill his obligation (b'Yedei Shamayim) he must pay. Similarly, even though Beis Din cannot make Reuven pay (since he is lashed for muzzling), he is liable to pay four Kavim. (Some say that if Shimon took the money, Beis Din does not make him return it.))
Answer #3 (Rav Papa): From the moment he was Moshech the cow (to begin his rental or borrowing), he is obligated to feed it. He is not liable for lashes until he threshes with it. (Since the obligations come at different times, he pays and is lashed.)
Rav Papa: D'Vei Rav Papa bar Aba asked me if one may knead a dough with milk. I answered 'no.' This was correct.
(Beraisa): We may not knead a dough with milk. If one did, it is forbidden; lest he eat it with meat;
We may not smear an oven (for baking bread) with lard. If one did, the first bread cooked inside is forbidden (unless the oven was heated up beforehand).
Rav Papa: D'Vei Rav Papa bar Aba asked me if one may put diverse species in a pen together. I answered 'no.' This was incorrect.
(Shmuel): To kill or lash people for forbidden Bi'ah, the witnesses must see them act like adulterers. To be liable for crossbreeding animals, one must bodily mate the male with the female.
Question (Rav Achdevoy bar Ami - Beraisa): Had it said only "Behemtecha Lo Sarvi'a", one might have thought that the Torah forbids holding a (female) animal when it mates (even with a male of the same species). The verse adds "Kilayim" (to teach that the Isur applies only to diverse species).
Suggestion: This teaches that one is liable for Kilayim just for holding the female!
Answer: No. 'Holding' (in the Beraisa) is a polite way of saying 'bodily mating (a male with a female)'.
(Rav Yehudah): Within one species, one may bodily mate a male with a female. We are not concerned lest this arouse his lust.
Question: What is the reason?
Answer: He is occupied with his job.
Question (Rav Achdevoy bar Ami - Beraisa): Had it said only "Behemtecha Lo Sarvi'a", one might have thought that the Torah forbids holding a (female) animal when it mates (even with a male of the same species). The verse adds "Kilayim".
Suggestion: This forbids holding the female regarding Kilayim, but it is permitted within one species;
Within one species, only holding the female is permitted!
Answer: No. 'Holding' is a polite way of saying 'bodily mating'.
Question (d'Vei Ravna Nechemyah Reish Galusa): May one put a species in a pen with its own and a different species?
Do we assume that it will mate with its own species?
Or, are we concerned lest it mate with the other species?
Rav Ashi: I told him that this is forbidden. This is not the Halachah;
I was stringent (for him), lest his slaves come to lewdness.
HOW MUCH MUST AN EMPLOYEE WORK IN ORDER TO EAT?
(Mishnah): If a worker was working only with his hands, or only with his legs, even just with his shoulders, he eats;
R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says, he eats only if he works with his hands and legs.
(Gemara) Question: What is (Chachamim's) reason?
Answer: "Ki Savo b'Cherem Re'echa" - whatever work you do there.
(Mishnah - R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah): He eats only if he works with his hands and legs.
Question: What is R. Yosi's reason?
Answer: He learns from an ox. An ox eats only when it works with its hands (forelegs) and (hind) legs. The same applies to a person.
Question (Rabah bar Rav Huna): According to R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, if a chicken threshes, may one muzzle it?
Since it works with its full strength, he must let it eat;
Or, perhaps one must let an animal eat only when it works with four limbs?
This question is not resolved.
WHICH TYPES OF FOODS MAY AN EMPLOYEE EAT?
(Rav Nachman): Workers (to stomp grapes) who did not yet traverse the length and width of the winery may eat grapes, but may not drink wine (they are working with grapes, but they have not yet made wine);
After traversing the length and width of the winery, they may eat grapes and drink wine.
(Mishnah): If Reuven was working with dates, he may not eat grapes, and vice-versa;
A worker may withhold from eating until he reaches the place of good Peros;
Letter of the law, workers may eat only while working. To reduce the time they are idle from work, Chachamim permitted them to eat while walking from row to row or returning from the winepress;
A donkey may eat while they unload it.
(Gemara) Question: If Reuven is working on one vine, may he eat from another vine?
If we require only that he eat from the same species that he harvests for the owner, he may eat;
Or, perhaps he may eat only from what he is harvesting?
Question: If he may eat only from the vine he works on, how can an ox eat while working with attached Peros? (Rashi - the workers harvest vines near the wagon it pulls. Its head is far ahead, near different vines! Tosfos - when threshing attached Peros, it cannot eat from the stalk it threshes!)
Answer (Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi): It may eat from a very long vine or stalk (that stretches to where its head is).
Answer #1 (Mishnah): If Reuven was working with dates, he may not eat grapes.
Inference: Dates and grapes are different species on separate trees. In a corresponding case of the same species (dates and dates) on separate trees, he may eat!
Rejection (Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi): No. The date branches are draped over the vines (or vice-versa); it is like eating from the same tree. (We may infer only that he may eat dates of the same tree, which is no Chidush.)
Answer #2 (Mishnah): A worker may refrain from eating until he reaches a place of good Peros.
If one may eat from a different vine than the one he is working on, he may immediately eat from the good Peros!
Rejection: No, he must wait until he gets there so he does not detract time from his work.
Clarification: This is obvious! The question was, may his wife or children bring him from other vines? (He would not detract from his work.)
Answer #3 (Mishnah): Letter of the law, workers may eat only while working. To reduce the time they are idle from work, Chachamim permitted them to eat while walking from row to row or returning from the winepress.
Version #1 - Suggestion: Walking is like working (on the vine he approaches), and even so, mid'Oraisa he may not eat (for one may eat only from the vine he is working on, and he is not there yet). He eats only due to the enactment.
Rejection: Walking is not like working, therefore, mid'Oraisa he may not eat. However, when working, he may eat even from vines that he is not working on.
Version #2 - Suggestion: Walking is like not like working, therefore, mid'Oraisa he may not eat. If it were like working, he would be entitled to eat (even though he is not working on this (or any other) vine now!
Rejection: Walking is like working. Even so, mid'Oraisa he may not eat, because a worker may eat only from the vine he is working on.