Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran Michelle Cohen Farber

If someone rents an animal and muzzles it while it is threshing, they must receive lashes as punishment and also compensate the owner for the food the animal should have eaten while working. The Gemara questions how this can be allowed since it appears to be a double punishment, and the court cannot give one a double punishment for one action. Abaye, Rava and Rav Papa each suggest a possible answer. Rav Papa rules on two unrelated issues - one prohibiting baking bread that is dairy or meat, and another prohibiting putting a male and female animal of different species in the same pen to prevent mating between different species, even though this latter ruling is not explicitly prohibited by the letter of the law. Rav Achdevoi bar Ami raises a difficulty against Rav Papa's second ruling, but this difficulty is resolved. He also brings the same source to question a ruling of Rav Yehuda on animal mating, but it is also resolved. The Mishna discusses the laws regarding a worker eating while on the job, including whether the obligation to allow them to eat is only if they are engaged in work with both hands and legs like an ox who can't be muzzled and works with all fours. If one works with one type of produce, one cannot eat a different type of produce in the field. Even though workers are only permitted by Torah law to eat while actively working, the rabbis permitted them to eat while walking between rows to prevent financial loss for the employer. The Gemara raises a question about whether a worker can eat from the same type of produce in a different area and attempts to answer this from three different rulings in the Mishna, but rejects each suggestion.

Two contradictory sources are brought regarding the prohibition to muzzle an animal while the animal is threshing trauma and maaser produce. One source suggests it's not prohibited, while another asserts it is. Various explanations attempt to reconcile this contradiction, suggesting differences in the type of truma/maaser or differing opinions. If the food on the threshing floor is causing the animal to be sick, is it still prohibited to muzzle - is the prohibition meant for the best interest of the animal or is it meant to not be cruel to the animal? Is it prohibited to tell a non-Jew to muzzle the animal and thresh with it as with laws of Shabbat or is it forbidden only on Shabbat on account of the stringency of Shabbat laws? Two sources are brought to answer this question, but in the end are not conclusive. Rami bar Hama asks a series of questions about whether there is a prohibition of muzzling in a case where there is some external factor that is in place (not put there by the owner) that may prevent the animal from eating. His questions remain unanswered. Rabbi Yonatan asked if one muzzled another's animal and then brought it to the threshing floor, is that forbidden? Rabbi Simai answered from the case of kohanim coming into the Temple drunk that obviously, the verse did not mean only when drinking as one goes into the Temple. If one person muzzles and the other brings it to thresh, the second one gets lashes. Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish debate about whether one gets lashes for muzzling an animal by words alone, i.e. telling the animal not to eat.

Ravina adds an additional method to derive that a worker is permitted to eat while working with detached produce and that it is prohibited to muzzle an ox even from attached produce. Four tannaitic sources are cited that derive details of the laws regarding the employer allowing a worker to eat from the produce. Each source derives a different detail from the word "thresh" in the verse about the ox - that it refers to items that grow from the ground, at a stage that the produce is ready to be picked and until the stage that it is obligated in tithing or separating challa. A question is asked whether one can toast grains or produce to sweeten them. Is this considered like eating grapes with another substance, which is not permitted, or not? Four sources are cited to address this question, but each is rejected as inconclusive, and the question remains unanswered. The last source states that one may not add salt to fruit, but this contradicts another source that permits it. Abaye and Rava each reconcile the contradiction differently, but both understand the salt issue to be relating to the obligation to tithe and not to what is permitted/not permitted for a worker to eat. 

This week’s learning is sponsored by Marcy Farrell in loving memory of her mother, Joan Behrmann, Yonina bat Shalom, on her shloshim. "We honor her memory with our collective learning."
Various halachot concerning how a worker can eat in the field they're laboring in stem from the verse regarding harvesting in a vineyard. According to one derivation from this verse, a worker is considered akin to the owner and is not required to tithe the produce if consumed before "g'mar melakha," the stage at which the produce becomes obligated in tithes. Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Yochanan hold differing opinions on when precisely g'mar melakha occurs: one asserts it happens upon bringing the produce into the courtyard, while the other contends it is upon bringing it into the house. Each base their position on verses in the Torah elucidating the "vidui ma'asrot." Three tannaitic sources are introduced to challenge both Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Yochanan's positions, as each assumes an obligation to tithe before bringing the food inside. However, each challenge is addressed and resolved. The verse allowing a worker to eat while working specifically pertains to labor on produce still attached to the ground, while the verse prohibiting the muzzling of animals pertains to labor on detached produce. From where do they derive the principle that one cannot prevent a worker from eating while working on detached produce or an animal while laboring on attached produce?

In the expanded narrative of Avraham's encounter with the angels, numerous interpretations delve into the lessons embedded within his actions, offering insights into behaviors to emulate. Regarding the consumption of produce by a worker in the field where they toil, the Mishna lays out the conditions under which such consumption is permissible. What circumstances warrant this allowance? What are the boundaries to be observed? From where in the Torah are these laws derived?

Rabbi Yehuda haNasi and Rabbi Natan were the last from the Mishna period and Ravina and Rav Ashi were the last of the Talmudic period. This statement is likely referring to the editing of the Mishna and Talmud. Raba bar Nachmani was killed out of fear of the king. Raba bar Nachmani's tragic death is recounted and how it related to the need for him in the heavens to resolve a debate between God and the rabbis in the yeshiva in the heavens. The Mishna related to the custom in the land and a story about Rabbi Yochanan ben Matia and his son's commitment to their workers. On account of that story, the Gemara digresses into a series of drashot on the story of Avraham and the angels and the food that he served to them.