Previous daf

1)

(a) Ravina just taught us that the Torah compares the muzzler to the muzzled.
In light of that, what does the Beraisa learn from the Pasuk "Lo Sachsom Shor *be'Disho*" (to do with the species from which a laborer may eat)?

(b) What type of work does it preclude from the concession?

(c) Seeing as the Torah has already written "Ki Savo be'Kerem Re'acha ... ve'El Kelyecha Lo Siten" (implying Mechubar), why do we need "be'Disho"?
What might have caused us to think that the concession extends to Talush?

(a) What does a second Beraisa learn from *be'Disho*" (to do with the stage of work)?

(b) What sort of work does it preclude from the concession?

(c) Why do we need this Pasuk? Why could we not learn this too, from "ve'El Kelyecha Lo Yiten" (implying that the Pasuk is speaking about harvesting the fruit, when it ready to eat)?

(a) And a third Beraisa learns from "be'Disho", that the concession for a laborer to eat from Talush is confined to fruit that is not yet Nigmerah Melachto as regards Ma'aser.
What does this come to preclude?

(b) How does Rav Papa reconcile this Beraisa with another Beraisa 'ha'Bodel bi'Temarim u'vi'Gerogros, Po'el Ochel Bo'? What are 'Tuchleni'?

(c) Yet a fourth Beraisa learns from be'Disho", that it is confined to crops that is not yet Nigmerah Melachto as regards Chalah.
What does this come to preclude?

(a) What problem do we have with the concession to eat from the crops during grinding and sifting for example (which fall under the category of 'Lo Negmerah Melachto le'Chalah'?

(b) On what grounds do we refute the suggestion that this latter Beraisa speaks about Chutz la'Aretz, where Ma'aser does not apply?

(c) So how do we try next to establish the Beraisa? When did Chalah apply but not Ma'aser?

(a) What basic misconception currently causes us to differenctiate between Nigmerah Melachto le'Ma'aser and Nigmerah Melachto le'Chalah?

(b) How does Ravina therefore merge the last two Beraisos to read?

(c) What is then the basic criterion by crops where both apply?

(a) We ask whether a laborer is permitted to heat up kernels or grapes (to sweeten them) before eating them.
What is the basis of the She'eilah?

(b) Why is there no proof from the Beraisa which permits laborers to dip their bread in vinegar, to increase their appetite for the grapes that they are picking?

(c) We also reject the proof from the Beraisa which forbids them to do precisely that, because nobody ever suggested that they should be allowed to waste their employer's time by heating fires.
Then what is the She'eilah?
How would they then be able to heat the kernels without doing that?

(d) What is the Tana coming to teach us when, on the other hand, he permits the laborers to wait until they reach the corners of the rows?

7)

(a) What does the Beraisa say about a laborer heating kernels that he picks in fire or in the ground? What else does he include in the list?

(b) What does he actually permit in this context?

(c) We have no proof from here that a laborer is forbidden to heat up kernels, because, as we just explained, the case involves wasting his employer's time.
How do we try and prove that this must be the real reason of the Tana (and not because sweetening the fruit is forbidden)?

(d) Nevertheless, we conclude, the reason might still be the latter one (in which case the Beraisa would resolve our She'eilah).
How is that possible?

(a) What does the Beraisa say about laborers who are picking figs, dates, grapes or olives with regard to Ma'asering what they eat?

(b) Why does this not have the Din of a sale, which is Chayav Ma'aser mi'de'Rabbanan (as we learned above)?

(c) The Tana forbids the laborers to eat fruit which they have picked together with their bread.
Why is that?

(d) The Tana concludes by forbidding them to dip their fruit in salt.
Why do we initially compare dipping in salt to heating (thereby resolving our She'eilah)?

(e) How do we counter that? Why is there no proof from there that heating the fruit is prohibited?

(a) What distinction does another Beraisa draw between a laborer who ...

1. ... is hired to dig or to cover the roots with soil, and one who is hired to pick fruit?
2. ... fixed with the owner to pick one fruit at a time and one who fixed with him to pick two at a time?
   Why is that?

(b) This latter distinction is mi'de'Rabbanan.
What will be the Din mi'd'Oraysa?

(c) The Tana concludes 've'So'fes ba'Melach ve'Ochel'.
Why, according to our current understanding, can this not refer to the Seifa ('Achas Achas, Yochal')? How do we currently understand the prohibition of salting the fruit?

(d) Then what *does* it refer to? What Kashya does this now pose on the previous Beraisa?

(a) To resolve the discrepancy between the two Beraisos, Abaye establishes the former Beraisa in Eretz Yisrael, the latter, in Chutz la'Aretz.
What basic change in our understanding of the prohibition of salting the fruit has taken place, enabling Abaye to give this answer?

(b) So how does Abaye explain the two Beraisos?

(c) On what grounds does Rava object to Abaye's explanation?

(a) Rava makes no distinction between Eretz Yisrael and Chutz la'Aretz.
How does he resolve the above discrepancy? When is salting permitted and when is it forbidden?

(b) And when will the laborer be permitted to eat even two kernels at a time?

(c) What does Rav Masna learn from the Pasuk in Michah "Ki Kibtzam ke'Amir Gornah"?

Next daf