Source: http://www.halakhah.com/babamezia/babamezia_89.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 20:42:04+00:00

Document:
Now consider: everything is included in this prohibition of muzzling, because we employ the analogy of 'ox' written here and in the case of the Sabbath:1 then Scripture should have written, 'Thou shalt not thresh with muzzled [animals]:' why write, 'ox'? To assimilate the muzzler [sc. man] to the muzzled [sc. ox and animals in general], and vice versa. Just as the muzzler [man] may eat of what is attached, so the muzzled may eat of what is attached; and just as the muzzled may eat of what is detached, so the muzzler may eat of what is detached.
Our Rabbis taught: 'Threshing':2 just as threshing is peculiar in that it applies to what is grown in the earth, and the labourer may eat whilst employed thereon; so also, of everything which is grown in the earth, the labourer may eat. Hence milking, pressing thick milk,3 and cheese-making are excluded: since they are not earth-grown, the labourer may not partake thereof. But why is this needed? Does it not follow from, 'When thou comest into thy neighbour's vineyard'? — It is necessary: I might think, since 'kamah' is written to include everything that stands upright,4 it also embraces what is not earth-grown; therefore we are taught otherwise.
V. B.K. 54b. Just as 'ox' is singled out in connection with the Sabbath, yet at the same time Scripture adds that all animals must rest (Deut. V. 14), so by 'ox' here all animals are meant.
I.e., the law forbidding the muzzling of an ox during 'threshing', 'treading out the corn', from which it was deduced that both man and beast may eat of that upon which they labour.
Sc. the analogy from threshing.
Deut. XXIII, 25. V. p. 505, n. 9.
I.e., onions which never grow to a large size. These were removed to give the others room for more vigorous growth. Now, although these are 'Put into the employer's basket,' the labourer may not eat, not being engaged upon the completion of the work.
I.e., a kind of date and fig which does not fully ripen on the tree but only in the house. The 'separating' spoken of here means before they have ripened in the house, and so are not finished in respect of tithes.
And, as stated above, that alone forbids the worker to eat; why then base the ruling upon hallah?
Lit., 'outside the land,' sc. Palestine.
Though a small Portion of dough is separated and burnt even in the Diaspora, that is only symbolical; but the real law of hallah requires that a definite portion be given to the priests, and that is not practised outside Palestine.
I.e., the Baraitha treats of the fourteen years during which Palestine was conquered and allotted to the tribes by Joshua.
As deduced by analogy from 'threshing'. And therefore, whether the law of tithes is in force or not, once the stage of threshing or its equivalent is reached, when there would be a liability to tithes if the law were in force, the labourer may not eat. And so the difficulty remains: why exclude kneading on the grounds of liability to hallah, seeing that threshing preceded it?
Hence, if it is a process which completes the work for tithes, and there is no further stage to subject it to hallah, e.g., the separating of dates, the labourer may not eat. If, however, its final stage is liability to hallah, e.g., wheat, the last stage of which is the kneading, when it is subject to hallah, if the worker is engaged upon an earlier stage, though it is already liable to tithes, he may eat. Rashi and Tosaf.
For it may be argued that since grapes may not be eaten with bread, because thereby an unreasonably large quantity is consumed, the same holds good of parched corn, which is more palatable than unparched.
The moistened bread creating an appetite. So, by analogy, a labourer may parch the corn.
— As for making the man fit [to eat more], of that there is no question: our problem is only whether the food may be rendered more appetising?1 What is the ruling? — Come and hear: Labourers may eat the top most grapes of the [vine-] rows,2 but must not parch them at the fire! — There it [the prohibition] is on account of loss of time:3 but our problem arises when he has his wife or children with him; what then?4 — Come and hear: He [the labourer] may not parch [the crops] at the fire and eat, nor warm them in the earth,5 nor crush them on a rock; but he may crush them between his hands and eat them! — There [too] it is on account of loss of time. That too is logical: for should you think it6 is because he [thereby] makes the fruit tasteful, what tastefulness is there [acquired by crushing them] on a rock? — [No; the reasoning is incorrect,] because it is impossible for it not to become slightly [more] tasteful.
They may conserve their appetite till they reach these, which being more exposed to the sun than the lower ones, are sweeter (Rashi).
There is no loss of time, as they can singe it.
By placing them in warm soil.
I.e., the Prohibition referred to.
V. p. 507, n. 3.
Now, it was assumed that dipping in salt is forbidden because it renders it more appetising, and therefore parching too will be forbidden.
I.e., no deduction may be drawn from this, for salt is an addition. Yet it may be permissible to parch corn, since nothing is added.
Of the olives, because it is not the finish of the work.
Two together count as a store, therefore are subject to tithes. Since the labourer stipulates that he is to eat, it is part of his payments and hence ranks as bought, and therefore he may not eat them; v. supra 88a.
Where no stipulation was made: hence it contradicts the first Baraitha.
When one dips an olive in salt he shews that he attaches value to it, which renders it completely ready for eating, and precludes further storing. Hence, in Palestine, where tithing is Biblical, the dipping imposes a liability. But in the Diaspora, where it is only Rabbinical and consequently less stringent, it does not.
Sc. to partake thereof without having rendered the tithes. Though tithes in the Diaspora are only Rabbinical, the Rabbis formulated the law on the same conditions as in Palestine, and therefore, whatever establishes a liability there establishes it in the Diaspora too.
For otherwise, not having stipulated, he may not salt them at all, as stated above.
V. p. 515, n. 7. Only when the stage of liability is reached it is called tebel. — Thus the first Baraitha refers to eating two at a time; no stipulation having been made, they may not be dipped in salt, But the second refers to a case where a stipulation was made; since the mere stipulation establishes a liability for two, it follows that he must eat the fruit singly, and that being so, the Tanna can state in general terms that he may salt them.
Mic. IV, 12. Thus there can be no threshing floor, i.e., storage, the final stage of which imposes liability, without gathering, and there cannot be gathering of less than two (actually, the Heb. has [H] sing., but the plural must be understood).
V. Glos. Barley grain was soaked in water, dried in an oven, and threshed by the treading of cows, which removed the husks.

References: V. 
 V. 
 V. 

V. 
 v. 

V. 

V.