פירוש על דברים 25:4

לא תחסם שור THOU SHALT NOT MUZZLE THE OX [WHEN HE TREADETH OUT THE CORN] — Scripture is speaking of what usually occurs, but the same law applies to any cattle, non-domesticated beast and fowl that are doing some work that is connected with food. But if so why does it (Scripture) state “ox”? To exclude a human being from being subject to this law! (i.e. that if he restrains a workman from eating whilst engaged on some operation connected with food, the master is exempt from flagellation usually inflicted on one who transgresses a negative commandment) (Bava Metzia 88b).

לא תחסם שור בדישו, “Do not muzzle an ox while he is threshing.” The prefix ב in the word בדישו is similar to the prefix ב in the word בבאכם אל אהל מועד in Leviticus 10,9 where it means “when.” Just as in that verse the Torah does not mean literally “when you enter,” but refers to the priest having drunk wine prior to his entering the Sanctuary (and thereby being intoxicated), so here too the word בדישו means: “in anticipation of its starting to thresh.” Even if the owner muzzled the ox before it entered the threshing ground he is guilty of violating this commandment (compare Baba Metzia 90).

But this applies as well to all domesticated animals, wild animals and fowl, etc. Because we derive this by comparing the word “ox” to the word “ox,” [by means of a gezeira shava] as explained above (22:10).

V. 4. חסם ,לא תחסם lautverwandt mit עוצם עיניו) עצם Jes.33, 15). אסם, heißt: schließen, hemmen, אשמרה לפי מחסום (Ps.39, 2). Dem allgemeinen Ausdruck חסם entsprechend ist jede Hinderung des Tieres am Essen von den Früchten, an denen es arbeitet, verboten, selbst חסמה בקול, selbst durch einen zurückschreckenden Zuruf (B. M. 90 b). Diese חסימה בקול wird als לאו שיש בו מעשה betrachtet, weil בדיבוריה קעביד מעשה, er mit dem Zuruf unmittelbar eine verbotene Wirkung hervorbringt (siehe תוספו daselbst; — vergl. מ׳׳מ und ל׳׳מ zu הל׳ שכירות רמב׳׳ם

לא תחסום שור בדשו, “do not muzzle the ox while it is engaged in treading corn.” Rashi claims that this wording is meant to exclude human beings. You may muzzle the mouth of a human being under such circumstances {Sifri) If you were to argue that seeing that the Torah permitted human labourers engaged in assisting the owner in harvesting his vineyard, the Torah had made it plain that while so engaged the labourer could eat to his heart’s content, (Deut.23,25) the Rabbis stated that if the owner of the vineyard had muzzled his labourer to prevent him from eating any of his grapes, he does not have to compensate him for this financially, it is plain that our verse applies only to animals? [The Talmud, tractate Baba Metzia folio 91, states that if a farmer had violated this commandment and muzzled his ox while it was threshing, he is assessed a certain amount of monetary fine depending on the size of the animal involved, i.e. more for an ox than for a donkey, since the former eats more. The Torah does not excuse a human being from a trespass involving the penalty of 39 lashes, however. Had the Torah not written both the verse in Deut 23,25, and our verse here, I would have thought that the Torah excuses the employer of a human being only from the penalty of being subjected to lashes, but not from the financial compensation due for being denied his rights. Therefore the Torah wrote both verses to make sure that we understand that only animals are subject to this legislation and the penalty for violating it. The critical words are respectively: כנפשך “according to your heart’s desire,” and: בדשו, “while engaged in threshing.”According to Rash,i we must question why the Torah writes: בדשו, ”when he is busy threshing;” surely the rule of not muzzling someone’s mouth applies also before the ox had started to thresh, otherwise nobody would bother to observe this commandment! Besides, why was the ox singled out as an example for this commandment, surely it applies to other animals engaged in performing work with food also? The example of the ox was chosen as it is the animal that is used for such tasks more than any other. The law applies, of course, also to other animals that can be used to do threshing, It does not apply to human beings, even if these were used for threshing corn, as this is not a normal occupation for which human beings are used. The word בדשו is chosen as it applies to an activity that is as yet not completed, you may not use the product until other commandments have been fulfilled, such as tithing, setting aside challah. But it applies to activities preparing nature’s products to serve man as food, working with dough, etc. These are products that are not yet even “owned” in the full sense of the word by the farmer himself until he has given the appropriate portions to the priests, the Levites, the poor, the orphans and the widows. Anyone engaged in such a process must not be denied partaking of the product while working with it. The exception is: milking cows and making cheese. [no part of those need to be shared with the poor or the priests. Ed.]

בדישו WHEN HE TREADETH OUT THE CORN — One might think that one might muzzle it previous to that (lit., outside, i.e., before it starts working)! Scripture, however, states, “thou shalt not muzzle an ox” — which implies thou shalt not muzzle it under any circumstances (Bava Metzia 90b). Then why is threshing mentioned?. In order to tell you the following: What is threshing? Its characteristic is that it is done on a thing the work on which is not yet complete to make it liable to tithing and the giving of Challah, and which grows from the ground. So, too, this prohibition applies only to all operations which have similar characteristics: Thus there are excluded from the prohibition “not to muzzle” (i.e. you may restrain from eating) workmen who are engaged in milking, in cheese-making, or in pressing the moisture out of thick milk, all of which operations are done on things which do not grow from the ground; there are excluded, also, the workmen who are engaged in kneading, or in breaking the dough up into pieces for baking, for the work on it is then completed so that it becomes liable to Challah. There are also excluded the workmen engaged in separating dates and figs from the mass, for the work on them is then completed so that they become liable to tithing (Bava Metzia 89a).

If so, why is the ox mentioned? To exclude man. Meaning that since “ox” is imprecise, Scripture should simply write, “You may not muzzle while threshing.”

Nach .( רמב׳׳ם daselbst) scheint für das Verbot לא תחסום nicht die Beschränkung auf מחובר בשעת גמר מלאכה ובתלוש עד שלא נגמרה מלאכתו, wie bei פועל (Kap. 24, 25 u. 26) stattzufinden. Daselbst 1 heißt es: הבהמה אוכלת כל זמן שהיא עושה בגידולי קרקע בין במחובר בין בתלוש, obgleich nach B. M. 99 a ׳לאקושי חוסם לנחסם ונחסם לחוסם וכו und (daselbst) ׳כדוך ותני מה דיש מיוחד דבר שלא נגמרה מלאכתו למעשר לחלה וכו die gesetzlichen Bestimmungen für פועל und שור gleich zu sein scheinen. So auch (daselbst) פרות המרכסות בתבואה nach פי׳׳רשי ותוספות, welchen Fall רמב׳׳ם (daselbst 4) allerdings anders auffasst. וצ׳׳ע.

Perhaps one may muzzle it while outside? Meaning that since “While it threshes” implies only while threshing, if so, “perhaps one may muzzle it while outside” while it is not threshing and afterwards be permitted to thresh with while it is muzzled, “the Torah therefore teaches, etc.”

The Torah therefore teaches, “You may not muzzle an ox,” anywhere, etc. Otherwise it should have said, “You may not thresh with a muzzled ox,” which would imply that there is only a prohibition during actual threshing. But because it is written “you may not muzzle,” it implies anywhere. “While it threshes” comes to teach a different lesson as Rashi goes on and explains, “Then why is threshing stated, etc.” I explained similar to this in parshas Eikev (above 11:25) on the verse, “No man will stand up to you, etc.”

It excludes prying apart dates and figs, etc. I.e., if one puts them on the roof to dry and they became attached to each other, and has to pry them apart if he wants to take them. For these types of work there is not even a mitzvah [to allow a worker to eat]. But with something done with produce whose work was not completed, even though he will not transgress a negative commandment, as is derived from “an ox and not a person,” nevertheless, it is a mitzvah to do so unless he made a special condition with the worker. But in these cases one does not even need [to make] a special condition.