Siman 338

Just as a worker eats from that which he works with in the produce of the ground, whether attached or detached, so too an animal eats while it performs work, as is written in siman 337, for we derive animal from man and man from animal. Therefore, an animal eats as long as it works with the produce of the ground, whether attached or detached, according to the laws that were explained there. It also eats from the load upon its back while it carries the load, even though it is not performing labor other than transporting the grain; for that which is stated, "You shall not muzzle an ox in its threshing," is not specifically threshing, and the same applies to any work, since we derive this from man, and the verse spoke of the common occurrence, as it is the way of the ox to thresh. Therefore, it eats from its load until they unload the load from it. However, the owner of the animal may not take with his hands and feed it, for "You shall not muzzle" is written, but not to give to it by hand.

The superiority of the animal over man is that one who muzzles it violates a negative commandment and is lashed, and anyone who prevents the animal from eating at the time of work is lashed. And that which was stated regarding a "ox"—whether it be an ox or any species of domestic animal, wild beast, or bird, whether impure or pure—it was only stated as "ox" because it is the way of the ox to work the land and it is common in threshing.

That which is stated, "You shall not muzzle an ox in its threshing," the intention is not only that one may not muzzle it at the time of the threshing, but that prior to the threshing it is permitted to muzzle it and thresh with it; rather, the intention is that it shall not thresh while muzzled. Therefore, whether one muzzles it at the time of the labor or one muzzles it beforehand and performs labor with it while it is muzzled, he receives lashes. A proof for this is from that which is written, "Wine and strong drink you shall not drink... when you enter the Tent of Meeting." Would we also say there that it is only forbidden to drink upon entering the Sanctuary, but prior to that it is permitted? Behold, "to distinguish between the holy and the profane" is written [Bava Metzia 90b], and if he drinks and enters, he will not know how to distinguish [Rashi]. Rather, the intention is that they shall not enter the Sanctuary at the time that they are drunk with wine, and so too here, the intention is that they shall not perform labor with an animal while it is muzzled. And even if he muzzled it by means of a voice, such that it wanted to eat and he rebuked it and it ceased from eating, he violates this prohibition and receives lashes. This is not a prohibition that does not involve an action, for which one does not receive lashes, for the movement of his lips is considered an action, and through speech he indeed moves his lips.

If one person muzzled it and another came and threshed with it, the one who muzzled it does not receive lashes, but rather the one who threshes [Tur]. An Israelite who threshes with the cow of an Egyptian violates the prohibition of "do not muzzle," and even if the grain belongs to the Egyptian, for "do not muzzle" is written, and the prohibition is upon the one who threshes while it is muzzled, and the Torah was not particular regarding to whom the ox and the threshing belong. An Egyptian who threshes with the cow of an Israelite, the Israelite does not violate the prohibition even though the threshing is his and even if he knew of this, since he did not perform the muzzling and did not command the Egyptian to muzzle it. From the words of the Tur it is implied that, nevertheless, there is a prohibition in this when the Egyptian does so in his presence and he does not protest against him.

And it is forbidden to tell an Egyptian, "Muzzle my cow and thresh with it," for telling a non-Jew is a shevut, and regarding all prohibitions, telling a non-Jew is forbidden just as it is on Shabbat. Similarly, to cause it not to eat is forbidden even though he does not perform an action with his hands and also does not shout at it, such as if he made its offspring lie down outside and because the animal hears its voice it will not eat, or if it is thirsty for water and he does not give it drink and because of this it will not eat—this is a causative act regarding a prohibition and it is forbidden to do so, but he does not receive lashes, similar to causation in damages where one is exempt by human laws but liable by the laws of Heaven. Similarly, if he spread a skin over the threshing floor, since he does not perform an action or speech upon its body and also the animal does not see the grain, he does not receive lashes. But if he placed a thorn in its mouth so that it cannot eat, he receives lashes, for this is a literal action. However, if a thorn became stuck in its mouth on its own and he threshed with it and it does not eat, it is forbidden but he does not receive lashes. Similarly, if a lion lay down outside and from its fear it does not eat and he did not distance the lion, it is forbidden but he does not receive lashes. But if he himself made the lion lie down outside, this is like literal muzzling and he receives lashes; and even though this is not an action upon its body, nevertheless, since the fear of the lion is very great upon its body, it is like an action upon its body [as is evident from Tosafot there]. But with the lying down of the offspring, it is not so muzzled, therefore it is not considered an action. And from the Gemara it is implied that when the offspring stood there on its own from the outside, there is no prohibition in it when he does not distance it, because it is not so muzzled [and the distinction that the Sma wrote regarding seeing the grain is evident there in Rashi].

If the thing she is working with is bad for her stomach and harms her when she eats, or if she is sick and if she eats she will come to a stomach illness, it is permitted to prevent her, for the Torah was only concerned with her benefit if she eats, and behold, she does not benefit when she eats. And why did the sages not require hanging some object on her due to appearances, as was written in section 7? It appears to me because the matter is evident to all and there is no suspicion here.

From what has been explained in siman 337, it is clear that after their work for ma'aser has been completed, one does not violate the prohibition of "do not muzzle." Therefore, barley that was soaked in water and dried in an oven, and afterwards they thresh them with cows to remove their husks, there is no prohibition of "do not muzzle" regarding them, for they have already become obligated in ma'aser. Nevertheless, the sages of blessed memory commanded that because of appearances, so that they should not say that he muzzles his cow—and they will not know that it was already threshed and will think that this is the beginning of threshing and its work for ma'aser has not been completed—therefore, he brings a little of that same species and hangs it from its neck so that it may eat from it. And animals that are not working with the produce of the ground, but rather they are traveling upon them on the road and the road is narrow before them such that it is necessary to walk upon the grain, he does not violate "do not muzzle," and he also does not need to hang from it of that same species, for everyone sees that they are traveling on their way.

And as has been explained there, that one is permitted to feed the worker before the work so that he will not eat much during the time of the work, so too regarding an animal, the hirer is permitted to feed it straw or stubble beforehand so that it will not eat much during the time of the threshing. And likewise the opposite, that the owner of the cow is permitted to starve it beforehand so that it will eat much from the threshing, and the reasons were explained there. And one should not say: why is the worker forbidden to starve himself? For an animal, as soon as it comes to the field, it will be satisfied, and this is its primary eating; but a person, his primary eating is bread, and therefore he should not starve himself of bread [Sma].

Our Sages, of blessed memory, said [Bava Metzia 91a] that if one hired an animal and muzzled it and threshed with it, he pays the owners four kabin for a cow and three kabin for a donkey, for thus our Sages, of blessed memory, estimated their consumption per day. Therefore, when he hired it for a full day of threshing, he pays this amount, and when he hired them for several days, he pays for each day that he muzzled them according to this measure, and when he hired them for a half-day, he pays proportionately. And even though we hold that one does not receive malkot and pay, as it is written, "according to his wickedness," implying that for one wickedness you may obligate him, but you may not obligate him for two wickednesses, nevertheless, he receives malkot and pays. For this rule that one does not receive malkot and pay applies when the liability comes as one, but here, from the moment of meshika he became obligated for its sustenance, and he is not liable for malkot until he threshes with it while it is muzzled. All of this was necessary for these reasons during the time of the Temple, but in this time, when we do not have semikhah and the law of malkot is not practiced, this is not needed at all. And although in the Gemara there is a dispute whether those liable for malkot inadvertently, or when they were not warned, are liable for payment or not—and according to this, for the one who holds they are exempt, he would also be exempt in this time if not for the reasons that were explained—nevertheless, we hold that they are liable for payment, as the Rambam wrote in the first chapter of Na'arah, halakha 11.