Reference for Bava Metzia 183:21

תא שמע השוכר את הפועל לקצות בתאנים

What practical difference does this make? If he said, 'Give it [the fruit that I might have eaten] to my wife and children.' Now, should you say that he eats his own, we must give it to them. But if he eats of Heaven's [gift], then upon him Scripture conferred this privilege, but not upon his wife and children. What is our ruling? — Come and hear: A LABOURER MAY EAT CUCUMBERS, EVEN TO THE VALUE OF A <i>DENAR</i>, OR DATES, EVEN TO THE VALUE OF A <i>DENAR</i>. Now, should you say that he eats of his own, when he is engaged for a <i>danka</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">¹⁸</span> shall he eat for a <i>denar</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely it is unreasonable that the additional bonus shall far exceed the wage actually stipulated. ');">¹⁹</span> — What then: he eats of Heaven's [gift]? Yet after all, being engaged for a <i>danka</i>, shall he eat for a <i>denar</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is likewise unreasonable that the privilege conferred by Scripture shall exceed his actual due. ');">²⁰</span> Hence, what must you reply? That the All-Merciful privileged him;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Notwithstanding that it exceeds his wage. ');">²¹</span> so here too,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., even if he is assumed to eat his own. ');">²²</span> the All-Merciful conferred that privilege upon him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To eat even more than his wages, and still it is an addition thereto. ');">²³</span> Come and hear: R. ELEAZAR HISMA SAID: A LABOURER MUST NOT EAT MORE THAN HIS WAGE. BUT THE SAGES PERMIT IT. Now, surely they differ in respect of this: one [sc. R. Eleazar Hisma] maintains that he eats his own,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore the bonus cannot exceed the principal. ');">²⁴</span> whilst the other holds that he eats the [gift] of Heaven! — No. All agree that he eats his own, but here they differ with respect to the interpretation of [then thou mayest eat grapes thy fill] according to thy soul. One Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Sages. ');">²⁵</span> maintains, 'according to thy soul' means that for which thou riskest thy life;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'soul'. I.e., in return for ascending the tree to gather the fruit, thereby endangering his life, the labourer may eat, That being so, there is no limit to the quantity. ');">²⁶</span> whilst the other Master [R. Eleazar] interprets, 'As thyself': just as if thou muzzlest thyself thou art exempt [from punishment], so the labourer, if thou muzzlest him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 509, n. 5. ');">²⁷</span> thou art exempt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There thus being no warrant for the labourer to eat more than his wage. ');">²⁸</span> Come and hear: If a <i>nazir</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. The reference is to a labourer, a nazirite, engaged on vintaging. A nazirite is forbidden to eat grapes. ');">²⁹</span> said, 'Give [the grapes I might have eaten] to my wife and children,' he is not heeded. Now should you say, he eats his own, why is he disregarded? — There it is because, 'Go, go, thou nazirite,' say we, 'take the most devious route, but approach not the vineyard.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This was proverbial: a man must not venture into temptation. Hence while it may be that the labourer eats of his own, here he is penalised for having accepted employment in a vineyard at all. ');">³⁰</span> Come and hear: If a labourer said, 'Give [the grapes] to my wife and children,' we do not heed him. Now should you say, he eats his own, why not? — What is meant by 'a labourer'? A <i>nazir</i>. But the case of a <i>nazir</i> has been taught, and also that of a labourer! — Were they then taught together?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both refer to the same, but were not taught together. V. supra 34a. ');">³¹</span> Come and hear: Whence do we know that if a labourer said, 'Give [the fruit] to my wife and children,' he is not heeded? From the verse, But thou shalt not put any in thy vessel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., only he may eat, but none on his behalf. ');">³²</span> And should you reply, This too refers to a <i>nazir</i>; if so, is it on account of 'but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel': surely it is because, 'Go, go, thou nazirite', we say, etc.! — That is indeed so, but since he is referred to as a labourer, the verse relating to a labourer is cited.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But merely as a support, the law itself being Rabbinical, as stated in n. 7. ');">³³</span> Come and hear: If one engages a labourer to dry figs,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Figs were dried in the field and then pressed into cakes, the labourer being engaged for this purpose. ');">³⁴</span>

Jastrow