Reference for Bava Metzia 184:17

במאי אוקימתא למתני' בשאין מעלה להן מזונות

— This agrees with R. Akiba, who ruled [it is not liable] until the scum is removed; so that they [the labourers] can say to him, 'We did not know [thereof].' But can he not retort, 'The possibility of its having been skimmed should have occurred to you'? — It refers to a locality where the same person who draws [the wine from the tank into barrels first] skims it. And now that R. zebid learned out of the Baraitha of R. Oshaia:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Var. lec.: R. Zebid son of R. Hoshaia. V. A. Z, (Sonc. ed.) p. 27, n. 4.] ');">¹⁷</span> Wine [is subject to tithes] when it is run into the tank and skimmed. R. Akiba said: When it is skimmed in barrels:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: When it has been skimmed in the barrels; after being filled in the barrels it ferments again and more scum settles on top, which must be removed. ');">¹⁸</span> you may even say that the barrels did not burst open into the tank; yet they can say, 'We did not know that it had been skimmed.' But can he not say to them, 'The possibility of its having been skimmed should have occurred to you'? — It refers to a place where the same person who closes it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By pasting in the bung. ');">¹⁹</span> also skims it. Come and hear: A man may stipulate [to receive payment instead of eating] for himself, his son or daughter that are of age, his manservant and maidservant that are of age, and his wife; because they have understanding.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They know that they are entitled to eat, but forego their rights. ');">²⁰</span> But he may not stipulate [thus] for his son or daughter that are minors, his manservant or maidservant that are minors, nor in respect of his beasts; because they have no understanding.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 93a. The understanding of a minor is not legally recognised. ');">²¹</span> Now it is being assumed that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The father or owner who hires them out. ');">²²</span> provides them with food, should you then say that he [the labourer] eats of Heaven's [gift], it is well: consequently, one may not stipulate [to deprive them of their rights]. But if you maintain that he eats of his own, let him stipulate [thus] even for minors!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since all their rights belong to him, and just as he receives their wages, so he can receive the food due to them as part wages. ');">²³</span> — In this case it means that he does not provide them with food.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that he has no right even to their wages. This is on the assumption that when the master provides no food, he is not entitled to their work. This is a subject of dispute; v. infra 93a top. ');">²⁴</span> If so, [for] adults too [he cannot stipulate thus]! — Adults know [their rights] and forego them. But R. Hoshaia taught: A man may stipulate [as above] for himself and his wife, but not in respect of his beast;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because of the prohibition of muzzling. ');">²⁵</span> for his son and daughter, if adults, but not if minors; for his Canaanite manservant and maidservant, whether adults or minors. Now presumably, both<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah first quoted, which states that this stipulation may not be made for one's servants, if minors; and the Baraitha, which permits it. ');">²⁶</span> mean that he provides them with food, and they differ in the following: one Master [sc. that of the Baraitha] maintains that he [the labourer] eats of his own;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore his master may stipulate this, v, n. 1. ');">²⁷</span> whereas the other holds that he eats of Heaven's! — No; all hold that he eats his own, yet there is no difficulty: here [in the Mishnah] he does not provide them with food,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence he cannot stipulate. ');">²⁸</span> whereas in the Baraitha he does. How do you explain it: that he provides them with food? If so, let him stipulate for [his son and daughter if] minors too? — The All-Merciful did not privilege him to cause distress to his son and daughter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though entitled to their work, and providing them with food, he causes them to suffer by not eating of that upon which they are actually engaged. ');">²⁹</span> Now, how do you explain the Mishnah? That he does not provide them with food!

Jastrow