יט לא לעולם אימא לך עושה בגפן זה אינו אוכל בגפן אחר
19 AND WHEN RETURNING FROM THE WINEPRESS. AND AS FOR AN ASS, [IT MAY EAT] WHILST BEING UNLADEN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is discussed in the Gemara. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. The scholars propounded: Whilst working on one vine, may he [the labourer] eat of another?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., cut a cluster of grapes from one vine of choicer quality and then come and work upon another. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> Is it merely necessary [that thou shalt eat only] of the kind which thou puttest into the employer's baskets,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The phraseology is based upon Deut. XXIII, 25: but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel, which implies that the labourer may eat only of that which he does put into the employer's vessel. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> which [requirement] is fulfilled; or is it stipulated that [thou shalt eat only] that [i.e., the tree from] which thou puttest into the employer's baskets, which is here lacking? [But] should you say, when working on one vine he may not eat of another, how can an ox eat of what is attached to the soil?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For, as stated supra 89a, the same conditions govern both man and beast. Now, as the ox stands in front of the cart into which the grapes are laden the labourers naturally gather the grapes not from the vine in front of the ox, but behind it, which is level with the cart. Hence, the ox cannot possibly eat of the vine upon which it is employed (Rashi). Tosaf.: When the ox is threshing grain attached to the soil, its mouth cannot reach the ears upon which it actually treads. Now, in the case of detached corn, that does not matter, because the whole is regarded as one bundle; but in the case of growing corn, each little tuft is regarded as separate. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> — R. Shisha the son of R. Idi replied: It is possible in the case of a straggling branch.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A vine which stretches from behind the ox to in front of it, so Rashi. Tosaf.: A luxuriant growth, i.e., long ears of corn which reach from the feet of the ox to its mouth. Hence, the Talmudic objection being answered, the problem remains. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> Come and hear: IF HE [THE LABOURER] IS WORKING AMONG FIGS, HE MUST NOT EAT OF GRAPES. This implies that he may eat of figs [when working] on figs, on the same conditions that [he may not eat of] figs [when working] on grapes:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., on a different tree. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> but should you say, If he works on one vine he may not eat of another, how is this possible? — R. Shisha, the son of R. Idi said: It is possible in the case of an overhanging branch.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when one vine overhangs another, and when a vine overhangs a fig-tree. Actually, he has to work upon both, since one must be disentangled from the other. In that case he may eat of the overhanging vine whilst working on the other, but not of the overhanging fig-tree. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> Come and hear: BUT HE MAY RESTRAIN HIMSELF UNTIL HE COMES TO THE CHOICE QUALITY [FRUIT], AND THEN EAT. But should you say: Whilst employed on one vine he may eat of another, let him go, bring [the choice fruit] and eat it [and why restrain himself]? — There it is [forbidden] because of loss of time; [in that case,] there is no question.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is certainly forbidden. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> Our problem arises only if he has his wife and children with him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is no loss of time, as they can bring it. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> what then? — Come and hear: NOW, WITH RESPECT TO ALL OF THEM [SC. THE LABOURERS], PERMISSION WAS GIVEN ONLY WHEN THEY ARE ACTUALLY AT WORK, BUT IN ORDER TO SAVE THE EMPLOYER'S TIME, THEY RULED, LABOURERS MAY EAT AS THEY WALK FROM ROW TO ROW, AND WHEN RETURNING FROM THE WINE-PRESS. Now, it was assumed that walking [from vine to vine] is regarded as actual work [it being necessary thereto], yet he may eat only in order to save the employer's time, but not by Scriptural law; thus proving that whilst engaged on one vine he may not eat of another! — No. In truth I may assert that whilst engaged on one vine he may eat of another; but walking is not regarded as actual work. Others say, it was assumed that walking is not regarded as actual work, and only on that account may he not eat by Scriptural law, because he is not doing work; but if he were doing actual work, he might eat even by Biblical law, thus proving that whilst engaged on one vine he may eat of another! — No; in truth I may assert that whilst engaged on one vine he may not eat of another;