Bava Metzia 184

הרי זה אוכל ופטור מן המעשר על מנת שאוכל אני ובני או שיאכל בני בשכרי הוא אוכל ופטור ובנו אוכל וחייב

he [the labourer] may eat and is exempt from tithes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having yet to be dried, their work is not finished, v. supra 87a. ');">¹</span>

ואי אמרת משלו הוא אוכל בנו אמאי חייב אמר רבינא משום דמיחזי כמקח

[But if he stipulates, 'I accept the work] on condition that I and my son eat, or, 'that my son eat for my wage:'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: for the wage stipulated, so that he would draw no pay. Tosaf: instead of me. ');">²</span>

תא שמע השוכר את הפועל לעשות בנטע רבעי שלו הרי אלו לא יאכלו ואם לא הודיעם פודה ומאכילן

he may eat, and is exempt; and his son may eat, but is liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is as though he bought them (Ma'as. II, 7). V. supra 88a-b; cf. p. 507, n. 3. ');">³</span>

ואי אמרת משל שמים הוא אוכל אמאי פודה ומאכילן איסורא לא זכי להו רחמנא התם משום דמיחזי כמקח טעות

Now should you say, he eats his own, why is his son liable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For then it is part of his wage, still the Bible exempted him, though eating fruit as part of one's wage is akin to purchase. Then surely the same should hold good of his son! ');">⁴</span>

אימא סיפא נתפרסו עגוליו נתפתחו חביותיו הרי אלו לא יאכלו ואם לא הודיען מעשר ומאכילן ואי אמרת משל שמים הוא אוכל אמאי מעשר ומאכילן איסורא לא זכי להו רחמנא

— Said Rabina: Because it looks like purchase.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' More so than when he himself eats, regard being had to the stipulation he made. ');">⁵</span>

וכי תימא הכא נמי משום דמיחזי כמקח טעות בשלמא נתפרסו עגוליו מיחזי כמקח טעות אלא נתפתחו חביותיו מאי מקח טעות איכא מידע ידע דאיטביל להו למעשר

Come and hear: If one engages labourers to work upon his fourth year plantings,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fruit of a tree in the fourth year of its planting was to be eaten in Jerusalem, like the second tithe; v. Lev. XIX, 24. ');">⁶</span>

אמר רב ששת שנתפתחו חביותיו לבור והתניא יין משירד לבור

they may not eat;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whilst working, since it must be taken to Jerusalem. ');">⁷</span>

כר' עקיבא דאמר משיקפה דאמרו ליה לא הוה ידעינן ונימא להו איבעי לכו אסוקי אדעתייכו דלמא מקפה באתרא דההוא גברא דנגיד איהו מקפה

but if he [the employer] did not inform them [that they were of the fourth year], he must redeem [the fruit]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These fruits, just as those of the second tithe, could be redeemed, the redemption money to be expended in Jerusalem, whilst the fruit could then be eaten anywhere as ordinary hullin (v. Glos.). ');">⁸</span>

והשתא דתני רב זביד בדבי ר' הושעיא יין משירד לבור ויקפה ור' עקיבא אומר משישלה בחביות אפי' תימא שלא נתפתחו חביותיו לבור דאמרו ליה לא הוה ידעינן דמשלי

and let them eat it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 93a. ');">⁹</span>

ונימא להו איבעי לכו אסוקי אדעתייכו דלמא משלי באתרא דההוא דשריק ההוא משלי

Now should you Say, he eats of Heaven's [gift], why must he redeem [the fruit] and let them eat it? Surely the All-Merciful conferred no privilege upon them in respect of that which is forbidden! — There it is because it looks like an erroneous bargain. [If so,] consider the second clause: If his figs cakes were broken,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., after having been pressed into cakes, the cakes were accidentally broken up, and labourers were engaged to re-press them. ');">¹⁰</span>

תא שמע קוצץ אדם על ידי עצמו על ידי בנו ובתו הגדולים על ידי עבדו ושפחתו הגדולים ועל ידי אשתו מפני שיש בהן דעת אבל אינו קוצץ לא על ידי בנו ובתו הקטנים ולא על ידי עבדו ושפחתו הקטנים ולא על ידי בהמתו מפני שאין בהן דעת

or if his barrels of wine burst open,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he hired labourers to re-fill them. ');">¹¹</span>

קא סלקא דעתך במעלה להן מזונות אי אמרת בשלמא משל שמים הוא אוכל משום הכי אינו קוצץ אלא אי אמרת משלו הוא אוכל קטנים נמי נקוץ להו

they may not eat.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since, as stated supra 89a, when fruit is already liable to tithes, the labourers may not eat. ');">¹²</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן בשאין מעלה להן מזונות אי הכי גדולים נמי גדולים ידעי וקא מחלי

But if he did not inform them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That they had been pressed once, and so were liable to tithes. ');">¹³</span>

והא תנא ר' הושעיא קוצץ אדם על ידי עצמו ועל ידי אשתו אבל לא על ידי בהמתו ועל ידי בנו ובתו הגדולים אבל לא ע"י בנו ובתו הקטנים וקוצץ ע"י עבדו ושפחתו הכנענים בין גדולים ובין קטנים

he must tithe [the fruit and wine] and let them partake [thereof].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 93a. ');">¹⁴</span>

מאי לאו אידי ואידי במעלה להן מזונות ובהא קא מיפלגי דמר סבר משלו הוא אוכל ומר סבר משל שמים הוא אוכל לא דכ"ע משלו הוא אוכל ולא קשיא כאן בשאין מעלה להן מזונות וברייתא במעלה להן מזונות

Now should you say, He eats of Heaven's [gift], why must he tithe and let them eat: surely the All-Merciful conferred no privilege upon him in respect of what is forbidden! And should you reply, Here too it is because [otherwise] it looks like an erroneous bargain, [I can rejoin,] now as for the breaking of his fig-cakes, it is well, since it does look like an erroneous bargain; but if his barrels burst, where is the erroneous bargain? Surely he [the labourer] knew that they were <i>tebel</i> in respect of tithes! — R. Shesheth replied: It means that his barrels burst open into the tank.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which wine is stored, so that the labourer might have thought that it had not been barrelled yet. ');">¹⁵</span>

במאי אוקימתא במעלה להן מזונות אי הכי קטנים נמי נקוץ להו צערייהו דבנו ובתו הקטנים לא זכי ליה רחמנא

But has it not been taught: Wine [is subject to tithes] when it descends into the tank?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the labourers could have then known that they were liable to tithing. ');">¹⁶</span>

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!