Bava Metzia 183

ומהלך כעושה מעשה דמי:

and walking is regarded as actual work.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And yet were it not for the consideration of the employer's time, he would not be permitted to eat. ');">¹</span>

ובחמור כשהיא פורקת: כשהיא פורקת מהיכן אכלה אימא עד שתהא פורקת תנינא להא דתנו רבנן חמור וגמל אוכלים ממשאוי שעל גביהן ובלבד שלא יטול בידו ויאכילם

AND AS FOR AN ASS, [IT MAY EAT] WHILST BEING UNLADEN. But when it is unladen, whence can it eat?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Its whole burden is removed at once, and then it is led away. ');">²</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אוכל פועל קישות אפילו בדינר כותבת ואפילו בדינר ר' אלעזר חסמא אומר לא יאכל פועל יתר על שכרו וחכמים מתירין אבל מלמדין את האדם שלא יהא רעבתן ויהא סותם את הפתח בפניו

Say until it is unladen.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., as long as it is laden, it may eat of its burden. ');">³</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> חכמים היינו תנא קמא איכא בינייהו אבל מלמדין לתנא קמא לית ליה מלמדין לרבנן אית להו מלמדין

We have [thus] learnt [here] what our Rabbis taught: An ass and a camel can eat of the load on their backs, providing that he [the driver] does not personally take thereof and feed them.

איבעית אימא איכא בינייהו דרב אסי דאמר רב אסי אפילו לא שכרו אלא לבצור אשכול אחד אוכלו ואמר רב אסי אפילו לא בצר אלא אשכול אחד אוכלו

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. 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>. R. ELEAZAR HISMA SAID: A LABOURER MUST NOT EAT MORE THAN HIS WAGE. BUT THE SAGES PERMIT IT; YET ONE IS ADVISED NOT TO BE GREEDY, AND THUS SHUT THE DOOR IN HIS FACE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he will be unable to obtain employment, if he eats too greedily. ');">⁴</span>

וצריכא דאי אשמעינן הך קמייתא משום דלא איכא למיתב לכליו של בעל הבית אבל היכא דאיכא למיתב לכליו של בעל הבית אימא ליתב ברישא והדר ליכול

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Are not the Sages identical with the first Tanna? — They differ as to whether [the labourer] is advised [not to be greedy]. The first Tanna holds that he is not advised; whilst the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sages. ');">⁵</span>

ואי אשמעינן בהא דאפשר לקיומי לבסוף אבל היכא דלא אפשר לקיומי לבסוף אימא לא צריכא

maintain that he is. Alternatively, they differ in respect of R. Assi's dictum. For R. Assi said: Even if engaged merely to gather a single cluster, he may eat it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna accepts this, and means thus: A labourer may eat cucumbers even if he was engaged only to work on these which he actually eats, whilst the Sages permit him to eat more than his wage (for which reason the Rabbis make mention of his wage, whilst the first Tanna omits all reference thereto), but not all that for which he was engaged. ');">⁶</span>

איבעית אימא איכא בינייהו דרב דאמר רב מצאתי מגילת סתרים בי רבי חייא וכתוב בה איסי בן יהודה אומר (דברים כג, כה) כי תבא בכרם רעך בביאת כל אדם הכתוב מדבר

R. Assi also said: Even if he [as yet] vintaged only one cluster, [having been engaged for the day,] he may eat it. Now, both [dicta] are necessary. For if the first [only] were stated,I would think that that is so, since there is nothing [else] to put into the employer's vessels;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And Scripture having permitted the labourer to eat, he cannot be bidden to refrain. ');">⁷</span>

ואמר רב לא שבק איסי חיי לכל בריה

but when there is something to put into the employer's vessels, I would think that he must first put [some there] and then eat. Whilst if the second statement [only] were made, I would think that the reason is that it can be eventually fulfilled;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the putting into the employer's utensils. ');">⁸</span>

אמר רב אשי אמריתה לשמעתא קמיה דרב כהנא דלמא בעושין בסעודתם דעבדו ואכלו אמר לי אפילו הכי ניחא ליה לאיניש לאוגר אגורי וניקטפיה לפרדיסיה ולא ניתו כולי עלמא ואכלו ליה

but where it cannot be eventually fulfilled,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if he was engaged only for that cluster, and he eats it. ');">⁹</span>

איבעיא להו פועל משלו הוא אוכל או משל שמים הוא אוכל

I might think that he may not eat. Hence both are necessary.

למאי נפקא מינה דאמר תנו לאשתי ובני אי אמרת משלו הוא אוכל יהבינן להו אלא אי אמרת משל שמים הוא אוכל לדידיה זכי ליה רחמנא לאשתו ובניו לא זכי להו רחמנא מאי

[Reverting to the Mishnah:] Alternatively, I can say, they differ in respect of Rab's dictum. For Rab said: I found a secret scroll of the School of R. Hiyya<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H]: Oral law being unwritten, when one particularly desired to remember a halachah, he recorded it but kept it secret (Rashi). [Kaplan, J. op. cit., p. 277, argues with great plausibility that the concealment of the scroll had nothing to do with the interdict of writing halachah records, but was due to its contents which, as will be seen, were not well adapted to unrestricted publicity. The same scroll contained another teaching by the same Tanna, which likewise was liable to abuse. Shab. 6b; 96b.] ');">¹⁰</span>

תא שמע אוכל פועל קישות ואפילו בדינר כותבת ואפילו בדינר אי אמרת משלו הוא אוכל אוגיר בדנקא אכיל בזוזא ואלא מאי משל שמים הוא אוכל סוף סוף אוגיר בדנקא אכיל בזוזא אלא מאי אית לך למימר רחמנא זכי ליה הכא נמי רחמנא זכי ליה

wherein it was written, Issi b. Judah said: <i>When thou comest into thy neighbour's vineyard</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 25. ');">¹¹</span>

תא שמע ר' אלעזר חסמא אומר לא יאכל פועל יותר על שכרו וחכמים מתירין מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר משלו הוא אוכל ומר סבר משל שמים הוא אוכל

Scripture refers to the coming in of any man.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not only a labourer. ');">¹²</span>

לא דכולי עלמא משלו הוא אוכל והכא בכנפשך קמיפלגי מר סבר כנפשך בדבר שמוסר נפשו עליו

Whereon Rab commented: Issi makes life impossible for any one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Social life is impossible if any person may enter and eat of one's crops. — Now, the first Tanna agrees with Rab, and hence says, only A LABOURER MAY EAT etc.; but the Sages maintain that any person may enter; hence they say that the labourer may eat more than his wage, since even if no wage is due at all — i.e., if he is not an employee he may still eat. ');">¹³</span>

ומר סבר כנפשך מה נפשך אם חסמת פטור אף פועל אם חסמת פטור

R. Ashi said: I repeated the [above] teaching before R. Kahana. [Thereupon] he observed:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Following reading of Alfasi and Asheri. Cur. edd. omit 'he observed'. Render accordingly: 'R. Ashi said, I put the (following) question (lit., 'discussion') to R. Kahana. Perhaps etc.' Cf. B.B. 114a; v. Strashun, S.] ');">¹⁴</span>

תא שמע נזיר שאמר תנו (לאשתו ובניו) אין שומעין לו ואי אמרת משלו הוא אוכל אמאי אין שומעין לו התם משום לך לך אמרין נזירא סחור סחור לכרמא לא תקרב

Perhaps [Issi b. Judah referred] to those who labour for their food, working and eating.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., any man, even when not engaged by the owner, may enter a vineyard, assist in the vintaging, and eat. But it is unreasonable to suppose that Issi b. Judah permitted all and sundry to enter any man's vineyard, eat his fill, and make no return. ');">¹⁵</span>

תא שמע פועל שאמר תנו לאשתי ובני אין שומעין לו ואי אמרת משלו הוא אוכל אמאי אין שומעין לו מאי פועל נזיר והתניא נזיר והתניא פועל מידי גבי הדדי תניין

And Rab?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If that be the correct interpretation, why does Rab object? ');">¹⁶</span>

תא שמע מנין לפועל שאמר תנו לאשתי ובני שאין שומעין לו שנאמר (דברים כג, כה) ואל כליך לא תתן וכי תימא הכי נמי נזיר אי הכי משום אל כליך לא תתן משום לך לך אמרין נזירא הוא

— Even then, a man prefers to engage labourers to vintage his vineyard, rather than that any one should enter.

אין הכי נמי ואיידי דקתני לה בלשון פועל קא נסיב לה קרא דפועל

The scholars propounded: Does the labourer eat his own [sc. when partaking of the fruit upon which he is engaged], or does he eat of Heaven's [gift]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., is it actually part of his salary, and in the nature of a bonus, or a special Divine favour bestowed upon the labourer? ');">¹⁷</span>

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>