1)A WORKER'S RIGHT TO EAT [worker :eating]
1.57a (Beraisa): Regarding theft... and everything similar, a Nochri may not take from a Nochri or from a Yisrael. A Yisrael may take from a Nochri.
2.(Rav Acha bar Yakov): The similar case is a worker eating in a vineyard.
3.This refers to unfinished fruit. If it is finished, he may eat!
4.59a - Question (Rabah bar Rav Huna): According to R. Yosi (b'Rebbi Yehudah, below), if one threshes with geese and chickens, what is the law?
5.Bava Metzia 91b (Mishnah): If a worker was working only with his hands, or only with his legs, even just with his shoulders, he eats;
6.R. Yosi says, he eats only if he works with his hands and legs.
7.Chachamim learn from "Ki Savo b'Cherem Re'echa" - whatever work you do there. R. Yosi learns from an ox. It eats only when it works with its hands (forelegs) and (hind) legs. The same applies to a person.
8.92a (Mishnah - R. Eliezer Chisma): A worker may not eat more than his wages;
9.Chachamim permit this.
10.R. Eliezer expounds "k'Nafshecha" - he may eat as much as his wages, for which he risks his Nefesh. Chachamim expound "k'Nafshecha" - your worker is like yourself. If you muzzle him, you are exempt.
11.Question: Does a worker own what he eats, and he may give what he is entitled to eat to his family? Or perhaps he does not own it, just the Torah permits him to eat?
12.93a - Conclusion: Our Mishnah holds that the Torah allows workers to eat. A Beraisa holds that a worker owns what he eats.
13.87b: The law is "b'Cherem Re'echa", but not in a Nochri's vineyard.
14.Question: This is like the opinion that forbids Gezel (stealing from) Nochrim. According to the opinion that permits Gezel Nochri, we do not need a verse to permit. What does he learn from the verse?
15.Answer: The law is "b'Cherem Re'echa", but not b'Kerem Hekdesh.
16.Me'ilah 13a (Mishnah): One who works for Hekdesh may not eat figs (or any food) of Hekdesh. (Similarly, we do not let a cow eat vetch of Hekdesh.)
17.(Rav Achdevoy bar Ami): We learn from "Lo Sachsom Shor b'Disho" -- the Isur to muzzle applies to the owner's threshing, not to Hekdesh's.
1.Rif and Rosh (Bava Metzia 52a and 7:2): "Re'echa" excludes Hekdesh.
i.Nimukei Yosef (DH v'Lo Hekdesh): Since we do not say oppositely, i.e. to exclude a Nochri's field and teach that in a Yisrael's field you may not put into your Kelim, but in a Nochri's field you may put into your Kelim, this shows that Gezel Nochri is Asur.
ii.Rebuttal (Chidushei Anshei Shem): The Gemara connotes oppositely, that the one who permits Gezel Nochri does not need a verse to permit putting into your Kelim in Kerem Nochri! However, we hold that Gezel Nochri is Asur.
2.Tosfos (87b DH Re'echa): Why do we need Re'echa to forbid from Hekdesh? In Me'ilah, "b'Disho" teaches that animal do not eat from Hekdesh, and we learn about people from animals! In all, three verses say "Re'echa." It is not clear what we learn from the other two.
3.Rambam (Hilchos Sechirus 12:3): One who stopped working and ate transgresses a Lav "v'Chermesh Lo Sanif (do not wave your scythe (at the attached grain))."
4.Rambam (6): A worker may not eat in a Hekdesh field, for it says "b'Cherem Re'echa."
i.Lechem Mishneh: The Gemara says that this verse excludes a Nochri's field. I.e. there you may put into your Kelim. It said that this is like the opinion that forbids Gezel Nochri. The opinion that permits Gezel Nochri expounds the verse to forbid in a Hekdesh vineyard. Since the Rambam forbids Gezel Nochri, why does he use the verse to exclude Hekdesh? It seems that all agree about Hekdesh, like the Stam Mishnah in Me'ilah. Perhaps he learns from another "Re'echa". Tosfos did not know why all three are needed. Alternatively, the Rambam learns from "b'Disho (that animals may not eat from Hekdesh, and we learn about people from animals)." The Rambam brings Re'echa, for it is the simpler Drashah, even though l'Halachah we do not expound this way, since in any case the Halachah is correct. We must say so also for the Rif, who says like the Rambam, and also he forbids Gezel Nochri.
5.Rambam (Hilchos Melachim 9:9): If a Ben Noach worker ate not at the time of working, he is liable for theft. This does not apply to a Yisrael.
i.Kesef Mishneh: He means that a Yisrael who did so is not liable for theft, rather, for "v'Chermesh Lo Sanif."
ii.Lechem Mishneh (4): The Kesef Mishneh is difficult. Perhaps the Rambam means 'this does not apply to a Yisrael who ate in a Nochri's field not at the time of working. Also this is difficult.
iii.R. Chayim ha'Levi (on Rambam Hilchos Me'ilah 8:1): It is a monetary privilege of a worker to eat. We say that he eats from Shamayim, i.e. he may not transfer his rights to his family, but it is his monetary privilege. It is not merely a Mitzvah on the Ba'al ha'Bayis to let him eat, for a Nochri may eat from a Nochri's field. This is clear from Rashi in Sanhedrin, and the Rambam in Hilchos Melachim. Regarding animals it is merely a Mitzvah on the owner not to muzzle. It is not a monetary law. Tosfos asked why we need a verse to forbid from Hekdesh. It is forbidden due to Me'ilah! I answer than Me'ilah is stealing from Hekdesh. If the right to eat applied to Hekdesh, Me'ilah would not apply! "B'Disho" teaches that an animal eats only what is proper for it. There was no Hava Amina that it has rights to eat, so we need a different verse to forbid a worker. We could not learn about animals from Re'echa, for Re'echa does not teach that workers may not eat Hekdesh, rather, that he has no monetary rights. This is why a worker eats from a Nochri. Usually, Re'echa excludes also Nochrim! Here it does not, for we learn only loss of rights. Also, there is a Kal va'Chomer: a worker may eat even from a Yisrael, and all the more so from a Nochri! Therefore, we cannot learn to an animal, for the Hava Amina for an animal to eat is not based on rights, rather, on the Isur to muzzle.
6.Rashi (87b DH Kerem): According to the opinion that forbids Gezel Nochri, in Kerem Re'echa you may not put into your Kelim, but in Kerem Nochri you may even put into your Kelim.
7.Ritva (in Shitah Mekubetzes 87b DH ha'Nicha and DH Re'echa): According to the opinion that forbids Gezel Nochri, we can say that the verse forbids eating in Kerem Nochri! It is like Gezel, for a Nochri is not commanded about Mitzvos (to let workers eat). We also learn to forbid from Hekdesh, for neither of these is Re'echa.
1.Shulchan Aruch (CM 337:1): If one works with food for a Ba'al ha'Bayis, he may eat from what he works with, even if he does not use his hands or legs, just he carries in his shoulder. One may not muzzle him so he will not eat.
i.Shach (1): "B'Cherem Re'echa" excludes Hekdesh. Since we rule that one may not steal from Nochrim, it excludes also a Nochri vineyard.
ii.Pischei Teshuvah (1): The Gemara says 'according to the opinion that permits Gezel Nochri, we do not need a verse to permit'! However, the Ritva says like the Shach. It seems that his text of the Gemara omitted this, and so I found in Sefer Yere'im (164). However, the text we have is primary, and Rashi, the Rif, Rambam and Rosh are unlike the Shach.
iii.R. Akiva Eiger: Our text connotes that the one who forbids Gezel Nochri, in Kerem Nochri he permits putting into your Kelim. We can say that this was the Hava Amina. We conclude that the one who permits Gezel Nochri expounds Re'echa to forbid eating from Hekdesh. We can say that now, the one who forbids Gezel Nochri similarly holds that Re'echa (if it would exclude Nochrim, it would) forbid eating in Kerem Nochri; we cannot learn a Chidush to permit putting into your Kelim. Therefore, Re'echa excludes Hekdesh. However, one may eat in a Nochri's field like the a priori reasoning that a Nochri's field is no more stringent than a Yisrael's.
2.Rema: If one muzzled him, he pays and he is not lashed.
i.Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah she'Omar): Chachamim expound that.if you muzzled him, you are exempt. Rashi says that this is whether he stipulated with him not to eat, or if he prevented him from eating Bal Korcho (against his will). He is exempt from lashes, but he transgressed. The Ramah says that he may not muzzle him Bal Korcho, and if he did, he pays and he is not lashed.