(Mishnah): One must let a donkey eat while they unload it.

Question: (They unload it at once.) What does it eat?

Correction: Rather, one must let a donkey eat until they unload it.

(Beraisa): One must let a donkey or camel eat from the load it carries.

(Mishnah): A worker may eat even a Dinar's worth of gourds or dates;

R. Eliezer Chisma says, a worker may not eat more than his wages;

Chachamim permit this, but we teach a person not to be gluttonous, for then no one will hire him.

(Gemara) Question: Chachamim agree with the first Tana!

Answer #1: They argue about whether or not we teach people not to be gluttonous. The first Tana holds that we do not.

Answer #2: They argue about Rav Asi's law;

(Rav Asi): Even if a worker was hired to harvest only one cluster, he may eat it.

(Rav Asi): Even if a worker harvested only one cluster, he may eat it.

Rav Asi needed to teach both laws.

Had he taught only the first law, one might have thought that since nothing will remain for the owner, he may eat, but when he will (later) harvest for the owner, he must harvest before eating;

Had he taught only the second law, one might have thought that there he may eat for he will later harvest for the owner, but if the owner will be left with nothing, he may not eat.

Version #1 (Rashi): The first Tana agrees with Rav Asi. He may eat the gourds or dates, even if he will not harvest for the owner. Chachamim argue. They permit eating more than his wage, but not all that he harvests.

Version #2 (Ritva): The first Tana argues with Rav Asi. His Chidush is only that he may eat a Dinar's worth. Chachamim agree with Rav Asi. They permit eating more than his wage, but not all that he harvests.

Answer #3: They argue about Rav's law.

(Rav): In a hidden scroll (even before Chachamim permitted writing oral Torah, one was allowed to write reminders for himself), Isi ben Yehudah says "Ki Savo b'Cherem Re'echa" permits anyone (not only a worker) to eat.

Rav: This does not allow any (farmer) to survive!

Suggestion (Rav Kahana): Perhaps Isi permits only one who (was not hired, but) works in the land the value of what he eats!

Question: If so, why did Rav object to the law?

Answer: One prefers to choose workers to harvest his land.

Version #1 (Rashi): The first Tana argues with Isi. He permits (only) a worker to eat. Chachamim agree with Isi. They say 'we teach a person (even not a worker) that it is not advisable to be gluttonous!'

Version #2 (R. Chananel, in Shitah Mekubetzes): The first Tana agrees with Isi (like Rav Kahana explained). One who works is called a worker, even if he was not hired. Chachamim argue with Rav. They permit eating more than one's wage. This implies that he was hired.

Question: Does a worker own what he eats? Or perhaps he does not own it, just the Torah permits him to eat?

Question: What difference does it make?

Answer: This determines whether or not he may give what he is entitled to eat to his family;

If he owns what he eats, he may give them;

If the Torah merely allows him to eat, it did not allow others.

Answer #1 (Mishnah): A worker may eat even a Dinar's worth of Kishus.

If he owns what he eats, we cannot say that he was hired for a sixth of a Dinar, and he eats (and owns) a Dinar's worth!

Objection: Even if we say that the Torah merely allows him, this is astounding!

We must say that indeed the Torah entitles him. We can equally say that it entitles him to own what he eats!

Answer #2 (Mishnah - R. Eliezer Chisma): A worker may not eat more than his wages;

Chachamim permit this.

Suggestion: R. Eliezer holds that he owns what he eats, and Chachamim say that the Torah merely allows him to eat.

Rejection: No, they do not argue about that. All agree that if not for "k'Nafshecha", he could eat more than his wages;

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.

Answer #3 (Beraisa): If a Nazir was harvesting grapes, and he said 'let my family eat what I am entitled to', they may not.

If he owns what he eats, he may give them!

Rejection: This is a decree to dissuade a Nazir from harvesting grapes. Nezirim should stay far from vineyards.

Answer #4 (Beraisa): If a worker said 'let my family eat what I am entitled to', they may not.

If he owns what he eats, he may give them!

Rejection: That refers to a Nazir.

Question: The other Beraisa discusses a Nazir!

Answer: They are different Beraisos, so they may teach the same law.

Answer #5 (Beraisa): If a worker said 'let my family eat what I am entitled to', they may not, for it says "v'El Kelyecha Lo Siten".

Rejection: Perhaps it refers to a Nazir.

Question: The Beraisa attributes the law to "v'El Kelyecha Lo Siten", not because a Nazir should avoid vineyards!

Answer: Really, it is because a Nazir should avoid vineyards;

Since the Beraisa calls him a worker, it cites the verse of a worker, but this is not the true source.

Answer #6 (Mishnah): If Reuven was hired to set figs to dry, he may eat without tithing. (The final processing for Ma'aser was not done, so the Torah lets him eat, and this is not a sale);

If he stipulated 'on condition that I and my son may eat', or 'on condition that my son may eat in place of my wages (Rashi; Tosfos - in place of my eating)', Reuven eats without tithing, but his son must tithe before eating.

If he owns what he eats, why must his son tithe what he eats? Just like he is exempt, his son should also be exempt (Tosfos - on the amount his father would have eaten)!

Rejection (Ravina): Mid'Oraisa, the son is exempt. Chachamim decreed that he tithes, because it looks like a sale.

Answer #7 (Mishnah): If Reuven hired Shimon to work with Reva'i (fruits of a tree in its fourth year; they have Kedushah like Ma'aser Sheni), Shimon may not eat;

If Reuven did not tell him that he will work with fourth-year Peros, Reuven must redeem what Shimon wants to eat.

If the Torah allows workers to eat, why must Reuven redeem so Shimon can eat? The Torah never allows workers to eat fourth-year Peros!

Rejection: That is like a mistaken contract (he agreed to work assuming that he may eat).

Answer #8 (Seifa): If Shimon was hired to repress rings of figs that came apart or reseal barrels that were opened, he does not eat (since they were Kavu'a for Ma'aser);

If Reuven did not tell him that he will work with such Peros, Reuven must tithe them and allow Shimon to eat.

If the Torah allows workers to eat, what is the reason? The Torah never allows workers to eat Tevel!

Suggestion: Perhaps also, it is like a mistaken contract.

Rejection: Granted, repressing figs is like a mistaken contract (Shimon thought that they were not pressed yet), but resealing barrels is not. Shimon knows that the wine is Tevel!

Rejection #1 (Rav Sheshes): The case is, the wine spilled back into the pit. (He was hired to draw it from the pit. He thought that it was not yet barreled.)

Question (Beraisa): Wine is Tevel once it flows into the pit.

Answer: The Mishnah is R. Akiva, who says that it is Tevel after Kipuy (removal of the grape skins and pits that float on top of the wine in the pit).

Question: Shimon had no reason to assume that he would eat. Perhaps Kipuy was already done!

Answer: The Mishnah discusses a place where the one who draws from the pit does Kipuy.

Rejection #2: We need not say that the wine spilled back into the pit. Rav Zvid taught that Chachamim say that wine is Tevel after Kipuy, and R. Akiva says that it is after doing Shiluy (removal of the dregs that float on top of the wine in the barrel);

Shimon did not know that Shiluy was done.

Question: Shimon had no reason to assume that he would eat. Perhaps Shiluy was already done!

Answer: The Mishnah discusses a place where the one who corks the barrel does Shiluy.

Answer #9 (Mishnah): Shimon may stipulate with his employer to receive extra wages in place of eating. He may also stipulate on behalf of his wife and adult children and slaves, because they have intelligence (they can pardon their right to eat);

He may not stipulate on behalf of his animals or minor children or slaves, because they lack intelligence.

We are thinking that Shimon feeds his children and slaves, therefore he gets their wages.

If the Torah allows workers to eat, we understand why he cannot stipulate. Minors do not acquire the food until they eat it!

But if a worker owns what he eats, it is like part of his wages. It is Shimon's, why can't he stipulate for them?!

Rejection: The case is, he does not feed them.

Question: If so, why can he stipulate for adults?

Answer: If they agree, they pardon their privileges.

Answer #10: Tana'im argue about whether or not or not a worker owns what he eats.

Contradiction (R. Hoshaya - Beraisa): Shimon may stipulate on behalf of himself, his wife and adult children and his (adult or minor) Kena'ani slaves, but not on behalf of his animals or minor children. (The Mishnah did not allow stipulating on behalf of minor slaves.)

Suggestion: The Mishnah and Beraisa both discuss when he feeds them. The Mishnah holds that the Torah allows workers to eat, the Beraisa holds that a worker owns what he eats. (One may not stipulate for animals, for this would entail muzzling.)

Rejection #1: No, both hold that a worker owns what he eats;

In the Mishnah, he does not feed them. In the Beraisa, he feeds them.

Question: If in the Beraisa, he feeds them, why can't he stipulate for his minor children?

Answer: The Torah does not authorize a father to cause pain to his children.