Objection: We can establish the Mishnah to discuss one who does not feed them only according to the opinion that a master cannot force his slave to work for him without feeding him.

However, according to the opinion that one can force his slave to work for him without feeding him, even if he does not feed him, he owns his wages!

Rejection #2: Rather, both the Mishnah and the Beraisa (hold that a worker owns what he eats, and) discuss one who does not feed them;

The Mishnah holds that a master cannot force his slave to work for him without feeding him. The Beraisa holds that he can.

Objection: R. Yochanan holds that a master can force his slave to work for him without feeding him. Why does he rule like the Beraisa against the Mishnah?

Rejection #3: Rather, both the Mishnah and the Beraisa hold that the Torah allows workers to eat. One cannot stipulate that minors may not eat.

Question: The Beraisa says that Shimon can stipulate that his minor child and slaves will not eat!

Answer: It means, he will feed them much beforehand so they (presumably) will not eat while working.

Objection: If so, why does the Beraisa forbid this regarding his animals? (A Beraisa (90b) permits putting straw in front of his animal beforehand so it will not eat much while working!)

Conclusion: Rather, like we said above, the Mishnah holds that the Torah allows workers to eat, and the Beraisa holds that a worker owns what he eats.

(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;

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

If Reuven hired Shimon to work with fourth year Peros, 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 Shimon was hired to repress rings of figs that came apart or reseal barrels that were opened, he does not eat;

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

(Mishnah): The Torah does not entitle Shomrei (people who guard) Peros to eat, but they may eat because that is the custom.

(Gemara - Rav): The Mishnah discusses Shomrim of gardens and orchards (attached Peros), but Shomrim of winepresses or stacks of grain eat mid'Oraisa;

Rav holds that guarding is like doing an action.

(Shmuel): The Mishnah discusses Shomrim of winepresses or stacks of grain, but Shomrim of gardens and orchards do not eat, not mid'Oraisa nor due to custom;

Shmuel holds that guarding is not like doing an action.

Question (Rav Acha bar Rav Huna - Beraisa): The one who guards the red heifer (after it was slaughtered) and his clothes become Tamei.

If guarding is not like doing an action, why is he Tamei?

Answer: That is a decree, lest he move one of its limbs (which would make him Tamei mid'Oraisa).

Question (Rav Kahana - Beraisa): One who guards patches of gourds of four or five people should not eat his fill from one, rather he eats from each.

According to Shmuel, one who guards attached Peros may not eat!

Answer (Rav Simi bar Ashi): The case is, the gourds are detached.

Question: If so, they are Kavu'a for Ma'aser (so a worker may not eat)!

Answer: The flower did not yet fall off the top (they are not yet Kavu'a).

Support (for Shmuel - Rav Ashi - Mishnah): The Torah allows the following to eat: one working with finished food attached to the ground, or any detached food...

Inference: Some workers do not eat mid'Oraisa, rather due to custom.

Question: The Seifa says 'the following may not eat... What does this mean?

Suggestion: They may not eat mid'Oraisa, rather due to custom.

Rejection: The Reisha taught this!

Answer: Rather, they may not eat mid'Oraisa, nor due to custom.

This refers to people who work with attached Peros before it is finished. All the more so, Shomrim may not eat!

(Mishnah): There are four kinds of Shomrim: a Shomer Chinam, a borrower, a Shomer Sachar, and a renter:

A Shomer Chinam swears and is exempt for paying for any loss (that the Torah mentions regarding the other Shomrim); a borrower pays for any loss;

A Shomer Sachar or renter swears if it was broken, taken captive or died, and pays if it was stolen or lost.

(Gemara) Question: Who is the Tana of the Mishnah 'there are four Shomrim'?

Answer (Rav Nachman citing Rabah bar Avuha): It is R. Meir.

Question (Rava): Does anyone argue that there are four Shomrim?

Clarification: (Rav Nachman): R. Meir is the Tana who says that a renter has the law of a Shomer Sachar.

Question: R. Meir holds just the contrary!

(Beraisa - R. Meir): A renter pays like a Shomer Chinam;

R. Yehudah says, he pays like a Shomer Sachar.

Answer: Rabah bar Avuha switches the opinions in the Beraisa.

Question: Since a renter is like a Shomer Sachar, there are only three Shomrim!

Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): There are four Shomrim; they have three different laws of liability.

A shepherd was grazing animals on the bank of the river. One fell into the water.

Rabah: He is exempt. What could he have done? He guarded normally!

Question (Abaye): If so, if he went to the city when people normally do, is he also exempt?

Answer (Rabah): Yes.

Question (Abaye): If he slept a bit when people normally sleep, is he exempt?

Answer (Rabah): Yes.

Question (Abaye - Beraisa): A Shomer Sachar is exempt for Onsim such as "va'Tipol Sheva... Hiku Lefi Charev (an army attacked)."

Answer (Rabah): That refers to guards of the city. They must guard better.

Question (Abaye - Beraisa): A Shomer Sachar must guard to the point of "va'Yom Achalani Chorev v'Kerach ba'Laylah"- to guard day and night.

Answer (Rabah): That also refers to guards of the city.

Question: Yakov (who said "Achalani. . ." ) was not a guard of the city!

Answer: He told Lavan that he guarded extra well, like a guard of the city.

Question (Abaye - Beraisa): If a shepherd was grazing the flock, and he left it and went to the city, and a wolf or lion came and killed some of the flock, we do not say that had he stayed he (surely) would have saved. Rather, we estimate;

If he could have saved, he is liable. If not, he is exempt.

Suggestion: He went to the city when people normally do.

Answer (Rabah): No, he went to the city when people normally do not.

Question (Abaye): If so, why is he exempt? The beginning was negligence, and the end was Ones. He is liable!

Answer (Rabah): He went to the city because he heard a lion coming.

Question (Abaye): If so, what could he have done?

Answer (Rabah): He should have gathered shepherds with sticks to fend it off.

Question (Abaye): If so, why does the Beraisa discuss a (shepherd, who is a) Shomer Sachar? You obligate even a Shomer Chinam if he could have gathered shepherds with sticks to fend it off!

Answer (Rabah): If a Shomer Chinam cannot gather shepherds with sticks for free, he is exempt. A Shomer Sachar must hire people.

Question (Abaye): How much should he pay?

Answer (Rabah): He should pay up to the value of the animals that he is guarding.

Question (Abaye): A Shomer Sachar is exempt for Ones. Why must he pay to avoid Ones?

Answer (Rabah): The owner reimburses him.

Question (Rav Papa): What does the owner gain if he must pay their value?

Answer #1 (Abaye): His animals are used to his house.

Answer #2 (Abaye): He saves the toil of buying new animals.

(Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna): A Shomer Sachar must guard better than usual. He is paid for this! (They argue with Rabah (above (b), who exempts one who guarded normally.)

Bar Ada Savola'ah was taking animals across a bridge. One pushed another over into the water. Rav Papa ruled that he must pay.

Bar Ada: What should I have done?

Rav Papa: You should have led them single file.

Bar Ada: I did like most people. Rabah says that that is enough!

Rav Papa: Many have tried to exempt themselves according to Rabah. No one succeeded. (The Halachah does not follow Rabah.)

Aibo deposited flax with Bei Runya. It was stolen. The thief was found; he was a known armed robber. Rav Nachman obligated the Shomer.

Suggestion: Rav Nachman argues with Rav Huna bar Avin.

(Rav Huna bar Avin): If it was stolen through Ones and the thief was later found, a Shomer Chinam may swear, or pay and claim the money from the thief. A Shomer Sachar may not swear. He must pay and claim the money from the thief.

Rejection (Rava): Rav Nachman obligated him because there were (police) officers there. Had he screamed, they would have come.

(Mishnah): One wolf is not Ones. Two wolves are Ones;

R. Yehudah says, when wolves are rampant, even one wolf is Ones.

Two dogs are not Ones;

Yadu'a ha'Bavli says, from one direction it is not Ones. From two directions it is Ones.

A robber is Ones.

A lion, bear, leopard, Bardelas (hyena) or snake is Ones;

This is only if it came here. If a Shomer took the deposit to a place where these animals are found, it is not Ones.

If it died normally, this is Ones. If he starved it and it died, it is not Ones.

If it went up a mountain and fell, it is Ones. If he brought it up a mountain and it fell, it is not Ones.

(Gemara) Contradiction (Beraisa): One wolf is Ones.

Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): The Beraisa is R. Yehudah. It discusses when wolves are rampant.

(Mishnah): A robber is Ones.

Question: Why is this Ones? The Shomer can fend off the robber!

Answer (Rav): It is an armed robber.

Question: Is an armed robber considered Ones if the Shomer is also armed?

Do we say that the Shomer can fend off the robber?

Or, do we say that the robber is willing to risk his life, and a Shomer need not do so?

Answer: Presumably, the latter is correct.