Observation: If the text [after our Mishnah] says "Tana (a Beraisa teaches) like an idle worker", the text in our Mishnah does not say "idle". (If it did, there would be no need to bring the Beraisa!)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [He is paid] like a worker idle from the job he neglected;

If initially he did an exhausting job, and earned much, and this is light, we estimate how much he would agree to lose from his wage to do this light Melachah;

This is more than they [normally] pay to do the light task (i.e. to one who does not abandon a job that pays more), for one refrains from a big profit only a little, even though it comes to him through more exertion.

Consequence: According to his Perush, our Mishnah is like R. Shimon, who says that he gives to him his full wage. It is unlike R. Meir.

Question #1: It says in the Gemara "but the Seifa, in which there is much toil, I would say that like an idle worker does not suffice!"

Now, since one receives more for harder work, why would I think that like an idle worker does not suffice? (He is compensated for the extra toil!)

Question #2: A Tosefta (4:11) says "one who hires his friend [to sell merchandise for him] in a store for half the profit, he pays him like an idle worker. R. Meir says so;

Inference: Our Mishnah is like R. Meir!

Explanation #2: "Like an idle worker" means that he is totally idle.

Support: Now it is fine how the Gemara showed why both [cases in our Mishnah] are needed, and our Mishnah is like R. Meir.

Implied question: The Gemara says that R. Meir says [that any wage suffices,] whether much or a little!

Answer: That means whether he was engaging in much work or a little work, he always gives to him like an idle worker.

Explanation #2 (cont.): R. Shimon says, he gives to him his full wage. We estimate how much one wants to take and be Batel from the weary work that he was engaged in, and engage in a light task like this. This is more than R. Meir says.

Implied question: The Tosefta, in the Seifa after R. Meir's opinion, brings that R. Shimon says "he gives to him his full wage. However, one who works is unlike one who sits idle. One who sits in the sun is unlike one who sits in the shade"!

Answer: He does not mean [one who sits] totally idle, rather, idle from that weary work.

Implied question: Above (31b), regarding Hashavas Aveidah, it teaches "he is paid like an idle worker", it seems that Rashi's Perush is correct;

It asks there "he is not idle!" This connotes that he asks because he understands the Beraisa, which teaches "like an idle worker", to mean that they give to him like a worker would want [to receive] and sit totally idle.

Answer: It seems that there, Abaye's answer "like a worker Batel from the work that he ceased" is like Rashi explained.

Question #1: If so, he is paid for Hashavas Aveidah, and in Bava Kama (56b) we say that the reason why a Shomer Aveidah is like a Shomer Chinam is because he gets no benefit from it!

Question #2: Rabanan say that loading is for wages only because if so (it was for free), the Torah should have written loading, and it would not need [to write] unloading! (There is no source to be paid for Hashavas Aveidah. It should be for free!)

Answer: There is no problem if he receives wages, since he engages in another task and loses;

If there would be a Beis Din there, he would stipulate to receive everything that he loses. Now that there is no Beis Din, why shouldn't he receive for all his toil?

Citation (Bechoros 29b): [A judge] receives wages for judging like an idle worker.

Explanation: Also there we can explain like Rashi. Since he is idle from his work, he may receive wages.

Observation: Here we could not teach "like an idle worker", for he is idle [from his normal work] only a moment a day to feed it and give it to drink.

Distinction: However, a grocer's entire occupation is this (selling the merchandise);

Citation (Tosefta 4:12): One who hires a grocer [to sell merchandise for him] in a store, if he was a craftsman, he may not engage in his profession.

Question: What is the Chidush? Obviously [this is permitted], since he does not accept Achrayus!

Suggestion: This was taught because he needed to teach that we raise them until they are Meshulashim (a third of their ultimate growth, or three years old).

Rejection: It could have taught this in the Reisha, after "he pays him his wage"!

Answer: The Chidush is that Stam, he does not accept any Achrayus, and it is not a business venture, since initially when he accepted the calves, they did not estimate them;

Only after they grew, and they come to divide the Shevach (improvements), then they estimate how much they improved.

Support: This is why the Reisha says "we estimate", and the Seifa says "we accept";

When they estimate at the time of accepting, Stam he accepts half the Achrayus, like other business ventures.

Explanation: One may eat them, like we say in Chulin (64b) "one who is not finicky may eat Muzaros eggs (that do not develop into chicks)."

Implied question: If he does not find Muzaros eggs, will he get nothing?!

Answer: Muzaros eggs are very common. Therefore, even if he does not find, it is permitted.

Version #1: This is the text in the Tosefta (5:6), and this is Rashi's text.

Version #2: In most Seforim, the text says after li'Behemah Ma'alin "and Leha'alos (to pay) wages of toil and its food through offspring (the one who raises the animals keeps the offspring), Ma'alin (we pay this)."

Possibility #1: We can say that R. Shimon ben Gamliel argues only with the Reisha, like he said in his words "he does not give money for carrying it", but in the Seifa, "in a place where the custom is to give the offspring as wages [for carrying it]", he does not argue.

Possibility #2: All the more so he argues in the Seifa! Why did the first Tana need to teach the Seifa, since he [already] taught the Reisha?

Rather, he needs to teach that we should not say that such a stringent custom, to give the offspring for wages, one may deviate from it. If so, R. Shimon ben Gamliel, who permits deviating in the Reisha, all the more so in the Seifa!

Version #3: R. Chananel's text says "in a place where they give money for carrying, we give. For an animal, we give. To give to offspring..."

Explanation: If Peros were already resting in the Chatzer of the one who accepted, [the investor] pays him for Peros like the market price, and he adds to them the wage of carrying, which [had the acceptor not used his own Peros,] they would have had to bring Peros from the investor's house to the acceptor's house.

Source (Beraisa): If Peros were deposited with [the acceptor, the investor] pays [the saved cost of transporting them] to him in coins.

Explanation: Obviously, he must give money for the food. How could the dung cover the cost of the food?!

He asks only from exertion. Even with its mother, many times he needs money for carrying it.

Implied question: Above (27a): Regarding "Seh" written regarding an Aveidah, the Gemara asks "perhaps it comes to teach about dung!", and answers that Stam, people make the dung Hefker!

Answer: There, all agree that [the owner] pardons them due to [his gratitude that the finder] returns the principal;

However, here that [the investor] must pay, he wants to be exempt through dung.

Version #1: This is Rashi's text. According to this text, the Reisha refers to the investor, and the Seifa refers to Rav Ilish, the acceptor.

Version #2: If the text says "half the profit and 2/3 of the loss, and if half the loss, a third of the profit", then it all refers to the investor.

Version #3: If the text says "half the profit and a third of the loss, and if half the loss, two thirds of the profit", it all refers to Rav Ilish (the acceptor).

Question: Is the investor a lunatic to do like this, and leave him to decide, and when he sees that there is a loss, he will say "I want half the profit, and you bear 2/3 of the loss"...

And if he sees that there is a profit, he will say "I want half the loss, and 2/3 of the profit!"

It is as if he stipulated that the investor accept on himself a third of the profit and two thirds of the loss!

Answer #1: Perhaps they have a fixed time, that within that time Rav Ilish must clarify which of them he wants.

Answer #2: Rava was astounded at the wording of the document. If half the profit, he should have written two thirds of the loss...!

Version #4: R. Chananel's text says "a document came against them. In it was written half of the profit and of the loss." It does not say "and half the loss." Also R. Meshulam's text says so;

[Rava] deduces that you are forced to say that "half" written in the document refers only to the profit, and not to the loss, for since [the investor] gets half the profit, he must bear two thirds of the loss;

If "half" refers also to the loss, if so we require [that the acceptor receive] two thirds of the profit!

Rather, surely the document means [that the investor gets] half the profit, and two thirds of the loss.