Explanation: One might have thought that it eats only when it sees the vine in front of it, but when it does not see, for the vine is above it or in the wagon, it does not eat;

Even though the reason for [the Isur of] muzzling is not because it sees and is pained (90a, one might have thought that it does not eat). The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

Observation: This (until it unloads) does not apply to "due to Hashavas Aveidah". It eats according to letter of the law. Rather, this is an independent matter.

Explanation: The first Tana, who mentioned a worker, argues with Rav.

Implied question: Isi ben Yehudah discusses people who work for their meal!

Answer: Even so, they are not called workers, since they do not do according to the desire of the owner.

Explanation: From the text that he hired him, it is as if he stipulated with him;

If he eats from Shamayim, we do not give to them, for the Torah awarded to him only what he chews and eats, and he has no power to give anything.

Explanation: Had the Torah not written k'Nafshecha, all would agree that one may eat more than his wages, for the Torah awarded him.

Opinion #1: The text does not say "all agree that he eats from his own", for all the more so, if he eats from Shamayim, he could eat more than his wages, if not for k'Nafshecha!

Opinion #2: We can resolve the text. Initially, we wanted to resolve from the first Tana that he eats from Shamayim. He rejected this, and resolved from Chachamim, who hold that he eats from Shamayim;

If so, also the first Tana holds like this, for the only difference between the first Tana and Chachamim is what we said above (whether or not we teach people not to be gluttonous).

The one who rejected this says "really, I can say that he eats from his own", like I rejected you above.

Question: What was the question? Since he cannot eat, he is like a Choleh (sick person), who may not give to them!

Answer: He is unlike a Choleh, A Choleh does not desire the Peros in front of him. Therefore, the Torah did not award him;

However, a Nazir, who desires [grapes], the Torah awarded him like other workers.

Question: If we conclude that he eats from Shamayim, why did it mention a Nazir?

Answer: It gave a usual case. A Nazir commonly says so, since he may not eat.

Question: If he wanted to eat [the figs] like this without drying them, their processing [for Ma'aser] would have been finished, and this would not be included in Dayish. Due to his intent [to dry them], is it included in Dayish (and a worker may eat without tithing)?!

Answer #1: Here we discuss a place in which the custom is to leave figs to dry. Now, even without intent, rather, Stam, there was no final processing for Ma'aser.

Answer #2: It is proper that a worker eat through intent, since through this intent, it is considered that there was no final processing, so that one may eat and he is exempt [from tithing].

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [He stipulates that] his son will eat with his father, as wages for the father's work.

Question: [If so,] what was the question "why is his son obligated [to tithe]?" Surely this is an absolute sale! Also, why does it say "it looks like a sale"?

Explanation #2: Rather, "for his wages" means in place of [his father's rights to eat];

He needs to stipulate that the son will eat as much as he wants, even more than the father [would have eaten].

Implied question: Why does it ask "if you will say that he eats from his own, why is he liable?" (Surely he is liable for what he eats more than the father!)

Answer: We ask why he is liable for all that he eats. He should be liable only for what he eats more than the father.

Explanation #1: Our Seforim say "however, if you will say that he eats from Shamayim, why does he redeem and feed them? The Torah did not award him [rights to eat] Isur...!

However, if he eats from his own, this is fine. It is as if he stipulated with him from the beginning, like I explained above.

Explanation #1 (cont.): [The Gemara] answers "it looks like a Mekach Ta'os."

Explanation #2 (R. Chananel): Why does he redeem and feed them? They should eat without redemption, since he eats from Shamayim!

[The Gemara] answers that the Torah did not award him [rights to eat] Isur. (R. Chananel's text does not say "it looks like a Mekach Ta'os.")

Question: According to this text, it is still difficult. We should have asked why they eat at all, for so we ask below regarding one whose rings [of figs] broke up...

And we should have answered "because it looks like a Mekach Ta'os", like we answer below!

Explanation: Granted, if you will say that he feeds them, and he eats from Shamayim, this is fine that he stipulates for adults. Since he feeds them, they totally resolve to pardon;

However, if you will say that he does not feed them, why does he stipulate for adults? They do not sincerely consent, since he does not feed them! Rather, they do (say that they consent) due to fear. This is Ones!

We answer that adults, even when he does not feed them, totally resolve to pardon.

Implied question: We properly established our Mishnah when he does not feed them!

Answer: Now that we brought a Beraisa that we must establish when he feeds them, [the Gemara] holds that we should establish our Mishnah like the Beraisa.

Explanation: [The question "how did you establish] the Beraisa - when he feeds them? Also minors he should stipulate for them!" refers also to how we initially established both [the Mishnah and Beraisa] when he feeds them...

Both initially, and also now, we establish the Beraisa when he feeds them.

Implied question: This is not precise that the Torah awarded him! Mid'Rabanan a father receives Metzi'os and wages of his minor son!

Answer #1: It means that Rabanan did not award him. Rivan's text says "Rabanan did not award him."

Answer #2: It mentions Rachmana (the Torah) due to his daughter. Mid'Oraisa, he gets her earnings, but the Torah did not award to him her pain.