Bava Metzia 92a — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna:

“And with a donkey,”

it is forbidden to muzzle it

“when it is unloading”:

And the Gemara asks:

“When it is unloading”—

from where will it eat!?

Is it not so that at the time of unloading they remove the load from it all at once; and from where will it eat? And it explains:

Say: until it has finished unloading,

it eats from the load upon its back, and although it does not see the food, if he muzzles it, it will not suffer.

We learned this:

We also learned this law of our Mishna in a beraita.

For the Sages taught: A donkey and a camel,

if the owner hired a donkey-driver together with his donkey, or a camel-driver together with his camel, in order that they carry his load,

eat,

the donkey and the camel,

from the load upon their backs,

and it is forbidden to prevent them from doing so,

provided that he does not take

the owner of the donkey or the owner of the camel, from the load,

in his hand and feed them.

For he has the right to feed his animal only with what the ox eats of its own accord.

Mishna:

A laborer, who works in the field of the owner, is permitted to eat also a large quantity of

cucumber, even for

the value of

a dinar.

And he is likewise permitted to eat

a pressed date

of dates,

even for

the value of

a dinar.

Rabbi Elazar Ḥisma says: A laborer may not eat more than his wages, but the Sages permit it. However,

even according to the Sages,

the court instructs

a person

not to be gluttonous,

and thereby he will

close the door in his own face,

so that they will refrain from hiring him.

Gemara:

And the Gemara asks:

“The Sages”—that is the first tanna!

Why, then, did the tanna also state the words of the Sages?

And the Gemara answers:

There is a difference between them

They disagree with one another concerning what is stated:

“But they instruct

a person not to be gluttonous, lest they refrain from hiring him.”

According to the first tanna, he does not hold that they instruct;

according to the Rabbis, they do hold that they instruct.

If you wish, say: There is a difference between them concerning [the ruling of] Rav Asi.

For Rav Asi said: Even if they hired him only to harvest one cluster, he may eat it,

even though nothing will remain to harvest and place in the owner’s vessels.

The first tanna holds in accordance with Rav Asi, and the explanation of his words is: a laborer may eat a cucumber even when he was hired for it alone. And the Sages say: indeed, it is permitted for a laborer to eat even more than his wages, but not to eat everything.

And Rav Asi said: Even if he harvested only one cluster, he may eat it.

Even though he has not yet harvested anything for the owner.

And it is necessary,

for both statements of Rav Asi are necessary, because each one contains a novel point.

For had he taught us the first one,

when they hired him to harvest only one cluster,

because there is nothing to place in the owner’s vessels,

he has nothing to harvest for the owner; therefore he is permitted to eat.

But where there is something to place in the owner’s vessels,

when they hired him to harvest many clusters,

I might say: let him place [the produce] first

beforehand he should harvest for the owner,

and afterward eat.

For this reason Rav Asi added in his second statement, to say that even in this case he is permitted to make his eating precede the harvesting for the owner.

And had he taught us this,

when they hired him to gather many clusters, so that he is permitted to eat the first cluster that he harvests and only afterward place [produce] in the owner’s vessels, I would say that this is specifically then, because

it is possible to fulfill [the owner’s requirement] at the end,

to harvest the others and place them in the owner’s vessel.

But where it is not possible to fulfill [the owner’s requirement] at the end,

such as when they hired him to harvest only one cluster, and if he eats it he will harvest nothing at all for the owner,

I might say: no.

Therefore

it is necessary

to state Rav Asi’s first statement, to say that even then he is permitted to eat.

If you wish, say: There is a difference between them

between the first tanna and the Sages, concerning what

that

said

Rav.

For Rav said: I found a hidden scroll in the possession of Rabbi Ḥiyya, and it was written in it: Isi ben Yehuda says: “When you enter your fellow’s vineyard”—

the verse speaks of the entry of every person!

Even a person who is not a laborer is permitted to eat.

The first tanna, who says that a laborer may eat even [produce worth] a dinar, holds that specifically a laborer may eat, and not in accordance with the words of Isi ben Yehuda, who permits every person to eat.

And the Sages permit a laborer to eat more than his wages, because even if he were not a laborer, he would be permitted to eat, in accordance with Isi ben Yehuda, who permits every person.

And Rav said: Isi has left no life for any creature!

For every person would enter his fellow’s vineyard and eat his produce.

Rav Ashi said: I stated the teaching,

the words of Isi, who permits every person, and Rav’s objection to his words,

before Rav Kahana.

He said to me: Perhaps

what Isi permitted every person to eat applies only

to those who work for their meal,

when they work of their own accord for the owner in order to eat from the produce, even though he did not hire them,

that they worked and ate;

but Rav

who objected to Isi that he left no life for any creature holds:

even so,

even though they work for the owner for the sake of their meal, nevertheless

it is preferable for a person to hire hired workers and have them harvest his orchard, and not have everyone come and eat it.

They raised a question: A laborer

who eats produce—does

he eat from his own [property],

so that the right to eat is additional wages for his work, and even though he did not stipulate this, Torah law treats him as though he stipulated it?

Or does he eat from that which comes from Heaven?

So that the right to eat is not considered additional wages for his work, but rather it is charity imposed upon the owner.

What is the practical difference? That he says

the laborer: instead of gathering for myself and eating,

give

the produce that I have the right to eat

to my wife and children!

If you say that he eats from his own [property], we give it to them.

For he can give his right to eat to anyone he wishes.

But if you say that he eats from that which comes from Heaven,

and it is charity, and he has no right in the produce to eat it as his wages, then

the Merciful One granted it to him alone,

what he eats and puts into his mouth belongs to him, but

to his wife and children the Merciful One did not grant it,

and he has no right to take from the produce in order to distribute it to whomever he wishes.

What [is the ruling]?

And the Gemara brings a proof:

Come and hear: A laborer may eat

a cucumber, even [one worth] a dinar; a pressed date, even [one worth] a dinar,

even when he eats more than his wages.

If you say that he eats from his own [property],

and his eating is additional wages for his work, one must wonder: does a laborer who

was hired for a small coin,

whose wages were one-sixth of a ma’a, which is a small sum,

eat [produce worth] a zuz!?

Can the additional wages be greater than the wages themselves!?

But rather, what do you have to say?

Prove from this that

he eats from that which comes from Heaven,

and therefore he may eat even more than his wages. This too is difficult:

Ultimately, one hired for a small coin eats [produce worth] a zuz!?

After all, even the gift of charity that the owner is obligated to give the laborer is because he works for him; how can his obligation to give charity be greater than the wages for the work itself!?

Rather, what must you say

by necessity,

the Merciful One granted him [this right],

and the Torah did not limit his right.

Here too,

even if we say that the eating is additional wages,

the Merciful One granted him [the right]

to eat as much as he wishes, without relation to the amount of his wages.

Come and hear: Rabbi Elazar Ḥisma says: A laborer may not eat more than his wages, but the Sages permit it.

What, is it not that they disagree concerning this:

One master holds,

Rabbi Elazar Ḥisma, who forbids the laborer to eat more than his wages, holds

from his own

[property] he eats,

and it is impossible for the additional wages to be greater than the principal.

And one master holds,

the Sages, who permit the laborer to eat even more than his wages, hold

that he eats from that which comes from Heaven,

and the eating is as a charitable gift, and it has no connection to the amount of the wages; he is therefore permitted to eat even more than his wages.

And the Gemara rejects:

No; everyone holds that he eats from his own [property].

And nevertheless, the Sages hold that the eating, which is additional wages, may be greater than the principal wages.

And here they disagree concerning “according to your appetite.”

Concerning the interpretation of the verse: “When you enter your fellow’s vineyard and eat grapes according to your appetite.”

One master,

Rabbi Elazar Ḥisma, who permits eating only up to the amount of the wages,

holds that

“according to your appetite”

means that a laborer eats up to the measure of “according to your appetite.”

And what is “according to your appetite”?

With something for which he risks his life.

Therefore, the eating of the produce is his wages, for which he works even in dangerous places.

And one master,

the Sages, who permit the laborer to eat even more than his wages,

holds that “according to your appetite,”

which is stated in the verse, means:

as your appetite,

like the owner himself.

If you muzzle [yourself],

if he prevents himself from eating during his work,

he is exempt,

and there is no prohibition of “You shall not muzzle” in this,

so too a laborer, if you muzzle him, is exempt

from the prohibition of “You shall not muzzle.”

Come and hear: A nazirite who said: “Give

from the grapes

to my wife

and children”—they do not listen to him.

And if you say that he eats from his own [property],

and he has a right in the produce to take it and eat it,

why do they not listen to him?

After all, it is his right to transfer his eating to whomever he wishes.

And the Gemara rejects:

There, because of “Go away, go away

from the vine,”

they say

this to

the nazirite: Go around, go around,

around the vineyard;

do not approach the vineyard!

Therefore the Sages penalized him by not giving it to his wife and children, so that he would refrain from hiring himself out for work with vines.

Come and hear: A laborer who said, “Give it to my wife and children”—they do not listen to him.

And if you say that he eats from his own [property], why do they not listen to him!?

And the Gemara rejects:

What is meant by “laborer”

here?

A nazirite!

And they penalized him by not giving it to his wife and children, so that he would not hire himself out for work with vines, as above.

But the Gemara asks:

But it was taught:

“A nazirite,” and it was taught:

“A laborer”;

why were both needed? Necessarily, the laborer mentioned here is not a nazirite.

The Gemara rejects:

Were they taught one alongside the other!?

Did we learn about the nazirite and the laborer together in one place? They were taught in two places, in two beraitot; and even where “laborer” is stated, the intention is a nazirite.

Come and hear: From where is it derived concerning a laborer who said, “Give it to my wife”

“and children,” that they do not listen to him?

As it is stated

concerning the laborer who eats:

“And into your vessels

you shall not place it,”

you shall not give.”

And one who gives it to his wife and children, who are not entitled to eat, is like one who takes it into his house.

And this is difficult: if he eats from his own [property], why may he not give it to whomever he wishes?

And if you would say: Here too, it is a nazirite,

and it is a penalty imposed upon him so that he should not work with vines,

if so,

if the beraita is speaking of a nazirite, the difficulty is: is he prevented from giving it to his wife and children

because of “You shall not give into your vessels”!?

But in the case of a nazirite, the fact that he does not give it to his wife and children is a penalty

because of “Go away, go away, they say to the nazirite”!?

And the Gemara answers:

Indeed so;

the principal reason that he does not feed them is because of the penalty.

And since,

and incidentally

it taught it

that a nazirite does not feed his wife and children

in the language “a laborer

does not feed,”

it took it

the beraita took

the verse concerning a laborer.

But this is only a support from the verse; the principal reason is the penalty imposed upon the nazirite.