Bava Metzia 92a (צב.) — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna:

“And with regard to a donkey,”

it is forbidden to muzzle it

when it is unloading.

The Gemara asks:

“When it is unloading”—

from where could it eat!?

After all, at the time of unloading, the load is removed from it all at once, so from where could it eat? And it explains:

Say instead: “Until it has finished unloading,”

it eats from the load on its back. And although it cannot see the food, if it were muzzled it would not suffer.

We learned this as well:

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

As the Sages taught: “A donkey and a camel,”

if the employer hired a donkey-driver together with his donkey, or a camel-driver together with his camel, so that they would carry his load,

“they eat”

the donkey and the camel

“from the load on 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 it to them.”

For he has no right to feed his animal; it may eat only what the ox eats on its own.

Mishna:

A worker employed in the field of the owner is entitled to eat even a large amount of

a cucumber, even worth

the value of

a dinar.

He is likewise entitled to eat

a date-cake

of dates,

even worth

the value of

a dinar.

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

even according to the Sages,

the court teaches

a person

“not to be voracious,”

and thereby he will

“close the door against himself,”

as they will refrain from hiring him.

Gemara:

The Gemara asks:

“The Sages”—that is the first tanna!

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

The Gemara answers:

“There is a difference between them”

in the matter stated:

“However, they teach

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

According to the first tanna, there is no teaching;

according to the Rabbis, there is teaching.

Alternatively, there is a difference between them with regard to the statement of Rav Asi.

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

even though nothing will remain for him to harvest and place in the owner’s vessel.

The first tanna agrees with Rav Asi, and this is the meaning of his words: A worker may eat a cucumber even when he was hired for that cucumber alone. But the Sages say that although a worker may eat even more than his wages, he may not eat all of it.

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

And this is so even though he has not yet harvested anything for the owner.

And it is necessary

to state both of Rav Asi’s statements, because each contains a novel point.

For if he had taught us only the first one,

that he was hired to harvest only one cluster,

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

there is nothing left for him to harvest for the owner, and therefore he may eat.

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

when he was hired to harvest many clusters,

I might say: Let him place it first

before harvesting for the owner,

and afterward eat.

For this reason Rav Asi added his second statement, teaching that even in this case he may eat before harvesting for the owner.

And if he had taught us only this,

that he was hired to harvest many clusters, and that he may eat the first cluster he harvests and only afterward place produce in the owner’s vessel, one might have said that this is permitted specifically because

it is possible to fulfill the obligation at the end,

by harvesting the other clusters and placing them in the owner’s vessel.

But where it is impossible to fulfill the obligation at the end,

for example, when he was hired to harvest only one cluster, and if he eats it he will harvest nothing for the owner,

I might say: No.

Therefore,

it is necessary

to state Rav Asi’s first teaching, to say that even then he may eat.

Alternatively, there is a difference between them

between the first tanna and the Sages, concerning what

Rav

said.

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

—

the verse is speaking of the entry of every person!”

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

The first tanna, who says that a worker may eat even produce worth a dinar, holds that specifically a worker may eat, and not in accordance with Isi ben Yehuda, who permits everyone to eat.

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

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

For everyone could enter another person’s vineyard and eat his produce.

Rav Ashi said: “I stated this teaching,”

the words of Isi, who permits everyone to eat, and Rav’s objection to his words,

“before Rav Kahana.”

He said to me: “Perhaps”

what Isi permitted everyone to eat applies only

“to those who work for their meal,”

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

“they worked and ate.”

But Rav

who objected to Isi, saying that he had left no life for any creature, held

“even so,”

even when they work for the owner in exchange for their meal,

“a person would prefer to hire workers and have them harvest his orchard, rather than have everyone come and eat it.”

They raised a dilemma: A worker

who eats produce—

does he eat from his own,

meaning that the right to eat is an addition to his wages for his labor, and even if he did not stipulate this, Torah law treats him as though he had stipulated it,

or does he eat from that which Heaven grants?

Meaning, the right to eat is not considered an addition to his wages, but rather charity imposed upon the owner.

What is the practical difference? If he said

the worker: Instead of harvesting 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, we give it to them.

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

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

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

“the Merciful One granted him the right only for himself,”

and what he eats and puts into his mouth becomes his; but

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

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

What is the ruling?

The Gemara brings a proof:

“Come and hear: A worker eats

a cucumber, even worth a dinar; a date-cake, even worth a dinar,”

even if he eats more than the value of his wages.

If you say that he eats from his own,

and his eating is an addition to his wages for his labor, this is difficult: Is a worker who

“was hired for a zuz,”

for one-sixth of a ma’a, which is a small sum,

“to eat a zuz’s worth!?”

Can the addition to his wages be greater than the wages themselves!?

Rather, what can you say?

Prove from this that

he eats from that which Heaven grants,

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

“Ultimately, he was hired for a small sum and eats a zuz’s worth!?”

After all, even the charitable gift that the owner is obligated to give the worker is due to the fact that he works for him. How, then, can his obligation to give charity be greater than the value of the work itself!?

Rather, what must you say

—

the Merciful One granted him the right,

and the Torah did not limit his right.

So too here,

even if we say that the eating is an addition to his wages,

the Merciful One granted him the right

to eat as much as he wishes, irrespective of the amount of his wages.

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

Is that not the issue over which they disagree:

One master holds

that Rabbi Elazar Ḥisma, who forbids a worker to eat more than the value of his wages, holds that

from his own

he eats,

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

And one master holds

that the Sages, who permit a worker to eat even more than the value of his wages, hold that

he eats from that which Heaven grants,

and the eating is a charitable gift, unrelated to the amount of his wages; therefore he may eat even more than his wages.

The Gemara rejects this:

“No; everyone agrees that he eats from his own.”

Even so, the Sages hold that the eating, which is an addition to his wages, can be greater than the principal wages.

“Rather, here they disagree with regard to ‘as yourself.’”

They disagree over the interpretation of the verse: “When you enter your fellow’s vineyard, you may eat grapes as yourself.”

One master,

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

holds that

“as yourself”

means that a worker may eat only to the extent of “as yourself.”

And what is meant by “as yourself”?

With something for which he risks his life.

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

And the other master,

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

holds that “as yourself,”

which is stated in the verse, means:

“As for yourself,”

like the owner himself.

“If you muzzled 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, if you muzzled a worker, he 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”—we do not heed him.

And if you say that he eats from his own,

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

why do we not heed him?

After all, he may transfer his right to eat to whomever he wishes.

The Gemara rejects this:

“There, because of ‘Keep away, keep away”

from the vine,”

“they say”

this to

“the nazirite: Go around and around,”

around the vineyard,

“do not approach the vineyard!”

Therefore, the Sages penalized him by not allowing the produce to be given to his wife and children, so that he would refrain from hiring himself out to work with vines.

Come and hear: A worker who said, “Give it to my wife and children”—we do not heed him.

And if you say that he eats from his own, why do we not heed him!?

The Gemara rejects this:

“What is meant here by ‘worker’”

in this statement?

A nazirite!

And he was penalized so that the produce would not be given to his wife and children, to prevent him from hiring himself out to work with vines, as above.

But the Gemara objects:

“And it was taught

‘a nazirite,’ and it was taught

‘a worker’;”

why were both necessary? Necessarily, the worker mentioned here is not a nazirite.

The Gemara rejects this:

“Were they taught together!?

Did we learn the cases of the nazirite and the worker in one place together? They were taught in two separate places, in two beraitot; even the worker may refer to a nazirite.

Come and hear: From where is it derived that a worker who said, ‘Give it to my wife’

“and children,” we do not heed him?

“As it is stated”

with regard to a worker who eats:

“And into your vessel

to take and eat after your work,

you shall not place.”

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

This is difficult: If he eats from his own, why may he not give it to whomever he wishes?

And if you would say that here too it means a nazirite,

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

if so,

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

“because of ‘Into your vessel you shall not place’!?

After all, in the case of a nazirite, the reason he may not give it to his wife and children is a penalty,

“because ‘Keep away, keep away,’ they say to the nazirite!”

The Gemara answers:

“Indeed so,”

the fundamental reason that he may not feed them is the penalty.

“And since,”

as an incidental matter,

“it taught it”

that a nazirite may not feed his wife and children

“using the expression ‘worker

may not feed them,’”

“it employed”

the beraita

“the verse concerning a worker.”

But this is only an allusion based on the verse; the fundamental reason is the penalty imposed upon the nazirite.