1)

(a)The Tana Kama of our Mishnah permits a laborer to eat even a Dinar's worth of cucumbers and a Dinar's worth of Kosvos (a species of date), if that is what he is employed to pick.

(b)Rebbi Elazar Chisma restricts him to the equivalent of his wages. He derives this from the word "ke'Nafsh'cha" (written in this regard) because this is the word the Torah is using to describe working in a tree, which contains an element of life-danger (so what the Pasuk is saying is that he may eat as much as he earns for his work).

(c)The advice that Beis-Din would give the gluttonous laborer is not to be so greedy, to avoid shutting the door on future work offers.

(d)The author of this piece of advice is the Chachamim, who argue with Rebbi Elazar Chisma, permitting the laborer to eat even more that his earnings, but add the advice. The Tana Kama does not agree with them however, making this their bone of contention (because otherwise, they seem to be saying the same thing).

2)

(a)Alternatively, the Tana Kama and the Chachamim argue over a statement by Rav Asi, who said that a laborer who has been hired to pick one bunch of grapes is permitted to eat it.

(b)The Tana Kama agrees with this. Rebbi Elazar Chisma says that irrespective of whether he is hired to pick one bunch of grapes or many bunches, he may never eat more than his wages' worth.

(c)Whereas the Chachamim permit him to eat even as much as a Dinar's worth, provided he is a day worker (but not if he is hired to pick only one bunch).

(d)Rav Asi also stated that, even if the laborer has only picked one bunch he is permitted to eat it even though he is going to pick more. What he is now adding to his first statement is that he doesn't need to wait until he has placed some fruit into the owner's basket before eating.

3)

(a)In spite of having issued ...

1. ... the first statement, Rav Asi nevertheless found it necessary to issue the second one because we might otherwise have confined his leniency to where he has been hired to pick only the one bunch. But where he has been hired to work all day, perhaps he is not allowed to eat before having placed something into the owner's basket.

2. ... the second statement, Rav Asi still found it necessary to issue the first one which we would otherwise have forbidden, seeing as the employer will then receive nothing.

(b)As a third alternative, we base the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and the Chachamim on a Megilas S'tarim (a hidden scroll) that Rav found in Rebbi Chiya's house.

(c)A Megilas S'tarim was written, due to the fact that before Rebbi wrote the Mishnah, transcribing Torah shebe'Al Peh was prohibited, so the Talmidim would make their own notes when necessary, and discreetly hide them away of of sight.

(d)The statement on this particular Megilah was by Isi ben Yehudah who interpreted the Pasuk "Ki Savo be'Kerem Rei'echa" literally (extending it to anyone who fancied a free snack).

(e)Rav commented on Isi's Derashah that, according to Isi, nobody would have any fruit left on his trees.

4)

(a)The Chachamim hold like Isi, whereas the Tana Kama does not.

(b)We know that it is not the other way round because the Tana Kama specifically refers to a worker.

(c)The gist of the Chachamim's statement is now that if even a stranger is permitted to help himself to the employer's fruit, it stands to reason that his workers are permitted to eat even more than their wages' worth.

(d)When Rav Ashi reported Rav's comment to Rav Kahana, he suggested that maybe Isi obligated whoever helped himself to fruit to pay for what he ate with work. Rav would counter this suggestion however by insisting that even so, the owner would prefer to have his own employees picking his crops, than a stranger whom he did not know.

5)

(a)We ask whether what a laborer eats is his own in which case he is permitted to give his portion to his wife and children, or Hash-m's (who permitted him to eat) in which case, he is not.

(b)We try and resolve the She'eilah from the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, who permits him to eat a Dinar's worth, even though it is more that what he picked (like Rav Asi) because this would certainly not be permitted if it was his own.

(c)We counter this however by pointing out that it is no more logical for the Torah to permit a laborer to eat more than his wages even if it is Hash-m's. So either way, it must be a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv'.

(d)We try and resolve the She'eilah by making it dependent upon a Machlokes Tana'im in our Mishnah namely that of the Chachamim (who hold like we just initially suggested) and Rebbi Elazar Chisma and, who forbids a laborer to eat more than his wages, and who therefore holds 'mi'Shel Shamayim Hu Ochel'.

(e)We conclude however, that both Tana'im hold 'be'she'Lo He Ochel', and the basis of their Machlokes is how to Darshen "ke'Nafsh'cha". Rebbi Elazar Chisma Darshens it as we explained in our Mishnah, whereas the Chachamim explain "ke'Nafsh'cha", 'Mah Nafsh'cha im Chasamta Patur, Af Po'el Im Chasamta Patur" (like we learned earlier in the Perek).

6)

(a)The Beraisa rules that if a Nazir laborer asks someone to hand his wife and children some grapes he is forbidden to comply with his request.

(b)We try and prove from there that he must eat mi'Shel Shamayim, because if it was mi'Shelo, why should we not give it to them?

(c)We counter the proof however, on the grounds that the reason that we disregard his instructions might be because of the decree 'Lech Lech Amrin li'Nezira S'chor S'chor, le'Karma Lo Sikrav' (which in this case means that we penalize him for taking on work that tempts him to contravene the laws of Nezirus).

7)

(a)And we counter the proof from a similar Beraisa to the previous one, which says the same about a Po'el by establishing it by a Po'el who is a Nazir.

(b)Even though 'Po'el' is synonymous with Nazir, the Tana needs to mention them both because these are two different Beraisos learned by two Tana'im, and each Tana uses a different expression for the same thing.

(c)In yet another Beraisa, the Tana uses the word 'Po'el', but cites the Pasuk "ve'el Kelyecha Lo Siten" which seems to prove that 'mi'Shel Shamayim Hu Ochel', since the Tana cites this Pasuk (implying that it d'Oraisa, and not just a K'nas).

(d)We counter this proof too however on the grounds that, since the Tana uses a Lashon of 'Po'el', he cites the Pasuk in connection with Po'el (but neither Po'el nor the Pasuk should be taken literally).

8)

(a)Another Beraisa discusses someone who hires a worker 'Li'ktzos Te'einim' (to dry figs, in order to make 'Ketzi'os' (cakes of dried figs).

(b)He is Patur from tithing the drying fruit that he eats on the grounds that figs that are designated for Ketzi'os only reach the stage of Gmar Melachah once they become dry.

(c)If he stipulates for himself and his son to eat, he remains Patur from tithing what he himself eats. From the fact that he is Chayav to Ma'aser what his son eats we try and prove that he eats mi'Shel Shamayim (because if it would be mi'Shelo, he ought to be Patur from tithing even what his son eats).

(d)We counter this proof however by attributing the Chiyuv to the fact that he stipulated that his son should eat, which looks like a sale, and which the Rabanan therefore gave the Din of a sale.

9)

(a)If someone hires a laborer to work in his field of Neta Reva'i (the fruit of the fourth year, following the three years of Orlah), the laborer is not permitted to eat because Neta Reva'i can only be eaten within the walls of Yerushalayim.

(b)In a case where the hirer failed to inform the laborer that the fruit was Neta Reva'i, the Tana of the next Mishnah rules that he must redeem the fruit and give some to the laborer. We try and prove from here that 'be'Shelo Hu Ochel' because if he ate 'mi'Shel Shamayim', surely the Torah never granted the laborer a share in what is Asur (so why should the owner be obligated to redeem the fruit and give some to the laborer).

(c)We counter that too by pointing out that he is not giving him the fruit based on the original conditions, but because it looks like a false sale (because had the laborer known that the fruit was Neta Reva'i, he would certainly not have been willing to work. So Chazal obligated the hirer to compensate the laborer for his loss).

10)

(a)The Tana continues 'Nisparsu Igulav Nispatchah Chaviyosav, Harei Eilu Lo Yochlu'. In the case of ...

1. ... 'Nisparsu Igulav', the laborer is hired to press the figs back into round cakes of figs, as they were before they fell apart.

2. ... 'Nispatchah Chaviyosav to re-place the lids on to the barrels, as they were before.

(b)And he is then forbidden to eat (or drink) as he works since they already reached the stage of Gmar Melachah for Ma'asros when ...

1. ... the figs were pressed into Igulei Deveilah (round cakes of figs) the first time.

2. ... the wine was ready to drink.

(c)There too, the Tana concludes 've'Im Lo Hodi'o, Me'aser ve'Nosen Lo'; and there too, we try to bring the same proof that 'be'Shelo Hu Ochel'. We cannot simply answer like we answered the previous Kashya 'Mishum de'Mechzi ke'Mekach Ta'us' because, whereas in the case of 'Nisparsu Igulav', it makes sense to say that the laborer did not know that the figs had reached the stage of Gmar Melachah, how can we say that by barrels of wine, which the laborer must have known had already passed the stage of Gmar Melachah, as soon as the owner hired him to replace the lids on to the barrels.

11)

(a)Rav Sheshes therefore establishes the Mishnah by barrels of wine, which, after the lids were removed, were emptied into the wine-pit, according to Rebbi Akiva, who considers the Gmar Melachah of wine in a pit as 'mi'she'Yeired le'Bor ve'Yikpeh', meaning from the time that the wine ferments, the pits float to the top and one removes the skins.

(b)It will not however, go according to the Rabanan who give the Shi'ur of Gmar Melachah as 'mi'she'Yarad le'Bor' (in which case the laborer knew that he was not permitted to drink the wine).

(c)We do not expect the laborer to have asked whether the skins had already been removed or not because the Tana is speaking in a place where it is customary for the laborer who draws the wine from the pit to do this.

12)

(a)According to the newfound Beraisa of Tani Rav Z'vid d'Vei Rebbi Hoshaya, the Tana Kama of the Beraisa requires 'mi'Yashleh be'Chaviyos ve'Nikpeh' (when the previous process took place but after it was placed in the barrels). Rebbi Akiva says 'from the time that the wine is placed into barrels and has fermented, at which stage some of the dregs float to the surface and are removed.

(b)Consequently, it is no longer necessary to establish the previous Beraisa when the wine had been poured back into the pit. We do not expect the laborer to have asked whether the dregs had not already been removed from the barrel because here again, the Tana is speaking in a place where it is customary for the laborer who closes the barrels to remove the dregs.

(c)The Tana of the above Mishnah permits a laborer to accept money instead of eating fruit on behalf of himself, his grown-up children, his grown-up Avadim and his wife because they are all Bnei Da'as, who know and are Mochel.

(d)With regard to his young children and Avadim and his animals however he is not empowered to stipulate (even with their consent), who are not subject to Mechilah.

13)

(a)From the fact that the above stipulation is not valid on behalf of Ketanim, assuming that the master is feeding them, we try to prove that a laborer eats mi'Shel Shamayim, because otherwise, why should he not be able to stipulate on their behalf.

(b)We refute this proof however by changing the case to where he is not feeding them.

(c)And the reason that his condition is valid with regard to Gedolim, but not to Ketanim (is because Gedolim are Bnei Mechilah whereas Ketanim [whose Da'as is incomplete] are not).

(d)The Beraisa, which also lists all the above cases, differs from the Mishnah inasmuch as it permits the laborer to stipulate even on behalf of his Avadim Ketanim.

14)

(a)So we revert to our original suggestion, that both Tana'im are speaking when he is providing them with Mezonos. Initially we presume that ...

1. ... the Tana of the Mishnah forbids stipulating on behalf of Avadim Ketanim because he holds 'mi'Shel Shamayim Hu Ochel'.

2. ... the Tana of the Beraisa permits it because he holds 'be'Shelo Hu Ochel'.

(b)We counter this however, by establishing both Tana'im by 'mi'Shelo Hu Ochel', and the basis of the two opinions is whether he is feeding them (the Tana of the Beraisa) or not the Tana of our Mishnah).

(c)Despite the fact that the Beraisa speaks when he is feeding his young children, the laborer cannot stipulate on their behalf because the Torah did not give the father rights over their pain (whether it is mental, emotional or physical).

(d)Regarding our Mishnah, we ascribed the fact that the laborer is not authorized to stipulate on behalf of his Avadim Ketanim to the fact that he is not feeding them. The problem we have with this is that those who permit a man to say to his Eved 'Asei Imi ve'Eini Zancha' ('Work for me but I will not feed you') then clashes with our Mishnah, which clearly forbids it.

15)

(a)So we suggest that the Machlokes Tana'im is whether a master can say to his Eved 'Asei imi ve'Eini Zancha' (the Beraisa) or not (the Mishnah). The problem with Rebbi Yochanan, who permits it is how can Rebbi Yochanan (who always follows a Stam Mishnah), ignore our Mishnah and follow a Beraisa

(b)So we propose instead that both Tana'im hold 'mi'Shel Shamayim Hu Ochel', and when the Tana of the Beraisa says 'Kotzetz', he means that the employer will feed them in advance, so that they have no appetite to eat whilst they are working.

(c)The problem this presents is how the Beraisa can then rule 'Aval Lo al-Yedei Behemto' in view of the fact that we previously permitted this with regard to an animal?

16)

(a)So we finally establish that the Beraisa holds 'be'Shelo Hu Ochel'.

(b)And the Tana is speaking, according to ...

1. ... Rebbi Yochanan, irrespective of whether he is feeding them or not".

2. ... those who disagree with him (who forbid the master to say to his Eved 'Asei imi ve'Eini Zancha'), specifically where he is.

(c)Whereas the Mishnah holds 'mi'Shel Shamayim Hu Ochel'.

(d)Consequently, he may not stipulate on behalf of his Avadim Kena'anim, even if he is feeding them.