Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Bava Metzia, 92

1) A DONKEY'S RIGHT TO EAT

QUESTION: The Mishnah (91b) says that a donkey, while it unburdens the load from its back, may eat from that load. The Gemara asks, "While it is unburdening the load from its back, from where is it supposed to eat?" The Gemara explains that the Mishnah means that the donkey may eat from the load all the while that it is carrying it.

What exactly does the Gemara mean by its question, "While it is unburdening the load from its back, from where is it supposed to eat?" Why can it not mean simply that the animal may eat the produce while it is being removed from its back?

ANSWERS:

(a) RASHI explains that the load on a donkey is removed all at once and then taken away, and thus there is nothing from which the donkey can eat at the moment that it is unloaded.

(b) The RA'AVAD, cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes, and the RITVA explain that the Gemara is asking *how* it can be permitted for the donkey to eat the produce while it is being unloaded from its back. At that moment, the donkey is no longer doing any work with the produce, since it has finished transporting it.

The Ra'avad and Ritva question this explanation. We find that a hired laborer may eat from the fruits of the field even when he is returning from the press, and when he is walking from one job to another (91b). Similarly, it should be permitted for a donkey to eat the produce that it has finished carrying before it is loaded with another batch!

1. The RA'AVAD answers that the Gemara is asking that the donkey should not be permitted to eat after it has finished working with (i.e. transporting) the produce, because the reason why one must let the donkey eat is because of his obligation to prevent the owner of the donkey from incurring a loss. However, his obligation to help the owner avoid a loss does not override his obligation to the owner of avoiding Bitul Melachah, which will also cause the owner a loss. Therefore, the donkey may not eat after it has finished working, but while it is still carrying the load it may eat, since there will be no Bitul Melachah.

2. The Ra'avad offers a different answer and says that when the Mishnah permits a hired laborer to eat from the fruits of the field on his way back from the press (even though he has finished working), this does not mean that he may take grapes from the press, for, indeed, his work is finished with those grapes and he may not eat them (for it is no longer "b'Disho," "during the threshing" (Devarim 25:4), but rather it is "*after* the threshing"). Rather, the Mishnah means that he may eat grapes that were not yet harvested which he passes on his way out. He may eat them even though he has not worked with them, since he is *going* to be working with them and harvesting them. The donkey, though, may not eat from the produce that it has finished transporting, since its work with that produce is finished.

3. The RAN answers that the difference between a hired laborer who has finished working and a donkey that has finished working is that if a hired laborer eats fruit while walking from one job to the next, then he will be embarrassed to eat more from the second field and he will not eat more while he is working. An animal, though, has no sense of shame, and thus even if it eats from the produce that it has finished transported, it will eat more from the next batch of produce that it transports.

(d) The RITVA answers that the reason we permit a laborer to eat while he is returning from the press and while he is walking from one job to the next is because if we allow him to eat only during the time that he is working, he will have to take off time from his work, and this will cause Bitul Melachah. Therefore, it is preferable to allow him to eat while he is walking from one job to the next, before he begins his next task. An animal, though, does not take off time to eat while it is working or carrying a load, and there is no Bitul Melachah. Therefore, we allow the animal to eat only while it is working and not after it has finished working. (I. Alsheich)

QUESTION: The Tana Kama in the Mishnah states that a hired laborer may eat fruit with which he is working even if it is worth a Dinar. Rebbi Elazar Chasma says that a laborer may not eat more than the value of his wages. The Chachamim permit him to eat more than the value of his wages. The Gemara asks that the Chachamim seem to be saying the same thing as the Tana Kama. The Gemara answers that the difference is that the Chachamim hold that while it is permitted for the laborer to eat more than the value of his wages, we instruct him not to be gluttonous, so that other employers will not be opposed to hiring him. The Tana Kama, though, holds that we do not give him such advice.

Why, according to the Tana Kama, do we not instruct the laborer not to be gluttonous? It is for his own benefit to give him such advice!

ANSWERS:

(a) RABEINU YEHONASAN, cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes, writes that we may not give the laborer not any advice to limit the amount that he eats. Since the Torah does not limit the quantity that he may eat, we may not take away from him that which the Torah gives to him.

The YAD DAVID concurs with the approach of Rabeinu Yehonasan. He adds explanation as follows. We know that all of the commandments of Hashem are upright (c.f. Tehilim 19:9). If we were to instruct the laborer not to eat so much, then we would be implying that the Torah of Hashem is lacking and that this Mitzvah is not correct, for the Torah gives the laborer permission to eat more than his wages. The Chachamim, though, are not afraid for this, because although the Torah gives a laborer the rights to eat as much as he wants, we know that there are instances in which the Torah addresses a person's Yetzer ha'Ra (Kidushin 21b). It is the laborer's choice to take advantage of his full rights to eat as much as he wants, or to conquer his Yetzer ha'Ra and to limit what he eats.

(b) The RITVA YESHANOS writes that, in truth, the Tana Kama and the Chachamim are not arguing. The Tana Kama agrees that it is permitted to instruct the laborer not to eat so much. The difference between the Tana Kama and the Chachamim is not a difference in Halachah; the only difference is that the Tana Kama does not mention in his words that he give the laborer advice, while the Chachamim specify explicitly that we are to instruct the laborer not to eat so much.

(c) It could be that the Chachamim maintain that we are obligated to instruct the laborer not to be gluttonous, while according to the Tana Kama we are permitted, but not obligated, to instruct him not to be gluttonous. (This is the way the D'VAR YAKOV understands the view of the ROSH.) (I. Alsheich)

92b

QUESTION: The Gemara asks whether the fruits that a laborer is permitted to eat while he is working are considered to belong to him, or whether they do not belong to him but rather the Torah gives him permission to eat them. The Gemara cites a Mishnah in Ma'aseros (2:7) which states that if a laborer who is being hired to harvest and dry out figs stipulates with his employer that he will work on condition that he and his son are permitted to eat from the figs, then the laborer himself may eat the figs and is not obligated to separate Ma'aser (since the figs have not yet been cut open to dry and thus they have not reached their final stage of processing). The son, however, must separate Ma'aser from the fruits that he wants to eat. It must be, suggests the Gemara, that the fruits that a laborer eats does not actually belong to him, because if they did then his son would not have to separate Ma'aser from them (just like the laborer himself does not have to separate Ma'aser). Ravina answers that perhaps the fruit does belong to him and the fruit is not obligated in Ma'aser, but the Chachamim required the son to separate Ma'aser because it *looks* like a transaction of a "Mekach." RASHI (DH u'Vno Ochel) explains that the son is like a Loke'ach, a purchaser, who buys fruit from the laborer. Just as a Loke'ach is obligated immediately to separate Ma'aser from the fruit that he buys, so, too, the son must separate Ma'aser.

The Rishonim ask that in this case, the Melachah of the figs has not been completed ("G'mar Melachah"), as Rashi says (DH Harei Zeh Ochel). There is one opinion (Beitzah 35a) which maintains that purchasing fruit does *not* make it obligated in Ma'aser unless the fruit already had "G'mar Melachah." According to this opinion, why should the son be obligated to separate Ma'aser, even if he is like a Loke'ach? The figs have not yet had "G'mar Melachah!"

ANSWERS:

(a) The TOSFOS RABEINU PERETZ answers that the Mishnah is referring to a case in which the son wants to eat two figs at a time. When one eats in such a manner, the fruit is considered to have had "G'mar Melachah" (since it is being used for a proper meal, as it were) and thus the "G'mar Melachah" together with the "Mekach" obligate it in Ma'aser.

(b) The TIFERES YISRAEL (Ma'aseros 2:41) answers that the Mishnah is referring to a case in which the fruit has already been brought into the Chatzer. Therefore, even though the "G'mar Melachah" has not yet been done, the fruit is obligated in Ma'aser due to the combination of it being like a "Mekach" when the son takes it, and the fact that it has entered the Chatzer. (The reason why the Chatzer does not make the obligation of Ma'aser take effect even without there being a "Mekach" is because his intention is to do further work with the figs (to dry them out). The Mishnah in Ma'aseros (3:1) says that entering the Chatzer does not obligate fruit in Ma'aser when they were brought in with intention to be dried. When the fruit is sold to a Loke'ach, though, it is considered to have reach the "G'mar Melachah," since "Loke'ach -- Einav b'Mekcho.") (I. Alsheich)