Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) HOW MUCH MAY AN EMPLOYEE EAT?

(a) (Mishnah): A worker may eat even a Dinar's worth of hops or dates;

1. R. Eliezer Chisma says, a worker may not eat more than his wages;
2. Chachamim permit this - but we teach a person not to be gluttonous, for then no one will hire him.

(b) (Gemara) Question: Chachamim agree with the first Tana!
(c) Answer #1: They argue whether we teach people not to be gluttonous - the first Tana says that we do not.
(d) Answer #2: They argue regarding Rav Asi's law.

1. (Rav Asi): Even if a worker was hired only to harvest one cluster, he may eat it.
2. (Rav Asi): Even if a worker only harvested one cluster, he may eat it.
3. Rav Asi must teach both laws.

i. If he only taught the first - one might have thought, since there will not remain anything for the owner, he may eat - but when he will (later) harvest for the owner, he must harvest before eating;
ii. If he only taught the second - one might have thought, there he may eat for he will later harvest for the owner - but if the owner will be left with nothing, he may not eat.

4. Version #1 (Rashi): The first Tana agrees with Rav Asi - he may eat the hops or dates, even if he will not harvest for the owner; Chachamim argue - they permit eating more than his wage, but not all that he harvests.
5. Version #2 (Ritva): The first Tana argues with Rav Asi - his Chidush is only that he may eat a Dinar's worth; Chachamim agree with Rav Asi - they permit eating more than his wage, but not all that he harvests.

(e) Answer #3: They argue regarding Rav's law.

1. (Rav - hidden scroll - Isi ben Yehudah): "Ki Savo b'Cherem Re'echa" - anyone (not only a worker) may eat.
2. Rav: This does not allow any (farmer) to survive!
3. Suggestion (Rav Kahana): Perhaps Isi only permits one who (was not hired, but) works in the land the value of what he eats!
4. Question: If so, why did Rav object to the law?
5. Answer: A person prefers to choose workers to harvest his land.
6. Version #1 (Rashi): The first Tana argues with Rav - he says, a worker may eat; Chachamim agree with Rav, they say, 'we teach a person (even not a worker!)...!
7. Version #2 (R. Chananel): The first Tana agrees with Rav - one who works is called a worker, even if he was not hired; Chachamim argue with Rav - they permit eating more than his wage, implying that he was hired.

(a) Question: Does a worker own what he eats - or no, he just eats with the Torah's permission?

1. Question: What difference does it make?
2. Answer: Whether or not he may give what he is entitled to eat to his family.

i. If he owns what he eats, he may give them;
ii. If the Torah merely allows him - it did not allow others.

(b) Answer #1 (Mishnah): A worker may eat even a Dinar's worth of Kishus.

1. If he owns what he eats - we cannot say that he was hired for a sixth of a Dinar, and he eats a Dinar's worth!
2. Objection: Even if we say that the Torah merely allows him, this is astounding!

i. We must say, indeed the Torah entitles him - we can equally say, it entitles him to own what he eats.

(c) Answer #2 (Mishnah - R. Eliezer Chisma): A worker may not eat more than his wages; Chachamim permit this.

1. Suggestion: R. Eliezer holds that he owns what he eats, Chachamim say that the Torah merely allows him to eat.
2. Rejection: No, they do not argue about that.
3. All agree that if not for "K'Nafshecha", he could eat more than his wages;

i. R. Eliezer expounds "K'Nafshecha" - (he may eat as much as his wages, for which he risks his) Nefesh;
ii. Chachamim expound "K'Nafshecha" - your worker is as yourself, if you muzzle him you are exempt.

(d) Answer #3 (Beraisa): A Nazir was harvesting grapes; he said 'Let my family eat what I am entitled to' - they may not.

1. If he owns what he eats, he may give them!

(e) Rejection: That is a decree to dissuade a Nazir from harvesting grapes - Nezirim should stay far from vineyards.
(f) Answer #4 (Beraisa): A worker said 'Let my family eat what I am entitled to' - they may not.

1. If he owns what he eats, he may give them!

(g) Rejection: That refers to a Nazir.
(h) Question: But the other Beraisa speaks of a Nazir!
(i) Answer: They are different Beraisos, they may teach the same law.
(j) Answer #5 (Beraisa): If a worker said 'Let my family eat what I am entitled to', they may not - "V'El Kelyecha Lo Siten".
(k) Rejection: Perhaps that refers to a Nazir.
(l) Question: But the Beraisa attributes the law to "V'El Kelyecha Lo Siten", not because a Nazir should avoid vineyards!
(m) Answer: Really, it is because a Nazir should avoid vineyards;

1. Since the Beraisa calls him a worker, it cites the verse of a worker, but this is not the true source.

(n) Answer #6 (Mishnah): If Reuven was hired to set figs to dry, he may eat without tithing (since the final processing for Ma'aser was not done, the Torah lets him eat, this is not a sale);

1. If he stipulated 'on condition that I and my son may eat', or 'on condition that my son may eat in place of my wages (Rashi; Tosfos - in place of my eating)', Reuven eats without tithing, his son must tithe before eating.
2. If he owns what he eats, why must his son tithe what he eats? Just as he is exempt, his son should also be exempt (Tosfos - on the amount his father would have eaten)!

(o) Rejection (Ravina): Mid'Oraisa, the son is exempt; Chachamim decreed that he tithes, because it looks like a sale.
(p) Answer #7 (Mishnah): If Reuven hired Shimon to work with fourth year produce (which has Kedushah like Ma'aser Sheni), Shimon may not eat;

1. If Reuven did not tell him that he will work with fourth-year produce, Reuven must redeem what Shimon wants to eat.
2. If the Torah allows workers to eat - why must Reuven redeem so Shimon can eat, the Torah never allows workers to eat fourth-year produce!

(q) Rejection: That is like a mistaken contract (they agreed to work assuming that they could eat).
(r) Question (end of the Mishnah): If Shimon was hired to repress rings of figs that came apart or reseal barrels that were opened, he does not eat (since they were Kavu'a for Ma'aser);

1. If Reuven did not tell him that he will work with such produce, Reuven must tithe them and allow Shimon to eat.
2. If the Torah allows workers to eat, why is this? The Torah never allows workers to eat Tevel!
3. Suggestion: Perhaps here also, it is like a mistaken contract.
4. Rejection: Granted, repressing figs is like a mistaken contract (Shimon thought they were not pressed yet), but resealing barrels is not - Shimon knows that the wine is Tevel!
5. Answer #1 (Rav Sheshes): The case is, the wine spilled back into the pit. (He was hired to draw it from the pit - he thought it was not yet barreled.)

i. Question: (Beraisa): Wine is Tevel once it flows into the pit.
ii. Answer: The Mishnah is R. Akiva, who says that it is Tevel after Kipuy (removal of the grape skins and pits that float on top of the wine in the pit).
iii. Question: Shimon had no right to assume he would eat - perhaps Kipuy was already done!
iv. Answer: The Mishnah is in a place where the one who draws from the pit does Kipuy.

6. Answer #2: We need not say that the wine spilled back into the pit - Rav Zvid taught that Chachamim say that wine is Tevel after Kipuy, R. Akiva says, after doing Shiluy (removal of the dregs that float on top of the wine in the barrel);

i. Shimon did not know that Shiluy was done.
ii. Question: Shimon had no right to assume he would eat - perhaps Shiluy was already done!
iii. Answer: The Mishnah is in a place where the one who corks the barrel does Kipuy.

(a) Answer #8 (Mishnah): Shimon may stipulate with his employer to receive extra wages in place of eating; he may also stipulate on behalf of his wife and adult children and slaves, because they have intelligence (they can pardon their right to eat);

1. He may not stipulate on behalf of his minor children or slaves or his animals, because they lack intelligence.
2. We are thinking that Shimon feeds his children and slaves, therefore he gets their wages.
3. If the Torah allows workers to eat, we understand why he cannot stipulate - minors do not acquire the food until they eat it!

i. But if a worker owns what he eats, it is as part of his wages - it is Shimon's, why can't he stipulate for them?!

(b) Rejection: The case is, he does not feed them.

1. Question: If so, why can he stipulate for adults?
2. Answer: If they agree, they pardon their privileges.

(c) Answer #9: Tana'im argue whether or not a worker owns what he eats.

1. Contradiction (Beraisa - R. Hoshaya): Shimon may stipulate on behalf of himself, his wife and adult children and his (adult or minor) Kana'ani slaves, but not on behalf of his animals or minor children!

i. Suggestion: The Mishnah and Beraisa both speak when he feeds them; the Mishnah holds that the Torah allows workers to eat, the Beraisa holds that a worker owns what he eats.