Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 12, scan section 41

it to consume while laboring on another vine ? If we assume that a laborer is entitled to consume of that kind which is to be put in the vessel of the owner, then he certainly may do so, or he is entitled to consume only from those which are to be put in the vessel of the owner; and as the grapes of the first vine were not to be put in the owner's vessel, he may not eat of them ; and lest one say that he may not, then there would be difficulty in understanding why the ox, while laboring at things which are attached to the ground, may eat of them, because those attached to the ground are not to be put in the vessels of the owner. Said R. Shesheth b. R. Aidi: This case cannot prove anything, as it may mean that a branch with fruit reaches the laboring ox, but not otherwise. Come and hear. Our Mishna states that if one is occupied with dates he must not consume grapes; from which we infer that he may consume of one kind of fruit. Now, if it be not allowed to take fruit from one vine when he is going to labor on another, how could such a case be found ? Said R. Shesheth b. R. Aidi : This proves nothing, as the Mishna may treat of a case where the dates were resting on the vine, or vice versa ; and it came to teach that although he cannot occupy himself unless he takes of the dates resting upon the grapes, and one may say that in such a case he is considered to be occupied with both, the Mishna teaches that is not so (and so it is not safe to infer from this that if he is occupied with one kind of fruit in one place he may partake of it while laboring on another of the same kind). Come and hear! The latter part, " One may wait until he reaches the place where the good ones are," etc. Now, if one would be allowed to eat of the fruit on which he is not occupied, at another place where he is occupied, then why should he wait until he reaches the place of the good ones ? Let him immediately bring and eat of it. Nay; it may be that he is not allowed to do so because of wast- ing time. However, if so, the question may arise: How is it if he has somebody — e.g., his wife or his children who are not laboring there — and they can bring him the good ones, so that there is no waste of time; may it so be done or not ? Come and hear the other statement of our Mishna :" In all cases, . . . however, in order not to waste time," etc. And the school- men, in explaining the reason for this statement, were about to say that because, biblically, walking is not considered laboi: 240 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. one, biblically, is not allowed to eat in that case. Therefore the enactment in question was necessary, from which it is to be inferred that when one is laboring he may consume even bibli- cally, and it may be decided that he may do so. However, it may be said that walking is considered labor, and yet according to the Bible walking is not considered labor, and yet according to the Bible one may not do so, and therefore the enactment was necessary; hence the question may be decided negatively. An (zss is ejititled, etc. While unloaded ! From what, then, shall it consume ? Correct the Mishna so that it reads, " until it is unloaded " ; and this is the same as the rabbis taught else- where, that an ass and a camel may consume from the load M'hich is upon them. However, one may not take of the load with his hands and give them to eat. MISHNA V. : The laborer may consume of cucumbers or dates with which he is working, even to a dinar's worth. R. Elazar b. Hasma, however, said: A laborer must not consume more than his wages; but the sages allow even this. Neverthe- less, a man should be instructed that he must not be greedy, so that the doors of mankind should not be shut against him. GEMARA: Are not the sages' statements the same as the first Tana ? The point of difference can be found in the follow- ing saying of Rabh: I have found hidden scrolls in the house of R. Hyya, in which it was written as follows: " Aisi b. Jehudah says: The verse written [Deut. xxiii. 25]: ' When thou comest in the vineyard of thy neighbor,' means not only a laborer, but anybody." And Rabh himself added: " Aisi's theory does not allow any one to make a living " [i.e., if it would be allowed for every one to enter the vineyard of a stranger, and to consume, as much as he likes, then nothing would remain for the owner). So that the first Tana does not agree with Aisi, and the sages do. Said R. Ashi : I have repeated this Halakha before R. Kahanah, and questioned him whether it meant laborers who are doing their work for their meal only; and he answered me: That even then one would prefer to hire men to cut off the trees of his vineyard than to hav^ people enter and consume all it contains. The schoolmen propounded a question : Are we to interpret the command of the Scripture, that a laborer may eat in addi- tion to his wages {i.e., the Scripture has added to his wage the consuming of the fruit he is engaged with, consequently it is a part of his wages; or is it only a kind of charity which the TRACT BABA METZIA (MIDDLE GATE). 241 Scripture commands to give him) ? And the difference is, if the laborer says: " Give this that I am entitled to to my wife and children." If it is a part of his wages, this could be done; but if it is only a kind of charity, it may be said that the Merciful One has rewarded only the laborer himself, but not his wife and children. What is the law ? Come and hear! R. Elazarb. Hasma said : A laborer must not consume more than his wages allow. Are we not to assume that the point of their differing is that one holds that this is a part of his wages, and the other holds that it is a kind of charity ? Nay, all agree that this is a part of his wages; and the point of their differing is the explanation of the word knaphshkha* which is mentioned in the Scripture {ibid., ibid.\ One holds that this word may be interpreted, " a thing which you get with danger to your life " {i.e., if one undertakes to ascend to the top of the tree in order to get the fruit), and the other interprets this word, " as thy soul " {i.e., as for thy soul thou likest to muzzle thyself not to partake, thou mayest do so; the same is the case with the laborer, in some in- stances thou mayest prevent him from consuming). Come and hear! "A laborer who was a Nazarite, if he said, Give the grapes or wine that I am entitled to to my wife and children, he must not be listened to." Now, if this is a part of his wages, why should he not be listened to ? Nay ; there is another rea- son. People say, it must be said to a Nazarite, Go around, go around, so that you shall not meet a vineyard {i.e., the things which are forbidden to him should not be found near him).