Bava Metzia

Abaye said: As a labourer unemployed in his craft.  Now they [the first two clauses of the Mishnah] are [both] necessary. For if the case of a tradesman were taught, I would think that only a storekeeper is it sufficient to pay as an unemployed worker, seeing that his efforts are not great;  but [when one is advanced] money for buying provisions, his toil being great,  I would think it insufficient to pay him [merely] as an unemployed artisan. Whilst if [the case of advancing] money to buy provisions were taught, I would think that only there must he be paid as an unemployed worker, since much work is involved; but for a shopkeeper, who makes very little effort, I would think a mere trifle sufficient, e.g., even if he just dipped [his bread] into his vinegar, or ate a dried fig of his, it is enough. Therefore both are necessary. (Mnemonic:  How much are goats and fowls assessed?) Our Rabbis taught: How much must he be paid?  Whether much or little [it matters not]: this is R. Meir's view. R. Judah said: Even if he merely dipped [his bread] into his vinegar, or joined him in a dried fig, that is his pay. R. Simeon b. Yohai said: He must remunerate him in full. Our Rabbis taught: Neither goats, sheep, nor anything which does not toil for its food  may be assessed on halfprofits.  R. Jose, son of R. Judah, said: Goats may be assessed, because they yield milk; and sheep, because they yield wool by being shorn, by passing through water  and by being plucked;  and fowls, because they lay [eggs] for their food. But [what of] the first Tanna: are the shearings and milk insufficient to pay for his labour and food?  — As for the shearings and milk, all agree [that they are adequate]. The conflict refers to whey and wool refuse:  the first Tanna is of R. Simeon b. Yohai's opinion, who maintained that he must remunerate him in full;  whilst R. Jose son of R. Judah agrees with his father, who ruled that even if he merely dipped [his bread] into his vinegar, or joined him in a dried fig, that is adequate payment. Our Rabbis taught: A woman may hire a fowl to her neighbour in return for two fledglings.  If a woman proposes to her neighbour, 'I have a fowl, and you have eggs: let us equally share the fledglings,'  — R. Judah permits, whilst R. Simeon forbids it. But [what of] R. Judah: does he not require payment to be made for labour and food? — There are the addled eggs. Our Rabbis taught: Where it is the usage to make a payment for shouldering beasts,  such payment may be made, and general custom must not be abrogated. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: A calf may be assessed with its mother, and a foal with its mother, and even where it is customary to make a monetary payment for shouldering.  But R. Simeon b. Gamaliel! Does he not require payment for his labour and food?  — There is the dung.  But the other?  — The ownership of dung is renounced. R. Nahman said: The halachah is as R. Judah; the halachah is as R. Jose son of R. Judah; and the halachah is as R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. A bond was issued against the children of R. 'Ilish, stipulating half profits and half loss.  Said Raba: R. 'Ilish was a great man, and he would not have fed [another person] with forbidden food.  It must be taken to mean:  either half profit and two thirds loss;