Bava Metzia

— As for making the man fit [to eat more], of that there is no question: our problem is only whether the food may be rendered more appetising?  What is the ruling? — Come and hear: Labourers may eat the top most grapes of the [vine-] rows,  but must not parch them at the fire! — There it [the prohibition] is on account of loss of time:  but our problem arises when he has his wife or children with him; what then?  — Come and hear: He [the labourer] may not parch [the crops] at the fire and eat, nor warm them in the earth,  nor crush them on a rock; but he may crush them between his hands and eat them! — There [too] it is on account of loss of time. That too is logical: for should you think it  is because he [thereby] makes the fruit tasteful, what tastefulness is there [acquired by crushing them] on a rock? — [No; the reasoning is incorrect,] because it is impossible for it not to become slightly [more] tasteful. Come and hear: Workers engaged in picking figs, harvesting dates, vintaging grape, or gathering olives, may eat, and are exempt [from tithes],  because the Torah privileged them. But they must not eat these with their bread, unless they obtain permission from the owner, nor dip them in salt and eat!  — Salt is certainly the same as grapes and something else. [It has just been stated:] 'Nor dip them in salt and eat.' But the following contradicts it: if one engages a labourer to hoe and to cover up the roots of olive trees, he may not eat.  But if he engages him to vintage [grapes], pluck [olives], or gather [fruit], he may eat, and is exempt [from tithes], because the Torah privileged him. If he [the labourer] stipulates [that he is to eat], he may eat then, singly, but not two at a time.  And be may dip them in salt and eat. Now, to what [does this refer]? Shall we say, to the last clause? But having stipulated, he can [obviously] eat just as he wishes! Surely then it must refer to the first clause!  — Abaye answered: There is no difficulty: here it [the second Baraitha] refers to Palestine; there [the first] to the Diaspora. In Palestine, dipping [in salt] establishes [a liability to tithes]; in the Diaspora, it does not.  Raba demurred: Is there aught for which dipping establishes [a liability] in Palestine, but not in the Diaspora, so that it is permitted from the very outset?  But, said Raba, both in palestine and without, for one [fig] salting does not establish [liability],  but for two it does. But if he [sc. the labourer] stipulates [that he is to eat], whether he salts or not, he may eat [them] one by one, but not in twos. [Hence:] If he neither stipulates nor salts them, he may eat them two by two; if he salts them, he may eat them one by one, but not two by two, even if he obtained the employer's permission,  because they become tebel in respect of tithes, the salting establishing [that liability].  And whence do we know that salting establishes [liability only for] two? — Said R. Mattena: Scripture saith, For he hath gathered them as the sheaves to the threshing floor. Our Rabbis taught: When cows stamp [hullin] grain