Bava Metzia

and walking is regarded as actual work. AND AS FOR AN ASS, [IT MAY EAT] WHILST BEING UNLADEN. But when it is unladen, whence can it eat?  Say until it is unladen.  We have [thus] learnt [here] what our Rabbis taught: An ass and a camel can eat of the load on their backs, providing that he [the driver] does not personally take thereof and feed them. MISHNAH. A LABOURER MAY EAT CUCUMBERS, EVEN TO THE VALUE OF A DENAR, OR DATES, EVEN TO THE VALUE OF A DENAR. R. ELEAZAR HISMA SAID: A LABOURER MUST NOT EAT MORE THAN HIS WAGE. BUT THE SAGES PERMIT IT; YET ONE IS ADVISED NOT TO BE GREEDY, AND THUS SHUT THE DOOR IN HIS FACE. GEMARA. Are not the Sages identical with the first Tanna? — They differ as to whether [the labourer] is advised [not to be greedy]. The first Tanna holds that he is not advised; whilst the Rabbis  maintain that he is. Alternatively, they differ in respect of R. Assi's dictum. For R. Assi said: Even if engaged merely to gather a single cluster, he may eat it.  R. Assi also said: Even if he [as yet] vintaged only one cluster, [having been engaged for the day,] he may eat it. Now, both [dicta] are necessary. For if the first [only] were stated,I would think that that is so, since there is nothing [else] to put into the employer's vessels;  but when there is something to put into the employer's vessels, I would think that he must first put [some there] and then eat. Whilst if the second statement [only] were made, I would think that the reason is that it can be eventually fulfilled;  but where it cannot be eventually fulfilled,  I might think that he may not eat. Hence both are necessary. [Reverting to the Mishnah:] Alternatively, I can say, they differ in respect of Rab's dictum. For Rab said: I found a secret scroll of the School of R. Hiyya  wherein it was written, Issi b. Judah said: When thou comest into thy neighbour's vineyard  Scripture refers to the coming in of any man.  Whereon Rab commented: Issi makes life impossible for any one. R. Ashi said: I repeated the [above] teaching before R. Kahana. [Thereupon] he observed:  Perhaps [Issi b. Judah referred] to those who labour for their food, working and eating.  And Rab?  — Even then, a man prefers to engage labourers to vintage his vineyard, rather than that any one should enter. The scholars propounded: Does the labourer eat his own [sc. when partaking of the fruit upon which he is engaged], or does he eat of Heaven's [gift]?  What practical difference does this make? If he said, 'Give it [the fruit that I might have eaten] to my wife and children.' Now, should you say that he eats his own, we must give it to them. But if he eats of Heaven's [gift], then upon him Scripture conferred this privilege, but not upon his wife and children. What is our ruling? — Come and hear: A LABOURER MAY EAT CUCUMBERS, EVEN TO THE VALUE OF A DENAR, OR DATES, EVEN TO THE VALUE OF A DENAR. Now, should you say that he eats of his own, when he is engaged for a danka,  shall he eat for a denar?  — What then: he eats of Heaven's [gift]? Yet after all, being engaged for a danka, shall he eat for a denar!  Hence, what must you reply? That the All-Merciful privileged him;  so here too,  the All-Merciful conferred that privilege upon him. Come and hear: R. ELEAZAR HISMA SAID: A LABOURER MUST NOT EAT MORE THAN HIS WAGE. BUT THE SAGES PERMIT IT. Now, surely they differ in respect of this: one [sc. R. Eleazar Hisma] maintains that he eats his own,  whilst the other holds that he eats the [gift] of Heaven! — No. All agree that he eats his own, but here they differ with respect to the interpretation of [then thou mayest eat grapes thy fill] according to thy soul. One Master  maintains, 'according to thy soul' means that for which thou riskest thy life;  whilst the other Master [R. Eleazar] interprets, 'As thyself': just as if thou muzzlest thyself thou art exempt [from punishment], so the labourer, if thou muzzlest him,  thou art exempt. Come and hear: If a nazir  said, 'Give [the grapes I might have eaten] to my wife and children,' he is not heeded. Now should you say, he eats his own, why is he disregarded? — There it is because, 'Go, go, thou nazirite,' say we, 'take the most devious route, but approach not the vineyard.' Come and hear: If a labourer said, 'Give [the grapes] to my wife and children,' we do not heed him. Now should you say, he eats his own, why not? — What is meant by 'a labourer'? A nazir. But the case of a nazir has been taught, and also that of a labourer! — Were they then taught together? Come and hear: Whence do we know that if a labourer said, 'Give [the fruit] to my wife and children,' he is not heeded? From the verse, But thou shalt not put any in thy vessel.  And should you reply, This too refers to a nazir; if so, is it on account of 'but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel': surely it is because, 'Go, go, thou nazirite', we say, etc.! — That is indeed so, but since he is referred to as a labourer, the verse relating to a labourer is cited. Come and hear: If one engages a labourer to dry figs,