Bava Metzia

he [the labourer] may eat and is exempt from tithes.  [But if he stipulates, 'I accept the work] on condition that I and my son eat, or, 'that my son eat for my wage:'  he may eat, and is exempt; and his son may eat, but is liable.  Now should you say, he eats his own, why is his son liable?  — Said Rabina: Because it looks like purchase. Come and hear: If one engages labourers to work upon his fourth year plantings,  they may not eat;  but if he [the employer] did not inform them [that they were of the fourth year], he must redeem [the fruit]  and let them eat it.  Now should you Say, he eats of Heaven's [gift], why must he redeem [the fruit] and let them eat it? Surely the All-Merciful conferred no privilege upon them in respect of that which is forbidden! — There it is because it looks like an erroneous bargain. [If so,] consider the second clause: If his figs cakes were broken,  or if his barrels of wine burst open,  they may not eat.  But if he did not inform them,  he must tithe [the fruit and wine] and let them partake [thereof].  Now should you say, He eats of Heaven's [gift], why must he tithe and let them eat: surely the All-Merciful conferred no privilege upon him in respect of what is forbidden! And should you reply, Here too it is because [otherwise] it looks like an erroneous bargain, [I can rejoin,] now as for the breaking of his fig-cakes, it is well, since it does look like an erroneous bargain; but if his barrels burst, where is the erroneous bargain? Surely he [the labourer] knew that they were tebel in respect of tithes! — R. Shesheth replied: It means that his barrels burst open into the tank.  But has it not been taught: Wine [is subject to tithes] when it descends into the tank?  — This agrees with R. Akiba, who ruled [it is not liable] until the scum is removed; so that they [the labourers] can say to him, 'We did not know [thereof].' But can he not retort, 'The possibility of its having been skimmed should have occurred to you'? — It refers to a locality where the same person who draws [the wine from the tank into barrels first] skims it. And now that R. zebid learned out of the Baraitha of R. Oshaia:  Wine [is subject to tithes] when it is run into the tank and skimmed. R. Akiba said: When it is skimmed in barrels:  you may even say that the barrels did not burst open into the tank; yet they can say, 'We did not know that it had been skimmed.' But can he not say to them, 'The possibility of its having been skimmed should have occurred to you'? — It refers to a place where the same person who closes it  also skims it. Come and hear: A man may stipulate [to receive payment instead of eating] for himself, his son or daughter that are of age, his manservant and maidservant that are of age, and his wife; because they have understanding.  But he may not stipulate [thus] for his son or daughter that are minors, his manservant or maidservant that are minors, nor in respect of his beasts; because they have no understanding.  Now it is being assumed that he  provides them with food, should you then say that he [the labourer] eats of Heaven's [gift], it is well: consequently, one may not stipulate [to deprive them of their rights]. But if you maintain that he eats of his own, let him stipulate [thus] even for minors!  — In this case it means that he does not provide them with food.  If so, [for] adults too [he cannot stipulate thus]! — Adults know [their rights] and forego them. But R. Hoshaia taught: A man may stipulate [as above] for himself and his wife, but not in respect of his beast;  for his son and daughter, if adults, but not if minors; for his Canaanite manservant and maidservant, whether adults or minors. Now presumably, both  mean that he provides them with food, and they differ in the following: one Master [sc. that of the Baraitha] maintains that he [the labourer] eats of his own;  whereas the other holds that he eats of Heaven's! — No; all hold that he eats his own, yet there is no difficulty: here [in the Mishnah] he does not provide them with food,  whereas in the Baraitha he does. How do you explain it: that he provides them with food? If so, let him stipulate for [his son and daughter if] minors too? — The All-Merciful did not privilege him to cause distress to his son and daughter.  Now, how do you explain the Mishnah? That he does not provide them with food!