Bava Metzia

That agrees with the view that the master cannot say to his slave, 'Work for me, yet I will not feed you.' But on the view that he can say so, what can you answer?  — Both [teachings] therefore deal with a case where he does not provide them with food, but they differ on this very matter: one Master  maintains that he can [demand their work and refuse their food]; and the other  holds that he cannot. Then what of R. Johanan, who ruled that the master can say this: does he forsake the Mishnah and follow the Baraitha?  — But all agree that he eats of Heaven's [gift), and he [certainly) cannot stipulate.  In what sense then did R. Hoshaia teach that he can stipulate? — [In regard to] food.  Then by analogy, in respect of an animal [a similar arrangement is that the hirer should feed it with) straw;  then let him stipulate! Hence they must differ therein: one Master [sc. of the Baraitha] maintains that he eats his own; whereas the other holds that he eats of Heaven's [gift]. MISHNAH. 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.  IF ONE ENGAGES LABOURERS TO WORK UPON HIS FOURTH YEAR PLANTINGS, THEY MAY NOT EAT; BUT IF HE DID NOT INFORM THEM [THAT THEY WERE OF THE FOURTH YEAR], HE MUST REDEEM [THE FRUIT] AND LET THEM EAT IT. IF HIS FIG-CAKES WERE BROKEN, OR HIS BARRELS OF WINE BURST OPEN, THEY MAY NOT EAT. BUT IF HE DID NOT INFORM THEM, HE MUST TITHE [THE FRUIT OR WINE] AND LET THEM PARTAKE [THEREOF].  THOSE WHO GUARD FRUITS MAY EAT THEREOF, IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL CUSTOM,  BUT NOT BY SCRIPTURAL LAW. GEMARA. THOSE WHO GUARD FRUITS [etc.] Rab said: This was stated only of those who look after gardens and orchards;  but those who guard wine-vats and [grain] stocks may eat [even] by Biblical law.  In his [Rab's] opinion guarding is counted as labour. But Samuel said: This was stated only of those who guard wine-vats and [grain] stocks; but those who look after gardens and orchards may eat neither by Biblical law nor by general custom. In his view, guarding is not considered labour. R. Aha son of R. Huna raised an objection. He who guards the [red] heifer defiles his garments.  Now should you maintain, Guarding is not considered labour, why does he defile his garments?  — Rabbah b. 'Ulla said: As a precautionary measure, lest he move a limb thereof. R. Kahana raised an objection: He who guards four or five cucumber beds  must not eat his fill of one of them, but proportionately of each. Now if guarding is not considered labour, why eat at all?  — R. Shimi b. Ashi replied: This refers to those which are removed [from the plant].  But then this work is finished for tithes!  — Their blossom had not yet been cut off. R. Ashi said: Reason supports Samuel. For we learnt: Now, the following [labourers] may eat by Scriptural law: he who is engaged upon what is attached to the soil, when the labour thereof is completed; and upon what is detached,  etc. This implies that some eat not by Scriptural law but in accordance with general custom. Then consider the second clause: But the following do not eat. What is meant by 'do not eat'? Shall we say, they do not eat by Scriptural law, yet eat in accordance with general custom — then is it not identical with the first clause? Hence it must surely mean that they eat neither by Scriptural nor by unwritten law. And who are they? 'He who is engaged upon that which is attached to the soil before its labour is completed.'  How much more so then they who look after gardens and orchards! MISHNAH. THERE ARE FOUR BAILEES: A GRATUITOUS BAILEE, A BORROWER, A PAID BAILEE AND A HIRER. A GRATUITOUS BAILEE MUST SWEAR FOR EVERYTHING.  A BORROWER MUST PAY FOR EVERYTHING.  A PAID BAILEE OR A HIRER MUST SWEAR CONCERNING AN ANIMAL THAT WAS INJURED,  CAPTURED [IN A RAID] OR THAT PERISHED;  BUT MUST PAY FOR LOSS OR THEFT. GEMARA. Which Tanna [maintains that there are] four bailees? — R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: It is R. Meir. Said Raba to R. Nahman: Does any Tanna dispute that there are four bailees?  — He replied: I mean this: Which Tanna holds that a hirer ranks as a paid bailee? R. Meir. But we know R. Meir to hold the reverse? For it has been taught: How does a hirer pay? R. Meir said, As an unpaid bailee. R. Judah ruled, As a paid one! Rabbah b. Abbuha learnt it reversed.  If so, are there four? Surely there are only three!— R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: There are indeed four bailees, but they fall into three classes. A shepherd was once pasturing his beasts by the banks of the River Papa,  when one slipped and fell into the water [and was drowned]. He then came before Rabbah, who exempted him [from liability], with the remark, 'What could he have done?