(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Bava Metzia 92

BAVA METZIA 91-95 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.



(a) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah permits a laborer to eat even a Dinar's worth of cucumbers - and a Dinar's worth of Kosvos (a species of date), if that is what he is employed to pick.

(b) Rebbi Elazar Chisma restricts him to the equivalent of his wages. He derives this from the word "ke'Nafshecha" (written in this regard) - because this is the word the Torah is using to describe working in a tree, which contains an element of life-danger (so what the Pasuk is saying is that he may eat as much as he earns for his work).

(c) The advice that Beis-Din would give the gluttonous laborer is - not to be so greedy, to avoid shutting the door on future work offers.

(d) The author of this piece of advice is - the Chachamim, who argue with Rebbi Elazar Chisma, permitting the laborer to eat even more that his earnings, but add the advice. The Tana Kama does not agree with them however, making this their bone of contention (because otherwise, they seem to be saying the same thing).

(a) Alternatively, the Tana Kama and the Chachamim argue over a statement by Rav Asi, who said - that a laborer who has been hired to pick one bunch of grapes is permitted to eat it.

(b) The Tana Kama agrees with this. Rebbi Elazar Chisma says - that irrespective of whether he is hired to pick one bunch of grapes (the Tana'im of course, are talking about cucumbers and dates) or many bunches, he may ne ver eat more than his wages worth.

(c) Whereas the Chachamim permit him to eat even as much as a Dinar's worth, but provided he is a day worker; not if he is hired to pick only one bunch.

(d) Rav Asi also stated that, even if the laborer has only picked one bunch he is permitted to eat it - even though he is going to pick more. His Chidush is that he doesn't need to wait until he has placed some fruit into the owner's basket before eating.

(a) Having issued ...
1. ... the first statement, Rav Asi nevertheless found it necessary to issue the second one - because we might otherwise have confined his leniency to where he has been hired to pick only the one bunch. But where he has been hired to work all day, perhaps he is not allowed to eat before having placed something into the owner's basket.
2. ... the second statement, Rav Asi still found it necessary to issue the first one - which we would otherwise have forbidden, seeing as the employer will then receive nothing.
(b) As a third alternative, we base the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and the Chachamim on a Megilas S'tarim (a hidden scroll) that Rav found in Rebbi Chiya's house. This is based on the fact - that before Rebbi wrote the Mishnah, committing Torah she'be'Al Peh to paper was prohibited, so the Talmidim would make their own notes when necessary, and discreetly put them away of of sight.

(c) The statement was by Isi ben Yehudah - who interpreted the Pasuk "Ki Savo be'Kerem Rei'echa" literally (extending it to anyone who fancied a free snack).

(d) Rav commented on Isi's D'rashah - that, according to Isi, nobody would have any fruit left on his trees.

(a) The Chachamim hold like Isi, whereas the Tana Kama does not.

(b) We know that it is not the other way round - because the Tana Kama refers specifically to a 'Po'el'.

(c) The gist of the Chachamim's statement is now - that if even a stranger is permitted to help himself to the employer's fruit, it stands to reason that his workers are permitted to eat even more than their wages worth.

(d) When Rav Ashi reported Rav's comment to Rav Kahana, he suggested that maybe Isi obligated whoever helped himself to fruit to pay for what he ate with work. Rav would counter that suggestion - by insisting that even so, the owner would prefer to have his own employees picking his crops, than every Tom Dick and Harry.

(a) We ask whether what a laborer eats is his own - in which case he is permitted to give his portion to his wife and children, or Hashem's (who permitted him to eat) - in which case, he is not.

(b) We try and resolve the She'eilah from the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, who permits him to eat a Dinar's worth, even though it is more that what he picked (like Rav Asi) - because this would certainly not be permitted if it was his own.

(c) We counter this however - by pointing out that it is no more logical for the Torah to permit a laborer to eat more than his wages even if it is Hashem's. So either way, it must be a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv.

(d) We try and resolve the She'eilah by making it dependent upon a Machlokes Tana'im in our Mishnah - namely that of Rebbi Elazar Chisma, who forbids a laborer to eat more than his wages, and who therefore holds 'mi'Shel Shamayim Hu Ochel', whereas the Chachamim hold mi'Shelo Hu Ochel' (though we just seem to have refuted this S'vara).

(e) We conclude however, that both Tana'im hold 'be'she'Lo He Ochel', and the basis of their Machlokes is how to Darshen "ke'Nafshecha". Rebbi Elazar Chisma Darshens it as we explained in our Mishnah. The Chachamim explain - "ke'Nafshecha", 'Mah Nafshecha im Chasamta Patur, Af Po'el Im Chasamta Patur" (like we learned earlier in the Perek).

(a) The Beraisa rules that if a Nazir laborer asks someone to hand his wife and children some fruit - he is forbidden to comply with his request.

(b) We try and prove from there - that he must eat mi'Shel Shamayim, because if it was mi'Shelo, why should we not give it to them?

(c) We counter the proof however, on the grounds - that the reason that we disregard his instructions might be because of the decree 'Lech Lech Amrin li'Nezira S'chor S'chor, le'Karma Lo Sikrav' (which in this case means that we penalize him for taking on work that tempts him to contravene the laws of Nezirus).

(a) And we counter the proof from a similar Beraisa to the previous one, which says the same about a Po'el - by establishing it by a Po'el who is a Nazir.

(b) If 'Po'el' is synonymous with Nazir, why does the Tana need to mention them both? - is not a Kashya, because these are two different Beraisos learned by two Tana'im, and each Tana uses a different expression for the same thing.

(c) In yet another Beraisa, the Tana uses the word 'Po'el', but cites the Pasuk "ve'el Kelyecha Lo Siten" - which seems to prove that 'mi'Shel Shamayim Hu Ochel', since the Tana cites this Pasuk (implying that it d'Oraysa, and not just a K'nas).

(d) We counter this proof too however - on the grounds that, since the Tana uses a Lashon of 'Po'el', he cites the Pasuk in connection with Po'el (but neither Po'el nor the Pasuk should be taken literally).




(a) Another Beraisa discusses someone who hires a worker 'Li'ktzos Te'einim' - which means to dry figs, in order to make 'Ketzi'os' (cakes of dried figs).

(b) He is Patur from Ma'asering the drying fruit that he eats - on the grounds that figs that are designated for Ketzi'os only reach the stage of G'mar Melachah once they become dry.

(c) If he stipulates for himself and his son to eat, he remains Patur from Ma'asering what he eats. We try and prove from the Tana's ruling that he is Chayav to Ma'aser what his son eats - that he eats mi'Shel Shamayim (because if it would be mi'Shelo, he ought to be Patur from Ma'asering even what his son eats).

(d) We counter this proof however - by attributing the Chiyuv to the fact that he stipulated that his son should eat, which looks like a sale, and which the Rabbanan therefore gave the Din of a sale.

(a) If someone hires a laborer to work in his field of Neta Revai (the fruit of the fourth year, following the three years of Orlah), the laborer is not permitted to eat - because Neta Revai can only be eaten within the walls of Yerushalayim.

(b) In a case where the hirer failed to inform the laborer that the fruit was Neta Revai, the Tana of the next Mishnah rules that he must redeem the fruit and give some to the laborer. We try and prove from here that 'be'Shelo Hu Ochel' - because if we held 'mi'Shel Shamayim Hu Ochel', surely the Torah never granted the laborer a share in what is Asur (so why should the owner be obligated to redeem the fruit and give some to the laborer).

(c) But we counter this by pointing out - that he is not giving him the fruit based on the original conditions, but because it looks like a false sale (because had the laborer known that the fruit was Neta Revai, he would certainly not have been willing to work. So Chazal obligated the hirer to compensate the laborer for his loss).

(a) The Tana continues 'Nisparsu Igulav Nispatchah Chaviyosav, Harei Eilu Lo Yochlu'. In the case of ...
1. ... 'Nisparsu Igulav', the laborer is hired - to press the figs back into round cakes of figs, as they were before they fell apart.
2. ... 'Nispatchah Chaviyosav - to re-place the lids on to the barrels, as they were before.
(b) And he is then forbidden to eat (or drink) as he works - because have already reached the staged of G'mar Melachah for Ma'asros when ...
1. ... the figs were pressed into Igulei Deveilah (round cakes of figs.
2. ... the wine is ready to drink.
(c) There too, the Tana concludes 've'Im Lo Hodi'o, Me'aser ve'Nosen Lo'; and there too, we try to bring the same proof that 'be'Shelo Hu Ochel'. We cannot simply answer like we answered the previous Kashya 'Mishum de'Mechzi ke'Mekach Ta'us' - because, whereas in the case of 'Nisparsu Igulav', it makes sense to say that the laborer did not know that the figs had reached the stage of G'mar Melachah, how can we say that by barrels of wine, which the laborer should have known had already passed the stage of G'mar Melachah, as soon as the owner hired him to replace the lids on to the barrels.
(a) Rav Sheishes therefore establishes the Mishnah by barrels of wine, which, after the lids were removed, were emptied into the wine-pit. However, this answer is ineffective according to the Rabbanan - who give the Shiur of G'mar Melachah as 'mi'she'Yarad le'Bor' (in which case the laborer knew that he was not entitled to any wine).

(b) It *is* effective however, according to Rebbi Akiva, who considers the G'mar Melachah of wine in a pit as 'mi'she'Yeired le'Bor ve'Yikpeh' - meaning from the time that the wine ferments, the pits float to the top and one removes the skins.

(c) We do not expect the laborer to have asked whether the skins had already been removed or not - because the Tana is speaking when it is normally the laborer who draws the wine from the pit who does this.

(a) According to Tani Rav Z'vid de'Bei Rebbi Hoshaya, the Tana Kama of the Beraisa requires 'mi'Yashleh be'Chaviyos ve'Nikpeh' (when the previous process took place but after it was placed in the barrels). Rebbi Akiva says - 'from the time that the wine is placed into barrels and has fermented, at which stage some of the dregs float to the surface and are removed.

(b) Consequently, it is no longer necessary to establish the previous Beraisa when the wine had been poured back into the pit. We do not expect the laborer to have asked whether the dregs had not already been removed from the barrel - because here again, the Tana is speaking in a place where it is the laborer who closes the barrels who removes the dregs.

(c) The Tana of the above Mishnah permits a laborer to accept money instead of eating fruit on behalf of himself, his grown-up children, his grown-up Avadim and his wife - because they are all B'nei Da'as, who know and are Mochel.

(d) With regard to his young children and Avadim and his animals however, he is not empowered to stipulate (even with their consent).

(a) From the fact that the above stipulation is not valid on behalf of Ketanim, assuming that he is feeding them, we prove - that a laborer eats mi'Shel Shamayim, because otherwise, why should he not be able to stipulate on their behalf.

(b) We refute this proof however - by changing the case to when he is *not* feeding them.

(c) And the reason that his condition is valid with regard to Gedolim, but not to Ketanim (is because Gedolim are B'nei Mechilah whereas Ketanim [whose Da'as is incomplete] are not).

(d) The Beraisa, which also lists all the above cases, differs from the Mishnah - inasmuch as it permits the laborer to stipulate even on behalf of his Avadim Ketanim.

(a) So we revert to our original suggestion, that both Tana'im are speaking when he is providing them with Mezonos. Initially we presume that ...
1. ... the Tana of the Mishnah forbids stipulating on behalf of Avadim Ketanim - because he holds 'mi'Shel Shamayim Hu Ochel'.
2. ... the Tana of the Beraisa permits it - because he holds 'be'Shelo Hu Ochel.
(b) We counter this however, by establishing both Tana'im by 'mi'Shelo Hu Ochel'. The Tana of our Mishnah speaks when the laborer is not feeding them, whereas the Tana of the Beraisa speaks when he *is*.

(c) Despite the fact that the Beraisa speaks when he is feeding his young children, the laborer cannot stipulate on their behalf - because the Torah did not give the father rights over their pain (mental or emotional, as well as physical).

(d) Regarding our Mishnah, we ascribed the fact that the laborer is not authorized to stipulate on behalf of his Avadim Ketanim to the fact that he is not feeding them. The problem we have with this is -that those who permit a man to say to his Eved 'Asei Imi ve'Eini Zancha' ('Work for me but I will not feed you') - then clashes with our Mishnah, which clearly forbids it.

(a) So we propose that the Machlokes Tana'im is - whether a master can say to his Eved 'Asei Imi ve'Eini Zancha' (the Beraisa) or not (the Mishnah). The problem with Rebbi Yochanan, who permits it is - how can Rebbi Yochanan (who always follows a S'tam Mishnah), ignore our Mishnah and follow a Beraisa?

(b) So we suggest that both Tana'im hold 'mi'Shel Shamayim Hu Ochel', and when the Tana of the Beraisa says 'Kotzetz', he means - that the employer will feed them in advance, so that they have no appetite to eat whilst they are working.

(c) The problem this presents is how can the Beraisa then rule 'Aval Lo al-Yedei Behemto' - in view of the fact that we previously permitted this with regard to an animal?

(d) So we finally establish that the Beraisa holds 'be'Shelo Hu Ochel'. According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Tana permits him to stipulate on his Avadim Ketanim, irrespective of *whether he is feeding them or not"; whereas according to those who disagree with him (forbidding the master to say to his Eved 'Asei Imi ve'Eini Zancha'), he speaks specifically when he *is*.

(e) The Tana of Mishnah holds - 'mi'Shel Shamayim Hu Ochel'. Consequently, he may not stipulate on behalf of his Avadim Cana'anim, even if he is feeding them.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,