Siman 337

It is written: "When you come into the vineyard of your fellow, you may eat grapes according to your soul's desire until you are satisfied, but you shall not put any into your vessel. When you come into the standing grain of your fellow, you may pluck ears with your hand, but you shall not lift a sickle upon the standing grain of your fellow." And it is impossible to say according to the plain meaning of the verse, for if so, the world would be destroyed, as everyone would come to the vineyard and the produce of his fellow and eat them. Our sages, of blessed memory, received the tradition that the verse speaks of a worker; when he comes to do his work in the vineyard or in the field, he may eat, and they shall not muzzle him from eating, just as we were commanded regarding "you shall not muzzle an ox in its threshing." Onkelos translated it likewise. Our sages, of blessed memory, derived this through a gezerah shavah from "the sun shall not set upon him," which refers to a worker [Bava Metzia 87b]. Furthermore, the expression of "coming" is like one who comes into his own; since it is not written "when you walk into the vineyard of your fellow," it implies that he comes as if with permission, just as it is written "when you come into the land," which is a coming into one's own. Here too, it is like a coming into his own, since he comes with the permission of the owner of the field to do work there. And why did the Torah leave it unspecified? Because it relied upon the Oral Torah to teach that without the tradition of our sages, of blessed memory, even the explicit commandments have no explanation, and the Oral Torah gives life to the Written Torah like a soul to the body.

And our Sages, of blessed memory, expounded: "In your fellow's vineyard," and not that of the Hekdesh, for if one works in a vineyard of Hekdesh, it is forbidden for him to eat; and in that of a gentile, it is permitted even to place into his vessels [ibid. and see there in the Rif, and the words of the Shach require further study, and examine closely]. "You shall eat grapes"—you shall eat, but you shall not suck the juice from the grapes and throw away the seeds, for if so, you would eat much more and cause a loss to the owners. "Grapes"—and not grapes and something else; that is, to sweeten the grapes by means of salt or something else in order to eat a lot is forbidden. "As your soul"—just as regarding your soul, if you muzzled it you are exempt, so too a worker; meaning, that you can stipulate with him for money on the condition that he does not eat, and it is not similar to the muzzling of an animal where a condition is not effective, for a worker is different as he is a sentient being. Furthermore, we learn from here that if they muzzled him even against his will, one is exempt from lashes, but he pays him the value of the grapes he would have eaten [Levush]. Furthermore, they expounded "as your soul" regarding the obligation of ma'aser, for we maintain that anything whose labor is not completed for ma'aser, one is permitted to eat a casual meal, and we maintain that a purchase establishes the obligation for ma'aser; and I would have said that the worker is obligated in ma'aser for this is like a purchase, for what difference is there to me between a buyer with money or with the wages of labor? Therefore, it says "as your soul"—just as your soul eats and is exempt because its labor is not yet completed for ma'aser, so too a worker eats and is exempt. And they expounded: "Your fill"—and not gluttonous eating, for once he is sated from the grapes, he shall not eat further upon his satiety a gluttonous eating. "But into your vessel you shall not put"—that you only eat at the time when you could put into the vessels of the homeowner, and then "into your vessel you shall not put."

The explanation of the matter is that our Sages, of blessed memory, received a tradition that a worker only eats of that which is attached to the ground at the time of the completion of the work, when it is being detached from the ground or from the tree; and of that which is detached, as long as its work has not been completed for ma'aser; and if it is something liable for challah, he eats as long as its work has not been completed for challah. The reason is that the essence of this law is derived from the verse, "When you come into the standing grain (kamat) of your neighbor," for from "kama" we learn: just as "kama" is something that grows from the ground and it is at the time of the completion of the field work that a worker eats of it, so too anything that grows from the ground and at the time of the completion of the work, when he places it into the vessels of the employer, a worker eats of it. Furthermore, the term "kama" refers to anything that stands within the ground, as it is from the language of "komah" (stature), and therefore the verse regarding a "kerem" (vineyard) is superfluous and available for an exposition, as has been written. And from where do we know that a worker also eats when he works at a task involving that which is detached from the ground? Are we not dealing with a case where he hired him to carry the grapes upon his shoulder, and the Merciful One said that he should eat? Furthermore, we learn it from that which is written, "You shall not muzzle an ox in its threshing," and "ox" is not meant specifically, for we learn "ox" "ox" from Shabbat, where it is written "and all your cattle." Why then is "ox" written, when it should have written "you shall not thresh with a muzzle"? Rather, it is to create an analogy between the one who muzzles and the one who is muzzled, and the one who is muzzled and the one who muzzles; that is, the working ox to the working worker. Just as a person eats of that which is attached—for "kama" and "kerem" deal with that which is attached—so too an ox eats of that which is attached. And just as an ox eats of that which is detached—for threshing is with that which is detached—so too a person eats of that which is detached.

And consequently we have learned that they only eat from what is attached at the time of the completion of the work, at the time when they pluck the grapes and harvest the grain, as it is written: "but you shall not lift a sickle upon your neighbor’s standing grain"—at the time of the sickle when they harvest, to exclude if they perform the work at the time of weeding, they do not eat, for it is not the completion of the work. And we derive from threshing: just as threshing, its work is not completed for ma'aser, for ma'aser is from the time of smoothing the pile, so too anything whose work is not completed for ma'aser; to exclude one who separates dates and dried figs, a worker does not eat of it. And consequently, regarding something that has an obligation of challah, he eats until its work is completed for challah; to exclude one who hires a worker to knead and to form and to bake, he does not eat of it. And furthermore we have learned that just as threshing and grapes and standing grain are the produce of the ground, so too all produce of the ground; to exclude a worker who works with something that is not the produce of the ground, such as one who milks and one who churns and one who makes cheese, he does not eat of it [see Tosafot Bava Metzia 89a].

What is the explanation of "but you shall not lift a sickle"? Thus our sages, of blessed memory, expounded in the Sifrei: "and you may pluck ears with your hand" but you may not harvest with a sickle, for the Torah only permitted the laborer to pluck by hand because he does not pluck much. However, if he were to harvest with a sickle, he would harvest much without effort and eat more than if he had plucked them by hand. This is the general overview of the matters, and now we shall explain in detail with the help of Heaven:

Therefore, a worker who performs labor for an employer with a food item that grows from the ground, behold, he may eat from that which he is working with. Even if he does not perform the labor with his hands or with his feet like an ox, but only carries the grain and the fruits on his shoulder, behold, he may eat from them. And this matter we learned from that which is written, "When you come"—with whatever coming that you come there, with whatever labor it may be, you may eat. And it is forbidden for the employer to muzzle him or to protest against him so that he does not eat; and if he muzzled him, he pays and does not receive lashes, as has been written.

In what case is it said that he eats? When he works with the produce of the ground while it is attached at the time of the completion of the labor, such as one who vintages grapes, or harvests figs, or picks olives, or harvests dates; and with that which is detached from the ground before the final labor is completed that subjects it to the final obligation applicable to it—such as with a matter to which challah applies, challah is the final obligation, and with a matter where there is no obligation of challah, ma'aser is the final obligation. But one who works with a matter that is not the produce of the ground, such as one who milks, or one who thickens the milk to be curdled or who makes butter, or one who makes cheeses, he does not eat. And so too, one who works with that which is attached not at the time of the completion of the labor, such as one who hoes among the vines or covers the roots of the trees; and even one who weeds among onions and garlic, such as one who uproots the small ones from among the large ones, he shall not eat of them. And even though this is the completion of the labor of the small ones, nevertheless, since the primary labor is for the sake of the large ones to broaden their space, and they still require the ground and their labor is not yet completed.

One who works with detached produce after its processing for ma'aser has been completed, such as one who separates dates or dried figs that have stuck to one another and he separates them, he may not eat; for anything that has no other obligation after the obligation of ma'aser, such as figs and grapes and other types of fruits, he may not eat of them after they have become obligated in ma'aser. And this is specifically when the intention of the owner is for the tree as they are, but when they harvest to make wine and oil from them, the completion of their obligation is after the wine and oil are made [Sma]. And regarding something that has another obligation, such as wheat intended to be made into bread which is obligated in challah, he may eat until he completes their processing for challah, and that is from the time he places the water upon the flour and mixes them together to knead them, as is written in Yoreh Deah siman 327, and after this time he may not eat. And other types of grains like barley, spelt, oats, and rye, the law is also thus: that if the worker knows that the intention of the owner is not to bake bread from them but for a cooked dish or the like, then ma'aser is the completion of their processing; and when his intention is to make bread from them, challah is the completion of processing [Taz]. And some say that unspecified wheat is only for bread, and other types are unspecified not for bread, and he eats only until the obligation of ma'aser [Sma]. And rye in our region is primarily for bread like wheat, and the other three are not unspecified for bread.

That which we have said, that one who separates dates may not eat, refers specifically to fine dates that have already ripened and their processing for ma'aser is complete. However, one who separates inferior dates that have not ripened sufficiently, which are placed in a basket where they heat up and soften, their processing for ma'aser is not yet complete, and he may eat from them. The same applies to dried figs in such a case (Gemara). For the general rule of the matter is that anything whose processing for ma'aser is not complete according to the laws explained by the Rambam in chapter 3 of Ma'aser, the worker may eat from them. Accordingly, regarding one specific species itself, there are times when he may eat and times when he may not eat. How so? For example, greens whose processing is complete from the time they are bundled; and that which is not bundled, from the time he fills the vessel. If it is not his intention to fill the vessel except until its half, once he has filled its half, its processing for ma'aser is complete. But when his intention is to fill it entirely, it is not complete until he fills it entirely. And there are many divisions of laws regarding the completion of grain and fruit with respect to ma'aser.

The completion of the work for wine is such that as long as the wine is in the pit, it is not completed, and one may drink from them in a casual manner. Once he has poured it into the barrels and removed the skins and the seeds from the top of the barrels, their work is completed. And regarding rounds of pressed figs, once he has made the round and smoothed it, it is completed. Consequently, any work that a worker performs afterward—such as if the barrels were opened after their sealing, when the wine is already clean of the waste and it is necessary to seal them anew, or if the rounds were broken and fell into pieces and it is necessary to tread them anew—since their work was already completed, the worker may not eat from them, for they have already become obligated in ma'aser, and the worker knew of this, that their work was already completed for ma'aser. And if he did not know of this, such as if the wine was poured from the barrels into the pit and he hired the worker to bring it up from the pit and place it in barrels, and he thought that the wine had never yet been in barrels, and similarly with the rounds, where he did not show him that they had been broken but rather hired him to make rounds and he thought that they had never yet been rounds, it is a hiring in error. For according to the worker's understanding, he was entitled to eat, and therefore the employer is obligated to tithe a portion of them and feed the workers, for without ma'aser it is forbidden to eat after the completion of the work, and they eat their fill and the ma'aser is upon the employer, since he hired them without specification and did not tell them that they were already completed.

We establish that a guard is not considered like one who performs an action, and the Torah only permitted eating to a laborer who performs an act of labor and not the guard. Therefore, one who guards that which is attached to the ground even at the time of the completion of the work, and that which is detached even not at the time of the completion of the work regarding ma'aser, they do not eat by Torah law. Nevertheless, the sages said that one who guards that which is detached before its work is completed, even though he does not eat by Torah law, he eats by the laws of the province, for the people of the province conducted themselves so, and anyone who hires does so with the intent of the custom. Therefore, the sages said that when he was guarding four or five stacks belonging to five people, he should not fill his stomach from one of them [Bava Metzia 93a], for why should only the one suffer? Rather, he should eat from all of them according to the proportion of his eating equally. And also in our time the law is so, and one should not say that since it depends on custom, who is to say that the custom now is so? For it can be said that as long as we do not know that the custom is not to eat, we say that presumably the custom is as it was in the time of the Shas [it appears to me].

From that which is written, "but into your vessel you shall not put," Chazal derived [ibid. 91b] that he may only eat from the species that you are putting into the vessels of the employer. And even if he hired him to work with two species, such as if he hired him to work with figs and grapes, when he is working with figs he may not eat from grapes, for then he is not putting from grapes into the vessels of the employer. However, with one species, when there are good ones and bad ones, he may restrain himself until he reaches the place of the good ones and eat entirely from there. And similarly, with two species, he is permitted not to eat from one species at all, and when he works with the second species, he may eat entirely from there [Sma], for since they all belong to one man, he is permitted to eat from whichever place he desires at the time of his working with them.

According to what has been explained, that one who works with this species does not eat from another species, therefore, one who treads grapes in a vat—where at the time of the work there are two species, grapes and wine—the sages of blessed memory said: The workers, as long as they have not walked the length and breadth of the vat, eat grapes and do not drink the must, because their work is not yet recognizable in the wine, and it would be like one who works with this species and eats from another species. Once they have walked the length and breadth of the vat, such that the wine is recognizable, they eat grapes and drink wine. And when the wine is finished, even though there are still a few grapes, he shall not eat them, for their work is not recognizable, just as with the wine before the walking in the vat [it appears to me].

In the Gemara, a question was raised: just as we say that he only eats from the species upon which he is working, so too should we say that he only eats from that which he is working upon even within one species? For example, if he is working on this vine, he should not eat from another vine. Therefore, since it is a legal doubt, initially when he works on this vine he should not eat from another vine; but if he ate, we do not extract it from him to deduct from his wages, for we consider the worker to be the possessor. And even though the employer is the possessor of his wages, nevertheless, regarding that which he eats, he is the possessor, and this is not related to his wages, for the Torah gave him this apart from the wages, and his wages are merely like a mortgage, and when they deduct from his wages it is like extracting from him [the Rosh there]. And just as we maintain in Yoreh Deah siman 166 regarding "dust of interest" that it is not recoverable through the beit din, for even if he is in possession of his money he may not deduct it; and even according to those who disagree there, that this is only when the defendant is in possession of the land but not when the plaintiff is in possession, nevertheless, regarding a hired worker who "sets his life upon it," if they deduct from his wages it is like extracting from him. For indeed, in several matters they were lenient regarding a hired worker for the sake of his livelihood, as I wrote in siman 89. Therefore, it appears to me that even those who disagree with the Rambam and hold that seizing property does not avail in a legal doubt would admit here for the reason we have written [and the difficulty of the Taz and the Maharit is resolved].

However, this is certainly the case regarding two vines trained one over the other, that when one works on one of them, he may even ab initio eat from the other, even though he is not yet working on it, for this is "of the species you are providing" and "from that which you are providing," since they appear as one. But a fig tree trained over a vine, it is forbidden for him to eat from the fig tree when he works on the vine, or vice versa, for we require "of the species you eat." And even if he ate, we deduct it for him, for this is not a doubt but a certainty, unlike the one who disagrees on this [Levush and Shach and Taz, and it is implied in Bava Metzia 91b: that even if we say "from that which you are providing," nevertheless we require "of the species," see there].

A worker is not permitted to eat except during the performance of the labor; he tosses into his mouth and performs his labor, and not that he should sit and say, "I restrained myself until now and did not idle in order to eat, and I shall sit now and eat." This too we learned from the verse, "but into your vessel [you shall not put]," which implies that his eating is only at the time he puts into the vessels of the employer. The same law applies to other labor, for what difference is there to me between the labor of putting into the vessels of the employer or other types of labor? And the sages said that because of the benefit of the employer, so that he should not be idled from his labor at the moment he eats, they enacted that after he finished the labor of this row and goes to begin another row, he may eat, even though it is not during the time of labor, for it is good for the employer so that he should not be idled from his labor even for a moment.

We have already explained that our sages, of blessed memory, expounded: "And you shall eat grapes," and not grapes and something else that would cause him through this to eat much more than if he had eaten them alone. Therefore, the worker may not eat bread or something else with the grapes so that he eats many of the grapes, nor may he season them with salt, or singe them in fire, or soften them through any means that would cause him to eat much from this, and the same applies to all types of food that he works with. Therefore, if he stipulated with the employer that he may eat up to such-and-such an amount, he may eat them in any manner he desires.

And so we have explained, since it is written, "and you shall eat grapes," that he should eat them as they are in the manner of eating, and it is forbidden for him to suck the grapes, for through this he will eat much more. And so too it is forbidden for him to singe the stalks in fire or to crush them upon a rock, and even if he is not idle from his work through the singeing and through the crushing, such as if his wife and children were to singe and crush, for the reason is not because of idleness from work but rather so that they should not eat much. And so it is stated in the Yerushalmi [ibid.] that it is forbidden for him to peel the figs. And it appears to me that this is specifically figs, whose skin is thin and most people do not peel them, but fruits whose skin is somewhat thick, even if there are those who eat them with their skin, nevertheless since many peel them, it is permitted for him to peel them, provided that they do not peel them themselves because of idleness from work. And we have already explained, since it is written, "according to your soul's desire, your fill," we learned that he should only eat until satiety and not gross eating. And furthermore, it appears to me that when they eat something where there is a concern of worms and they need to check them, they should not check them themselves but rather through others because of idleness from work, for the Torah only permitted the eating.

Our Sages, of blessed memory, said that even though the worker is not permitted to prepare the food so that he will eat much, as has been written, nevertheless, he is permitted to prepare his body beforehand so that he will eat more. And thus the Sages said: the worker is permitted to dip the bread that he eats beforehand in brine or another salty thing so that he will afterwards eat many grapes at the time of his work. For if not so, what limit is there to this? Shall the employer command him that he may only eat dry bread? And so too the opposite: the employer is permitted to give them wine to drink beforehand so that they will not eat many grapes, and so too anything similar to this.

The worker may eat more than the wage he receives; for example, if his wage is only a dinar, he may eat of the fruits that are worth more, and the employer cannot say, "How can you eat more than the value of your wage?" since the Torah permitted it to him, as the Torah did not differentiate based on how much wage he receives. Nevertheless, for the benefit of the worker, we teach him not to be accustomed to doing so, so that employers will not refrain from hiring him. This applies specifically when he hired him to work the whole day or certain hours, but if he only hired him to pick one cucumber, he may not eat it, for we require that he place into the vessels of the employer. And the same law applies if he hired him to pick several cucumbers; he may not eat all of them for this reason, but he may eat some of them since he also places into the vessels of the employer. However, even if he hired him for the whole day, he should not eat the first fruit that he picks, but should first place a little into the vessels of the employer and afterwards he may eat. And it appears to me that from that which he placed into the vessels of the employer he may not eat, but he should eat from that which he has not yet placed; for certainly that which is written, "but into your vessel you shall not put," its meaning is that you shall not put into your vessel as you put into the vessel of the employer. And it is not the way to put from the vessel of the employer into his own vessels, but rather from the ground he puts into his vessels, and the Torah warned that he should not put into his vessels but rather eat them, and automatically it is proven that only from this did the Torah permit, and not from the vessel of the employer.

A worker who said to the employer, "Give to my wife and children what I have to eat by Torah law," we do not listen to him, for the Torah did not grant him merit except for what he himself eats at the time of the labor, and prior to this he has no right at all in the fruits. Therefore, even if he says, "Behold, I am taking from this which I took to eat and I will give a little to my wife and children," we do not listen to him, for he has no acquisition in them except when they are in his mouth. And some say that once he has taken them into his hand they are his and he may give them to whomever he wishes, but the Tur disagrees with this, and also our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, omitted this opinion. And the verse implies this, since it is not written "and you shall take grapes and eat," but rather "and you shall eat grapes," implying that prior to the eating he has no right in them. And even though in the verse regarding standing grain it is written "and you shall pluck ears with your hand," nevertheless, this verse comes to say that he is only permitted to pluck by hand, as I wrote in section 5, and he never acquires them except when they are in his mouth.

If he was a nazir and was working with grapes and says, "Since I cannot eat, why should I lose what the Torah has granted me? I will give them to my wife and children," nevertheless, we do not listen to him for the reason that has been explained. And the same applies if he was ill and unable to eat them, he cannot give them to his wife and children. However, in all of these cases, if they stipulated before the labor to give to them, his stipulation is valid in every instance [Sma].

And similarly, a worker who was performing labor, he and his wife and his children and his servants, and he stipulated with the employer regarding himself and regarding them that they shall not eat from that which they work upon—if they are adults and he acted with their knowledge, they shall not eat, for any stipulation in monetary matters is valid. And if they are minors, they shall eat, for it is as if it were without their knowledge. And regarding adults, when he acted with their knowledge, they cannot retract, for all matters of a worker do not require a kinyan, as has been explained in siman 331. And before the start of the labor, it appears to me that they can retract, and also he himself can retract, and similarly the employer can retract if he wishes.

The Rambam wrote in the twelfth chapter of Hilkhot Sekhirut: One who neglects his work and eats during the time of work, or who eats [from attached produce] not at the time of the completion of work, behold he violates a negative commandment. And similarly, if he carried away in his hand from that which he is working on, or gives to others, he violates a negative commandment. Thus far his words. For he violates "you shall not rob" or "you shall not steal," as he eats from that which the Torah did not permit, or gives to others which the Torah forbade. And if he carried it in his hand to his home, he violates "but into your vessel you shall not put" [Sma]. And one does not receive lashes for them, as with all robbery which is subject to restitution. And that which he wrote, "eats during the time of work," follows his own reasoning that it is forbidden for a worker to eat during the time of work, but the Tur disagrees on this, and also in the Shulchan Arukh he does not rule accordingly. Therefore, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, changed his wording and wrote: "One who eats at a time when he is not permitted to eat," etc. And in all of these, if he ate, he is obligated to pay. However, when he ate grapes and another thing, or sucked them, and similar to this with other foods where he prepared them for eating, even though he performed a prohibition, one does not extract money from him, for the matter cannot be clarified, as if he had not done so, he would not have eaten such an amount as he ate [Taz].

A worker is not permitted to perform labor at night and hire himself out during the day, nor shall he starve himself or afflict himself, nor shall he feed from his bread—which he needs to eat in his home for his wife and children—because of the neglect of the employer's labor, for he weakens his strength and will not be able to perform his labor properly. And all the more so, it is forbidden for a teacher to do so. And one who works by contract, there is no concern in all of this, since he is not a day laborer [it appears to me].

The worker is warned not to waste a little here and a little there; rather, he is obligated to be exacting with himself so as not to waste even a moment of the time he is required to work. For our sages, of blessed memory, were meticulous regarding his prayer that he should not lengthen it, as is written in Orach Chaim siman 110, see there, and all the more so regarding mere idleness. And he is obligated to work with all his strength, for Jacob the righteous said: "for with all my strength I served your father," therefore he received his reward also in this world, as it is said: "And the man increased exceedingly." And see what I have written at the beginning of siman 331.