Gemara Clarity

Bava Metzia 92b

בבא מציעא צ״ב ע״ב

Learn Bava Metzia 92b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Metzia 92b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Does a פועל eat from his own wages (משלו) or as a gift from Heaven (משל שמים)? Two ברייתות are tested against both sides.

Overview

The גמרא is testing whether a worker who eats from the crop he works on eats 'from his own' (משלו, the food is part of his pay) or 'from Heaven' (משל שמים, a special gift the Torah gives him). First it finishes a ברייתא about tithes. That ברייתא seems to challenge משלו, but רבינא answers that the son's case only 'looks like a sale.' Next, a משנה about נטע רבעי seems to challenge משל שמים, and the גמרא answers that the hiring only 'looks like a mistaken deal.' The סיפא of that משנה, about opened wine barrels, seems to break this answer. The גמרא rescues it with two versions of when wine becomes obligated in מעשר, plus local customs that made the workers' mistake reasonable. Then a משנה about who may give up the right to eat is tested, and it is set against רבי הושעיא's ברייתא. The גמרא explains that the two do not argue: the difference is whether the man feeds his household, and a father may never make his young children suffer. The amud ends as the גמרא begins to challenge its reading of the משנה, and that challenge continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹכֵל וּפָטוּר מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר.

this one eats and is exempt from tithe.

״עַל מְנָת שֶׁאוֹכֵל אֲנִי וּבְנִי״,

'On condition that I and my son eat,'

אוֹ ״שֶׁיֹּאכַל בְּנִי בִּשְׂכָרִי״

or 'that my son eat in exchange for my wages'

– הוּא אוֹכֵל וּפָטוּר,

he eats and is exempt,

The steps (28)

  1. ProofEnd of the ברייתא: the worker is exempt from tithes, his son is not
  2. ChallengeChallenge: if the food is his own, why is the son obligated?
  3. Resolutionרבינא: the son's case looks like a sale
  4. ProofNew source: workers hired for נטע רבעי
  5. ChallengeChallenge: if it is Heaven's gift, why must the owner feed them?
  6. ResolutionAnswer: it looks like a mistaken deal
  7. ProofThe end of the teaching: broken fig cakes and opened barrels
  8. ChallengeIf the eating comes from Heaven, why tithe and feed them?
  9. RejectionThe mistaken-deal answer works for fig cakes but not for wine
  10. Resolutionרב ששת: the barrels spilled back into the pit
  11. ChallengeBut wine is obligated once it goes into the pit
  12. ResolutionFollowing רבי עקיבא: wine is obligated only once skimmed
  13. ChallengeThey should have suspected it was skimmed
  14. ResolutionWhere the one who draws the wine also skims it
  15. ResolutionA different version of the dispute gives a simpler answer
  16. ChallengeThey should have suspected it was already drained
  17. ResolutionWhere the same person seals and drains the barrels
  18. ProofA new proof: who can waive the right to eat
  19. ProofWhy minors cannot give up eating
  20. RejectionThe משנה is about a man who does not feed them
  21. ChallengeThen adults should be the same
  22. ResolutionAdults know and agree to give it up
  23. ChallengeA ברייתא allows it for minor slaves
  24. ProofMaybe they argue about משלו versus משל שמים
  25. RejectionEveryone holds משלו; the cases are different
  26. ChallengeThen he should be able to do it for minor children
  27. ResolutionThe Torah does not let him make his young children suffer
  28. ChallengeRecalling how the משנה was explained, to prepare a new challenge