תלמוד על בבא מציעא 3:4

MISHNAH: If somebody hires workers to work with him in his fourth-year plantation, they may not eat. If he did not inform them, he has to redeem it and feed them³⁷Newly planted fruit trees in their first three years have to be stripped of their fruits as forbidden ‘orlah. In the fourth year the yield may be redeemed and then eaten in place, or brought to the Temple and eaten there in purity (Lev. 19:23–24; Tractate ‘Orlah). Since eating from the fruit is a recognized privilege of agricultural workers, if they are not informed that they are to work on forbidden fruit they could not ask for higher wages to compensate for the fruit.. If his fig cakes were dislodged or his amphoras opened, they may not eat. If he did not inform them, he has to tithe and feed them³⁸It was stated in Mishnah 3 that workers on food processed to the stage of tithes have no privilege of eating from it. It is forbidden to eat titheable but untithed food If the workers were hired under the impression that they had the privilege, the employer has to provide them with permitted food..

MISHNAH: If somebody hires workers to work with him in his fourth-year plantation, they may not eat. If he did not inform them, he has to redeem it and feed them³⁷Newly planted fruit trees in their first three years have to be stripped of their fruits as forbidden ‘orlah. In the fourth year the yield may be redeemed and then eaten in place, or brought to the Temple and eaten there in purity (Lev. 19:23–24; Tractate ‘Orlah). Since eating from the fruit is a recognized privilege of agricultural workers, if they are not informed that they are to work on forbidden fruit they could not ask for higher wages to compensate for the fruit.. If his fig cakes were dislodged or his amphoras opened, they may not eat. If he did not inform them, he has to tithe and feed them³⁸It was stated in Mishnah 3 that workers on food processed to the stage of tithes have no privilege of eating from it. It is forbidden to eat titheable but untithed food If the workers were hired under the impression that they had the privilege, the employer has to provide them with permitted food..

“He robbed one of five people.” Rebbi Assi said, there is a Mishnah which follows Rebbi Aqiba against Rebbi Tarphon. As we have stated there¹⁶⁶Mishnah Baba Meṣi‘a 3:3; Tosephta Yebamot 14:2.: “If he said to two people, I robbed a mina from one of you but I do not know who of you it was; I received a deposit of a mina from the father of one of you but I do not know who of you it was; he gives to each of them a mina because he confessed himself.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is everybody’s opinion. One says, to be clean before Heaven¹⁶⁷Since one understands from the Mishnah that the person was not sued but made the statement on his own initiative, one tells him that while the court could not force him to pay more than one mina and let the parties involved fight about the distribution, to assuage his conscience he has to give to each of the parties the amount they might be entitled to. The Babli concurs, Baba Meṣi‘a 37a.. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Here, if witnesses know; there, if no witnesses know¹⁶⁸The expression כאן … כאן makes it difficult to know to which statement one refers. In the interpretation of R. David Fränkel (קרבן העדה), the Mishnah Yebamot refers to a case where there are witnesses to the robbery but they cannot identify the victim, but in Baba Meṣi‘a there are no witnesses at all. In the interpretation of R. Moses Margalit (פני משה), the Mishnah Baba Meṣi‘a refers to a case where there are witnesses to the robbery but they cannot identify the victim, but in Yebamot there are no witnesses at all. In the latter interpretation, the fact that the robber confessed makes him liable to pay every claim as a matter of law, not of ethics. The first interpretation is more acceptable.. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Here if they are silent; there if they are talking¹⁶⁹In Yebamot, there are no claimants (they are silent), in Baba Meṣi‘a there are no claimants (they talk). R. Ṭarphon must agree in the second case that he pays since if he does not want to pay he would have to swear that he owes nothing; since he does not know whether he owes, he cannot swear.. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Here if he swore; there if he did not swear¹⁷⁰If he swore falsely that he did no rob anything. R. Tarphon will agree that he has to satisfy each individual claim against him.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he swore, he should have appointed an officer of the court and hand it over to him¹⁷¹He immediately could have deposited the money claimed with the court and let the claimants go to court to get the money (Mishnah Baba Qama 9:7).. Rebbi Joḥanan seems to say, a court which determined that one was a robber, not a court which determined that one was robbed¹⁷²The remedy of R. Joḥanan works only if the robber can choose the court to which he confesses before he is sued and where he deposits the amount he owes.. Rav said, a court which determined that one was robbed, not a court which determined that one was a robber¹⁷³If the court has to be the one to which the victims apply, the robber cannot forestall suits against himself and cannot free himself of responsibility by delivering restitution to a court convenient to himself.. The strength of Rav is from the following, that Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, a court which determined that one was robbed, not a court which determined that one was a robber¹⁷⁴The opinion of R. Simeon ben Eleazar is not recorded elsewhere. The Babli, 118b, throws out the Mishnah Yebamot in favor of a baraita (found in shortened form in Tosephta Yebamot 14:2) in the name of R. Simeon ben Eleazar, which reduces the disagreement of R. Aqiba with R. Tarphon to the case (a) of a consummated marriage and (b) of a witnessed robbery.. Otherwise he should have kept silent. Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, he should have kept silent and not confessed¹⁷⁵Then he would not have to pay.. Rebbi Yose wanted to say, he should have kept silent and not have sworn¹⁷⁶He would have to pay only once.. Rebbi Yudan said, even following those who say that there is no difference between keeping silent and talking in matters of a robbery, for a deposit they agree that he who keeps silent is rewarded¹⁷⁷The root of מתגר is Aramaic אגר “reward”. and he who talks loses. He who keeps silent is rewarded from the following: “Two people deposited with the same person, one a mina and one 200 [tetradrachmas]. This one says, the 200 belong to me, and that one says, the 200 belong to me. He gives each one a mina and the rest shall lie with him until Elijah comes.” He who talks loses, from this: “If he said to two people, I robbed¹⁷⁸Obviously, the proof is not from this but from the second half of the Mishnah quoted: “I received a deposit of a mina from the father of one of you but I do not know which one of you it was …”. a mina from one of you but I do not know which one of you.”