Sechirut - Chapter 12

This excludes people working with milk products, as stated in Halachah 4.

I.e., the produce is not considered to be ready to eat, and therefore, the mitzvot of ma'aser (tithes) or challah do not apply with regard to it, as stated in Halachah 5.

E. g., weeders or watchmen, as explained in Halachah 4.

Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 201) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 576) count this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

Bava Metzia 87b states that this mitzvah applies in a field belonging to a private person, but not a field belonging to the Temple treasury. For the Temple treasury is not “your colleague.” The Siftei Cohen 337:1 states that for this same reason, this law does not apply to a person employed in a field belonging to a gentile. Instead, this measure is a special privilege granted because of the bond that one Jew shares with another.

I.e., both verses give the person the right to partake of his colleague’s produce.

Trespassing in a person’s property without his permission is forbidden. And taking his produce is considered to be theft.
The Babylonian Talmud (Bava Metzia, loc. cit.) derives this concept because of an association with the prohibition against muzzling an ox. The Rambam chooses to ignore that pattern of exegesis and instead [based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Ma’aserot 2:6),] offer a straightforward and logical explanation of the basis for the prohibition.

The Maggid Mishneh explains that the expression “the work associated with it has been completed” means that the person has yet to bring the tithes (ma’aser) or separate challah.

Here the Rambam speaks of “his work” - i.e., the worker’s labor [in contrast to the previous sentence, where the emphasis was on the work necessary for the produce to be ritually acceptable]. He may not eat until he has completed harvesting or reaping. Once he has completed one phase of work - e.g., the basket is filled - he may not be compelled to start working again until he desires to do so.
The Tur (Choshen Mishpat 337) differs with the Rambam, stating:
I do not understand why they should not eat while they are harvesting and reaping, for the Torah forbade a person from eating produce only when the work on it was not completed. When, however, a person is working with produce whose work is completed, he may eat as long as he is involved with it.
The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 337:2) follows the Tur’s conception. The difference between these conceptions depends on the interpretation of the Mishnah (Bava Metzia 7:2), which states that a person who works with produce attached to the earth may eat at the time work is completed, but he is forbidden to eat when he has not completed his work. In his Commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam interprets this as meaning: “While you are placing produce in the containers of the employer, you may not eat.” Rashi (Bava Metzia 87a), by contrast, interprets that phrase as referring to labor that brings about the completion of a task - e.g., harvesting, in contrast to pruning.

I.e., if the workers were prevented from eating until then, they would take an extended break in order to eat and would not return to work quickly. Our Sages assumed that the employer would be willing to grant them other times when they may eat so that they will not take long breaks.

I.e., takes a very extended break to eat. Although the Rambam allows a worker to take a break after filling the employer's basket, he may not take advantage of his employer and prolong his break beyond accepted norms (Lechem Mishneh).

According to the Rambam, this refers to a person who eats before the employer’s container is filled, as explained in the previous halachah.

Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 267) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 578) count this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam with regard to the definition of this prohibition, stating that it involves cutting down crops with a sickle with the intent of eating them - i.e., the worker should not make his eating as important a purpose as his employer’s work. The Ramban also differs with the Rambam and maintains that the prohibition forbids people who are hoeing or pruning from eating. As mentioned above, the Tur also does not accept the Rambam’s view. See Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 337:18), which appears to follow the position of the Tur.

I.e., when reaping with other utensils and when harvesting other crops.

See Halachah 13.

Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 268) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 577) count this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
The Sefer Me’irat Einayim 337:38 adds that when doing so, the person also transgresses the prohibition against stealing.

For a person who is obligated to make financial restitution is not punished with lashes for the same transgression.

The license granted by the Torah applies only to substances that resemble those explicitly mentioned in the verses - i.e., produce that grows in the ground.

To enable the larger onions space to grow.

Thus, for the small onions, he can be considered to have completed the work, for he harvests them for his employer.

I.e., the primary intent is to facilitate the growth of the larger heads, and the worker’s activity does not complete that task.

See also Halachah 9.

Not only are they not entitled to partake of the produce according to Scriptural Law, the Rabbis also did not grant them this prerogative. Thus, although watchmen of detached produce may partake of it (Halachah 9), watchman of produce attached to the ground may not.

In order to store figs and dates for longer periods, they would be dried out and crushed together as cakes. Once, they are crushed and smoothed out or placed in a container, the owner is obligated to tithe them (Hilchot Ma'aser 3:16.). In this instance, the worker is hired to break apart the stored fruit so that it can be served.

I.e., the other four species of grain in which there is a further ritual obligation after tithing. Aside from these species, a worker may no longer partake of produce once the obligation to tithe applies.
See also Sefer Me’irat Einayim 337:13, which states that we generally assume that barley and oats will be used as animal fodder or for beer. Hence, unless they are set aside for the purpose of being used for bread, once the obligation to tithe them has been established, it is forbidden for a worker to partake of them.

Our translation follows the version found in many early printings and authentic manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The version found in the standard printed text is difficult to understand.

For once a dough is made - i.e., flour and water are mixed together - a person is obligated to separate challah (Hilchot Bikkurim 8:4).

It must be noted that the Ra’avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that even with regard to grain, once it has become obligated to be tithed, a worker is no longer given permission to partake of it. Although the Rambam’s ruling is based on Bava Metzia 89a (and Rashi also interprets that passage in a similar way), the Ra’avad maintains that the passage mentions challah indiscriminately, without intent. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 337:3) follows the Rambam’s understanding.

I.e., the owner hires the worker to press the figs back into cakes, to seal the wine barrels, or to perform any other activity necessary to preserve the produce.

Untithed produce, of which it is forbidden to partake.
See also the Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 576), which states that although the Torah gave a worker permission to partake of crops, it did not grant him permission to partake of food that is forbidden.

The Maggid Mishneh explains that this law does not apply when the employer hires the workers without specifying what task they would perform. In such a situation, he is not obligated to give them work in which they would be allowed to partake of produce. If, however, he told them that their job would be to make fig cakes, but did not inform them of his predicament, it would be as if he were misleading them if he does not allow them to partake of the produce. For workers who make fig cakes are generally entitled to partake of the produce with which they are working, and we assume that the workers had this intent in mind when they accepted the job. Hence, if the owner does not give them the opportunity to partake of the produce, he will be taking unfair advantage of them.

The Temple treasury is not “your colleague” and is under no obligation to the worker.

Neta reva'i is produce that grows in the fourth year of a tree's life. It must be taken to Jerusalem and eaten there, with the same restrictions as apply to Ma'aser Sheni, "the second tithe." See Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 9:1.

For this produce may not be eaten outside of Jerusalem.

As stated in Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni 9:6, a person may redeem produce that is neta reva’i for its value in silver and take that money to Jerusalem to buy food with it.

For the same rationale as explained with regard to the previous halachah.

See Halachah 12.

For with the exception of the separation of unwanted matter, all these tasks are necessary to be performed before the owner is obligated to tithe his crops. And the separation of unwanted matter is necessary before one is obligated to separate challah.

Since they are not performing work with the produce itself, they are not given the right to eat from it according to Scriptural Law. Our Sages nevertheless noticed that it had become an accepted practice to allow watchmen to partake of produce that had been reaped (in contrast to unreaped produce, Halachah 4). Hence, they made it a binding obligation to grant a watchman this privilege.

I.e., a porter who carries produce on his shoulders.

Even if a worker was hired to perform work with both figs and grapes, while he is working with grapes he may not partake of figs, and while he is working with figs he may not partake of grapes [Tur and Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 337:9)].

I.e., the worker may partake of only the type of produce with which he is working.
The Jerusalem Talmud (Maaserot 2:7) derives this law as follows: Why does the verse say: “When you enter the vineyard of your colleague, you may eat grapes”? What else would you eat in a vineyard? Thus, the intent is a restriction. When you are working with grapes, all you may eat is grapes.”

In these instances, he will eat more grapes than usual.

Since the worker was limited to a specific amount of produce, he is considered as if he purchased the produce and is required to tithe it, as stated in Hilchot Ma’aser 5:11. Similarly, produce that is salted or eaten with bread must be tithed.

For, regardless, he may not eat more than the limit that was set.

I.e., to suck out the juice and leave the skins and dregs.

I.e., the entire grape. This also appears to be a safeguard against the worker’s partaking of more grapes than usual. For in this way, he will consume far more grapes than if he were to eat them in the ordinary manner (Kin’at Eliyahu).

Needless to say, the worker may not do this himself, for he will be wasting time that he should be working (Maggid Mishneh).

To improve their flavor.

Although the verse grants a worker license, it also implies a limit. Once a worker is satisfied, he should not eat more.

Thus, he will be eating more of the higher quality produce than he would if he had not refrained from eating the lower quality.

Which is worth one sixth the value of a dinar.
The Sifri states that the amount a worker eats is determined by his appetite, and not his wage.

I.e., if he eats like a glutton, the chances are that the employer - and others - will not hire him again.

See Halachah 9.

Rashi (Bava Metzia 93a) states that this is speaking about a situation where the watchman is employed by several farmers, each with his own grain-heap. As a courtesy, it is proper for the worker to partake equally from each of the different grain-heaps, so that all the farmers will share equally in providing him with his food.

The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 337:9) clarifies the Rambam’s wording, stating: “It is not apparent that they are working with wine.”

For, as stated in Halachah 10, a worker may partake only of the produce with which he is working (ibid.).

See Hilchot Ma’aser 5:9, which explains the laws that apply when the employer - although he is under no obligation to do so - agrees to allow a worker’s sons to partake of the produce.

This shows that the worker does not acquire any rights of ownership over the produce. It is in no way his, and he therefore may not give it away. The Torah gave him a unique privilege and allowed him to partake of the produce while working with it. That privilege, however, cannot be extended beyond its prescribed limits (Bava Metzia 92 93a).

Who is forbidden to partake of grapes or wine.

I.e., Canaanite slaves (Maggid Mishneh).

When financial matters are involved, a person has the right to forgo a privilege granted to him by the Torah. Hence, if a worker - and the members of his household [Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 337:17)] - agree to the employer’s stipulation, they are bound by it.

Because a minor is below majority, there are certain business matters - including the right to waive privileges that are granted him - which are not in his capacity. Therefore, he may not forgo his privilege to eat himself. Certainly, his father may not forgo it for him, for - as the Rambam states - nothing belongs to the father.