Richard S. Rheins

nothing]. And even if he was hired to work for the full day, he may not eat the first fruit he picks, but must first place it in his employer’s vessel. Only afterwards may he eat.)

From his comments, we can see that Isserles contributed to the halakhic evolution of this mitzvah by codifying two new protections of the employer's financial interest. Yes, the worker may eat, for that right is a Torah mitzvah. But he may eat only if the amount of his work effort is substantial enough to trigger the applicability of the Torah right to eat. And even if the worker is putting in a full day of hard labor, the Torah right to eat is triggered only once the worker has harvested enough for the employer so that the employer’s financial stake is met. Isserles ’s position follows that of an earlier Ashkenazi scholar, Rabbi Jacob ben Asher.?® In essence, Shulhan Arukh 337.7 is a good example of how the halakhah of labor relations varies from

region to region. The Mishnah established the principle that the workers’ privileges were determined by the custom of the place and subsequent halakhic practice followed that principle. Apparently, the workers of Ashkenazi communities were permitted to eat and thereby exercise their“Torah right” only after they had harvested their quota. Caro’s ruling reflected the Sephardic custom that gave broader privileges to the harvesters and the other farm workers.”

Caro also codifies the rabbinic ordinance(takkanah) that extends the rights of the harvesters to eat to include those times when they are not engaged in the physical act of harvesting. In this ruling, the halakhah takes note of the interests of both the workers and the employer.

[By the laws of the Torah ] a worker is entitled only to

eat while he is actually working. He may not say:“I

restrained myself until now but I did not abandon my,

right to eat, therefore I am returning and now I will