(Mishnah): If a person is transferring figs in his courtyard to be dried, his children and wife may eat from them and they are exempt (from tithing). The workers may eat, as long as he is not required to feed them.

If one brought his workers to the field, if he isn't required to feed them, they may eat and are exempt. If he is required to feed them, they may eat one at a time, but not from the basket, the large boxes or the drying area.

If one hired a worker to work with his olive trees and the worker said to him, "It's on condition that I may eat olives'' - if he eats them one at a time, he is exempt (from tithing); but if he eats several, he is obligated.

If a worker was hired to weed around the onions and the worker said to him, "It's on condition that I may eat from the vegetables'' - he may pick one leaf at a time and eat (without tithing); but if he picks several, he is obligated.

(Gemara) Question: The Mishnah taught that if one is transferring figs etc. When the courtyard owner transfers fruits through his own courtyard to be dried, may he snack before he tithes?

(Rav): He's prohibited.

(Ulla b'R. Yishmael citing R. Elazar): He's permitted.

Rav follows R. Meir (that an acquisition and therefore also a courtyard establishes an obligation even for incomplete fruit) and R. Elazar follows the Rabbanan (that they do not establish an obligation for incomplete fruit).

Rav follows R. Meir - if so, even his children and wife would be prohibited! Rather, Rav follows Rebbi and R. Elazar follows the Rabbanan; as R. Simon cited from R. Yehoshua ben Levi and R. Yosi ben Shaul cited from Rebbi that one may only eat incomplete fruits in the Muktzah (the drying area of fruits, since everyone sees that they are not complete).

(R. Yaakov bar Idi citing R. Yehoshua ben Levi): The Chachamim (who disagree with Rebbi) say that one may eat incomplete fruits both in the Muktzah and elsewhere.

Question (R. Yosi ben Shaul to Rebbi): The (next) Mishnah teaches - 'regarding carobs (on the roof to dry), if he hadn't yet gathered them together on the roof...' (he may bring them down to feed to his animals). This shows that they could be eaten elsewhere...?

Rebuttal (Rebbi): Don't question me from carobs, as they are animal food.

Question: According to Rav, what's the difference between him and his children? (Why are his family permitted to eat, but the courtyard owner is not?)

Answer: Since the owner can decide not to dry them and thereby obligate them in Maaser, he is prohibited.

Question: It's understandable for his children (that it's not considered an acquisition to obligate in Maaser, since he isn't obligated to support them); but since there's a decree of Beis Din that he must sustain his wife, why isn't it considered an acquisition to prohibited snacking?

Answer: It follows the opinion that a wife has a Torah right to be sustained (and she is considered like a worker rather than it being an acquisition).

And even according to the opinion that she does not have a Torah right, it follows the Baraisa that taught that Beis Din doesn't ascribe Sheviis money to sustain a wife (as it looks like paying off a debt with Sheviis money). However, she may be sustained in her husband's house in Sheviis (as it doesn't look like paying a debt).

Question: Why not consider her like a worker whose work isn't worth a Peruta? (An employer who gives food to such a worker is not paying off a debt to him, but the worker is still considered to be acquiring the food from him and he must tithe it. Here also, even if sustaining her doesn't look like paying a debt, it should be considered an acquisition.)

Answer: This shows that they didn't view her like a worker whose work isn't worth a Peruta.

Question: Even according to the opinion that a woman has a claim against her husband for food, she has no claim for a dwelling.

Answer: It's like the Tosefta (that taught that a husband may make a Shitufei Mavuos or Eiruvei Chatzeiros without his wife's consent) - 'If men made a Shituf without the knowledge of the women, it is valid. If women made a Shituf without the knowledge of the men, it is not valid.'

(Tosefta): (The Mishnah taught that if one brought his workers to the field, if he isn't required to feed them, they may eat and are exempt.) If he brought them from the field into the city, they are established for Maaser (since the excess will not be returned to the field).

(The Mishnah taught that if one is transferring figs in his courtyard to be dried, his children and wife may eat from them and are exempt.) (This would imply that if they were being transferred to be eaten elsewhere, the sons and wife would be obligated to tithe.) This is the opinion of Rebbi, who taught in a Tosefta - 'If a person was bringing in figs from the field to eat them in an unguarded courtyard and he forgot and brought them into the house or the children brought them in (without his knowledge), he may return them to their place and eat.'

It was only discussing inadvertently bringing them home, but if it was done intentionally, they become established for Maaser.

And who taught that Tosefta? Rebbi; as another Tosefta taught, 'If he brought in figs from the field and transferred them through his courtyard to eat on top of his roof - Rebbi obligates and R. Yosi bei R. Yehuda exempts them from Maaser.'

Therefore, our Mishnah taught specifically that he transferred them through his courtyard to be dried; but had he transferred them not to be dried, they are obligated.