Comentário sobre Baba Metzia 7:15

השוכר את הפועלים. אינו ראשי לכופן – and even though he increase their wages from other works, he can say to them: “this that I have increased your wages, with the knowledge that you will rise up earlier [to work] and stay later for me, for they can say to him: “this that you have increased for us [our wages] is with the knowledge that we provide for you outstanding/better labor.” (see Bava Metzia 83a).

Introduction The first mishnah of chapter seven deals with the obligation to follow local customs in employee/employer practices.

במתיקה – for their bread

If one hired laborers and told them to work early or to work late, he has no right to compel them to do so where the custom is not to work early or not to work late. In the scenario in this section the employer hired laborers and then later told them that he expected them to either arrive early or to stay late. The mishnah teaches that in a place where workers do not customarily arrive early or stay late, he has no right to do so. Since he made his original agreement without telling them of any unusual conditions, he must follow local custom.

הכל כמנהג המדינה – everything which includes the places where workers customarily eat and drink in the morning in the house of the owner before they go out to work. For if the owner had said to them – go early to your work in the field and I will bring to you your food there, they would say to him, “no,” but rather now let is eat in the house prior to our going out to the field, according to the custom of the province.

In a place where the custom is to give them their food he should give it to them, and where the custom is to provide them with sweet food, he must give it to them. Everything should follow local custom. Similarly, the mishnah teaches that in a place where the employer customarily provides food for the employee he must do so, even if he doesn’t specifically promise to do so. If the custom is to provide sweet food then he must do so as well. On the other hand, if the local custom is not for the employer to provide the food or sweet food he is not obligated to do so. We will learn more about employers’ obligations to feed their employees in the coming mishnayoth of this chapter.

מעשה ברבי יוחנן בן מתיא – In the Gemara (Bava Metzia 86a-b): The Mishnah is deficient and should be read as follows: If he stipulated to provide them food, he thereby increases his hood to them, that is to say, since it was not necessary to teach this since it was the custom of the province that they would eat, and it was taught explicitly to give them food, more food was mentioned. And there is the story of Rabbi Yohanan etc [as specified in the Mishnah proper].

It once happened that Rabbi Yochanan ben Mattia said to his son: “Go and hire laborers for us”. He went and struck a deal to provide them with food. When he came to his father, his father said to him, “My son, even if you make them a banquet like Solomon’s in his time you will not have fulfilled your obligation to them. For they are sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But, rather, before they begin to work go and say to them, “On condition that I am not bound to give you more than bread and beans only.” Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “It was not necessary to speak thus, for everything should follow local use.” This section contains an interesting story of a father and his son. The son goes out and hires workers at his father’s request and tells them that he will provide their food. When he returns to his father his father fears that such a condition could potentially be interpreted to mean that he will provide them with a feast worthy of King Solomon. His father instructs the son to return and clarify to the workers that they are being hired under the condition that they will receive food but that the food will be minimal, consisting of only beans and bread. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel states that such a stipulation was not necessary. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel in a case where the quantity of food was not clarified, the employees can only claim that which is customarily given to workers in their area. Since custom does not dictate that an employer provide his employees with food worthy of King Solomon he need not do so. Evidently the father had assumed that in a case where the employer had not made any limitation with regards to the amount of food to be provided to the employees, his promise could be interpreted in favor of the employees.

בשעתו – at the time of his kingdom, when he was a king and a commoner.

Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the significance of the line, “For they are sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” mean?

שהם בני אברהם יצחק ויעקב – and the meal of Abraham was larger than that of Solomon, for Abraham had three cows for three people (the “people” were the angels, described in the story of Genesis, chapter 18, when Abraham rose up while recovering from his circumcision to welcome his “guests.”). And at the meal of Solomon, Judah and Israel were large like the sands that were on the sea shorte.

עד שלא יתחילו במלאכה – there is nothing here other than words, for once they had begun, they cannot return.

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר וכו' – And the Halakha is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel.

ואלו – workers.

These may eat [of the fruits among which they work] by the law of the Torah: one who works on that which is still connected to the ground [may eat of it] when the work is finished [at the time of harvest]; and one who works on that which is already detached from the ground [may eat of it] before the work is completely finished. This applies only to that which grows from the ground.
These are they that may not eat; one that works on what is still growing while the work is still unfinished; and one that works on what is already detached from the ground after the work is finished, and [one may not eat] of what does not grow from the soil.
In Deuteronomy 23:25-26 we learn that a person who is in another’s field or vineyard has a right to eat directly from the fruit of the field. However, he may not harvest the grapes or grain and put them in his basket in order to bring them back into his home. According to the Rabbis these verses deal with workers doing work in the field and not with normal people passing through another’s fields. A person just passing through another’s field does not have a right to eat anything from the field for that would be considered stealing.
Mishnayoth 2-8 deal with these verses and clarify in what situations a worker may eat and in what situations he may not.
This mishnah discusses when may a worker eat directly from the foodstuff with which he is laboring and when he may not. Note, this mishnah does not directly discuss an employer’s obligation to feed his employee which was a topic discussed in the previous mishnah.
1) One who is working with food that has not yet been harvested may eat of it at the time when it is harvested. However, he may not eat of the food while it is still attached to the ground.
2) One who works with produce that has already been harvested may eat of the produce until it has become completely processed, i.e. grapes turned into wine, olives into oil or grain into flour. After that point he may no longer eat of the produce.
3) Finally, a person who works with food that does not grow from the land, such as meat or dairy products may not eat directly from them.
All of these laws are learned exegetically from the verses in Deuteronomy mentioned above. Since the verses deal with fields and not with other types of food, the Rabbis deduced that a worker who worked with someone else’s meat or dairy products was never allowed to eat from them. Furthermore Deuteronomy 25:4 states, “Do not muzzle an ox while he is threshing.” The Rabbis compared an ox to other workers and decided that while one was not allowed to prevent an ox from eating while working, under certain conditions one was allowed to prevent a working person from eating from that with which he is working.

אוכלים מן התורה – in what they are engaged with.

גמר מלאכה – when they detach it, as it is written (Deuteronomy 23:25): “[When you enter another man’s vineyard, you may eat as many grapes as you want, until you are full,] but you must not put any in your vessel.” At the time when you put [them] into the vessels of the owner, you may eat, which is when you tear/detach them.

ובתלוש מן הקרקע – and if you are engaging in things that are detached, you may eat of that thing as long as you have not completed the work required [to make them liable] for tithing, if it is something that is tithed, or as long as you have not completed the work required [to make them liable] for Hallah, if it is something that is given as Hallah, for as Scripture stated (Deuteronomy 25:4): “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing,” and since it is doesn’t say that you should not thresh while muzzling, we learn from it to make a juxtaposition between one who muzzles and that which is muzzled, and that which is muzzled to the one who muzzles. Just as the muzzled is an ox which eats that which is detached while it is engaged in work, so to the muzzle, who is a person, eats what is detached while engaged in work. And just as the one who muzzles, etc. And just as threshing is special, that which grows in the ground and its work has not been completed [to make it liable] for tithing and at the time when the work is completed , the worker can eat of it, so similarly all things that grow in the ground and whose work has not been completed [to make it liable] for tithing, and when it is at the time when the work is completed, the work eats of it, excluding the milking of animals and the presses thick milk in a bag to let the fluid run out (see Rashi to Shabbat 95a) and who makes cheese, which are not things that grow in the ground, and it excludes [also] one who separates the fruit of the date-palm and the dried figs that are attached together when their labor is completed [to become liable] for tithing , and excluding weeding garlic and onions , where he removes the small ones which have not grown from among the others to widen the space for the larger ones, for this is not the time of the end of the work. For all of these and ones similar to them, the worker does not eat them.

עד שיעשה בידיו ורגליו – Just as the ox with his hands and with its feet, so also the worker with his hands and with his feet, just as there is a juxtaposition between the one who muzzles and the muzzled [animal]. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yosi B’Rabbi Yehuda.

If one was working with his hands but not with his feet, with his feet but not with his hands, or even with his shoulders only, he still may eat. Rabbi Yose bar Rabbi Judah says, “Only if he works with both his hands and his feet.” According to the Talmud, the two opinions in this mishnah are based upon differing interpretations of Biblical verses. Rabbi Yose bar Rabbi Judah’s is based on the verse in Deuteronomy 25:4, “Do not muzzle and ox while he is threshing”. According to his interpretation of this verse just as an ox works with both its hands and his feet and therefore may eat from that with which it is working, so too a worker must work with both his hands and his feet. The anonymous opinion in section one is based upon the verse in Deuteronomy 23:25. There it states “When you come into your neighbor’s field…”. Since the verse does not specify that he was working with both hands and feet it implies that all workers may eat from the field.

Questions for Further Thought:
The issue of a person eating from things that belong to his employer is still an issue in modern society. How do our customs or laws compare to those in the time of the Talmud? Keep this question in mind as we learn the next several mishnayoth as well.

מפני השב אבדה לבעלים – so that he will not be idle from his labor.

Introduction The two mishnayoth which we will learn today continue to discuss a worker’s right to eat from the produce with which he is working.

אמרו פועלים אוכלים בהליכתן מאומן לאומן – when they have finished this row and walk to begin its neighbor, and even though at that hour, it is not the time of work, it is pleasing to the owner with this.

If one was working with figs he may not eat grapes, and if among grapes he may not eat figs. But he may refrain [from eating] until he reaches the best produce and then eat. As we learned in the previous mishnah, according to the Rabbinic interpretation of the Torah a fieldworker is allowed to eat from the food in the field while he is working in the field. Our mishnah teaches that a worker may eat only of the food with which he is working. They may not eat of other foods even if they belong to the same owner. However, the worker may save his appetite and eat from the best fruit which he will work with in the end. In other words the worker may eat of any of the fruit with which he is working but he may not eat from anything with which he is not working.

וחמור כשהיא פורקת – while it is walking, it eats from the burden that is on its back until she unloads.

In no case have they said [that he may eat] save during the time of his work. But because of the principle of restoring lost property to its owner they have said, “Field laborers may eat as they go from one furrow to another or as they return from the winepress. And a donkey [may eat] while it is unloading.” The basic law is that a worker may only eat while he is working. However, this situation presents a potential problem to both the worker and the employer. The worker would probably prefer to eat when he is completed with his work and the employer, who probably is paying per hour, would prefer the worker not stop working to eat. Therefore, the Rabbis stated that workers may wait to eat until they have completed their work and are going from one place of work to the other.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah four, section two: According to the mishnah is a worker allowed to eat while he is working or must he wait until he completes the job?

אפילו בדינר – even if it is worth the equivalent of a denar.

A laborer may eat cucumbers even to a denar’s worth, and dates even to a denar’s worth. Rabbi Elazar ben Hisma says: “A laborer may not eat more than the value of his wages. But the Sages permit it, but they teach a man not to be gluttonous as to close the door against himself. According to the anonymous opinion in section one of the mishnah, a laborer may eat as much food as he wants. Rabbi Elazar ben Hisma disagrees and states that by law a laborer may not eat more than he earns. The Sages, who are the same Rabbis who held the opinion in the first clause, permit a laborer to eat more than he earns. However, they state that for the laborer’s own good we teach him not to eat too much for if he does he will not be rehired. In other words while it may be legal for him to eat gluttonously, it will damage his reputation and in the future prevent him from being able to earn an income.

לא יאכל פועל יותר על שכרו – as Scripture states, “until you are full,” while he is hired, for it is upon him as he obligates himself to ascend the ramp or to hang in the tree.

מלמדין – we say to him via advice that is appropriate, but the first Tanna disputes the Sages and states that we don’t teach him, and Halakha is according to the Sages.

ויהא סותם את הפתח – and they will be prevented from hiring him.

קוצץ – he will take money and not eat.

Introduction Mishnah six deals with a person’s legal right to strike a deal with the employer on behalf of the other members of his household. Mishnah seven deals with workers hired to work with food which they may not eat since it has not had the proper agricultural offerings taken out of it.

על ידי עצמו – for himself

One may exact terms for himself and for his son or daughter that are of age, and for his slave or female slave that are of age, and for his wife, since these have understanding. But he may not exact terms for his son and daughter that are not of age, or for his slave or female slave that are not of age, or for his cattle, since these have no understanding. This mishnah deals with a man who is working in someone else’s field along with his family. The man has a right to make a contract with his employer that instead of taking food directly from the field the employer will pay them extra money with which they can buy their own food. This was probably a customary practice in their time. A man has a right to make this contract on behalf of his wife, his adult children and his adult male and female slaves. The reason is that these people have understanding and will be able to refrain from eating directly from the field. Therefore the man’s contract with the employer is legally binding on them as well and they may no longer eat directly from the field. However, a man may not exact terms for the minors in his family, be they children or slaves. Since these people have no legal understanding, meaning they cannot be held legally liable for their actions, the father may not make a contract to prevent them from eating from the field.

מפני שיש בהן דעת – and they know and they pardon/forgive.

Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah six: What does this mishnah tell us about the structure of the Jewish family at the time of the Mishnah?

נטע רבעי – fourth-year fruit of the tree, which are not eaten other than in Jerusalem or one redeems them and brings their monetary value (plus twenty percent) to Jerusalem.

If one hired laborers to work among his fourth-year plantings, they not eat from them. If he had not told them [that they were fourth-year plantings] he must first redeem the fruit and then allow them to eat. In this scenario workers are hired to work with produce from plants that are in their fourth year. Such fruit may not be eaten in any place but Jerusalem. (During the first three years of a plant’s life its fruit may not be eaten at all. This law is called “orlah”.) If the owner wished to, he could redeem the fruit of his fourth year plants with money and bring the money to Jerusalem and spend it there. If the workers were told beforehand that they would be working with fourth-year plantings, then they may not eat from them. Since they agreed to work with that which they could not eat, the employer is not obligated to make the food able to them. However, if the employer had not informed them that they would be working with food from which they may not eat, he is obligated to redeem the fruit and then let them eat.

נתפרסו עיגוליו – cakes of figs that became separated and works were hired to combine them, or jugs that opened up and workers were hired to seal them closed.

If his fig-cakes broke up or his jars burst open, they may not eat from them. If he had not told them [that they were liable to be tithed] he must first separate the tithes and then allow them to eat. One is not obligated to separate the tithe (which will go to the Levi) from produce until the work on the produce has been completed. In other words, fruit in the fields that has not yet been made ready for sale need not be tithed before eating, whereas fruit in the market must be tithed before it is eaten. In our mishnah the laborer was hired to work with produce upon which the work has already been completed. He therefore may not eat of the produce until the appropriate tithes have been taken. In this case the worker was hired to work with food after the work had been completed and yet something went wrong with the packaging. As we learned in section one, if the employer had informed the worker that he would be working with produce from which he could not eat then they may not eat from the produce. If, however, he had not informed them, then he must separate the tithes and allow them to eat from the produce.

הרי לאו לא יאכלו – because their work had been completed and they were ready for tithing as they had become eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts.

Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah seven: What general principle can you extract from this mishnah?

שומרי פירות – those who guard vats and piles and detached produce, but those who guard gardens and orchards, we do not consume, neither from the laws of the province, nor from the Torah, for a bailee is not like someone doing anything.

Introduction The first line of mishnah eight introduces the laws concerning of guardians, which will continue to be the topic throughout the remainder of the chapter and the beginning of chapter eight. Some of these laws were discussed in chapter three of Bava Metziah.

מהלכות מדינה – that already was practiced as such.

Those that guard [gathered] produce may eat from it because that is the custom of the land and not because that is the law of the Torah. A guardian is not considered by the law of the Torah to be the type of worker who may eat from the produce with which he is working. Therefore, according to the law in the Torah a guardian may not eat of this produce. However, since local custom permits him to do so, he is allowed. Note, in this mishnah we see two important sources of Jewish law, the Torah and local custom.

נשבע על הכל – on all of the events that are written with the other bailees for liability, he takes an oath that such has happened to him and he is exempt.

There are four kinds of guardians: an unpaid guardian, a borrower, a paid guardian and a hirer. An unpaid guardian may take an oath [that he had not been neglectful] in every case [of loss or damage and be free of liability]. A borrower must make restitution in every case. A paid guardian or a hirer may take an oath if the beast was injured, or taken captive or dead, but he must make restitution if it was lost or stolen. This section lists the four types of guardians in Jewish law. The general principle is that the more benefit a guardian receives and the less benefit he gives to the owner of the object, the more liable he will be if the object is ruined. Therefore a borrower, who does not pay and gets use of the object pays in any case that the object is ruined. On the other hand, an unpaid guardian only gives benefit to the owner and receives no benefit in return. Therefore in all cases in which something occurs to the object that he is guarding he may take an oath that he was not neglectful and be exempt from liability. Paid guardians and hirers are in-between cases. The hirer gets use of the object but he pays for such use. The paid guardian is not allowed to use the object but he gets paid for watching it. Therefore both of these guardians are sometimes allowed to take an oath and thereby be exempt from liability and sometimes they are liable to pay the owner. If the animal was lost or stolen and is no longer in front of us, they must pay the owner the value of the animal. If, however, it died a natural death, was taken captive or injured then they may take an oath and exempt themselves from liability.

משלם את הכל – theft, and loss and unavoidable accidents.

Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah eight: What is the difference between something being Torah law or the custom of the land?

נושא שכר וכו' – and all of these are derived from Biblical verses in the portion of “V’Eleh Mishpatim”/”And these are the ordinances”. The first portion (Exodus 22:6) “When a man gives [money or goods] to another” is stated regarding the unpaid bailee. The second (Exodus 22:9): “When a man gives to another an ass, an ox, a sheep…” is stated [with regard] to a paid bailee, for he is liable for theft and loss, as it is written (concerning it) (Exodus 22:11): “But if [the animal] was stolen from him, he shall make restitution to its owner.” I don’t have anything other than “theft,” from where to I learn “loss?” The inference teaches (Exodus 22:11): “But if [the animal] was stolen…” in any case. And further, an inference from the weaker to the stronger (i.e., a fortiori), Just as theft is close to an unavoidable accident, one is liable, loss, which is close to negligence, is it not obvious? And the renter, since not all the benefit is his, the law is like the paid bailee. And the borrower is explained in the third section (Exodus 22:13): “When a man borrows [an animal] from another and it dies or is injured, its owner not being with it, he must make restitution.”

זאב אחד אינו אונס – and a paid bailee and a renter are liable for it, as it is written (Exodus 22:12): “…he need not replace what has been torn by beasts.” There is something torn by beasts that he does pay, and there is something torn by beasts that he does not pay.

In the previous mishnah we learned that one who hirers an animal or one who is being paid to watch it is not liable if it was injured, taken captive or died a natural death. In our mishnah we learn that the hirer or paid guardian are not liable in any case where something happened to the animal that was beyond his control. This is called “ones” in Hebrew, and it means an unavoidable accident. This mishnah deals with attacks by wild animals on a flock that are out of the hirer or paid guardian’s control to stop.

כשעת משלחת זאבים – when an evil beast is sent away, it jumps upon another person. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda and is not known in the Babylonian Talmud.

If one wolf [attacked the flock that he was watching] it does not count as an unavoidable accident [for which no blame is placed on the guardian]. Two wolves do count as an unavoidable accident. Rabbi Judah says: “In a time where wolves are commonly attacking the settlements, even one wolf is considered to be an unavoidable accident.” An attack made by one wolf is not considered to be an unavoidable accident for the shepherd should have been able to fend him off. A shepherd could not, however, fend off two wolves and therefore an attack made by two wolves is considered unavoidable. Rabbi Judah adds that if even one wolf attacked at a time when wolves were commonly attacking, the shepherd would not be able to fend it off and it would be therefore be considered an unavoidable accident.

הלסטים – one robber – this is an unavoidable accident.

Two dogs do not count as an unavoidable accident. Yadua the Babylonian said in the name of Rabbi Meir says: “If [two dogs came] from one direction they do not count as an unavoidable accident, but if [they came] from two directions they count as an unavoidable accident. Dogs are less dangerous than wolves and therefore even two dogs are not considered to be an unavoidable accident. Yadua (the name of a Sage) the Babylonian in the name of Rabbi Meir qualifies this law to a situation where both dogs attacked from the same direction. If they attacked from different directions it is considered to be an unavoidable accident.

A bandit counts as an unavoidable accident. An attack by bandits is considered to be an unavoidable accident. When the previous mishnah stated that a hirer and an unpaid guardian are liable if the object was stolen the meaning is that they are liable if it was stolen by thievery. If the animal was stolen by an armed robber that is similar to the case where it was taken captive and they are not liable.

A lion or a bear or a leopard or a panther or a serpent counts as an unavoidable accident. An attack by any of the predatory wild animals listed here is considered to constitute an unavoidable accident.

When [is this so]? When they come of themselves. But if he took the flock to a place of wild animals or bandits they do not count as an unavoidable accident. The mishnah clarifies that an unavoidable accident is only when the animal or bandit attacked the flock when the flock was grazing in a safe area. If, however, the paid guardian or hirer took the flock to an area known to be unsafe and then the flock was attacked, they are liable. Since they were the ones who brought the animal to danger, they are liable.

סגפה – caused her privation with hunger or placed her in the heat in the summer or in the cold during the winter.

Introduction The beginning of mishnah ten continues to discuss the definition of an unavoidable accident for which a hirer or an unpaid guardian are not liable. The second half of mishnah ten deals with a guardian who makes a stipulation to lower his level of liability. Mishnah eleven deals with some general laws of stipulations.

עלתה לראשי צוקין – she overpowered him and went up to the top of high mountains.

If a beast died a natural death this counts as an unavoidable accident [for which a hirer or paid guardian is not liable]. But if he tortured it and it died it does not count as an unavoidable accident [and the hirer and paid guardian would be liable]. If it was led up to the top of a crag and it fell down and died, this does not count as an unavoidable accident. As we learned in mishnah seven, a paid guardian and a hirer are not liable if the animal which they are guarding or using dies a natural death. As our mishnah explains, a natural death is considered an unavoidable accident. However, if the hirer or unpaid guardian tortured the animal and it died, or if he led it up to a dangerous crag and it fell it does not count as an unavoidable accident and the hirer or unpaid guardian would be liable to make restitution.

מתנה שומר חנם להיות פטור משבועה – that is not making a stipulation contrary to what is written in the Torah, but when he says to him: “It is impossible for me to be your bailee other than with this. And the bailee does not go down to his guarding until he pulls the animal. And this when he pulls the animal he has already explained on the condition that he has no oath upon him, nor has mortgaged himself to go down in the law of the bailee, other than in part. And for what he went down, he went down.

An unpaid guardian may make a stipulation that he will be exempt from taking an oath, and a borrower [may make a stipulation that he will be exempt] from making restitution, and a paid guardian and a hirer [may make a stipulation that they will be exempt] from taking an oath or from making restitution. The principle learned in this section is that all types of guardians may make stipulations with the owner of the object to lower their level of liability. An unpaid guardian is normally allowed to take an oath that he was not negligent and thereby exempt himself from liability. He may make a stipulation before agreeing to watch the object that if something happens to the object he will be exempt without an oath. Similarly a borrower is liable to make restitution in all cases where something happens to the object. He may make a stipulation before borrowing the object that if something happens he will be exempt. Finally, a hirer and an unpaid guardian are sometimes able to exempt themselves by taking an oath and sometimes they must make restitution. They may also make stipulations that if liable for an oath they would be exempt without the oath and if liable to make restitution they would be exempt. Obviously, in all of these cases the owner would need to agree to the stipulation before he gives them the object. If he did not wish to agree to the stipulation he would simply not give them the object.

Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah ten, section two: Why would an owner agree to a guardian lowering his level of liability?

כל המתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה תנאו בטל – The entire Mishnah is [according to] Rabbi Meir, who holds that a person who makes a stipulation against what is written in the Torah, even in a manner of money, his condition is null/void, and is not the Halakha. But in a manner of money, even after he stipulated against what was written in the Torah, his condition is valid.

If one makes a stipulation contrary to that which is written in the Torah he stipulation is void. In the previous mishnah we learned that guardians may make stipulations to exempt themselves from varying degrees of liability. However, in this mishnah we learn that stipulations made that are contrary to the Torah are null and void. Apparently there is a contradiction between the two mishnayoth, with mishnah ten allowing stipulations contrary to that which is in the Torah and mishnah eleven disallowing them. One possibility to reconcile the two is that monetary stipulations, such as those mentioned in mishnah ten are valid and non-monetary stipulations are not valid. A non-monetary stipulation would be, for example, if a man married a woman on condition that she would not need a get (a divorce document) to divorce him. This is certainly an invalid stipulation.

כל תנאי שיש בו מעשה מתחלה – that he advanced the act that he has do to the stipulation that he requests from him, such as “behold this act is yours if you will do a certain thing, and it is not similar to the condition stipulation of the children of Gad and the children of Reuven (Numbers 32:29): “if [every shock-fighter among the Gadites and the Reubenites] crosses…you shall give them [the land of Gilead as a holding],” which is a stipulation prior to an action.

Any stipulation that mentions first the action is void. There are strict rules regarding the way in which stipulations must be stated. This mishnah teaches that the stipulation must be mentioned before the action. For instance if one says: “Behold you are betrothed to me on condition that my father will agree” the woman is married even if the father does not agree. If he wishes the stipulation to be valid he must mention the stipulation first by saying, “If my father agrees then you are betrothed to me”.

תנאו בטל – the action is valid and even though the person who made the stipulation did not fulfill the stipulation.

Any stipulation that can in the end be fulfilled and was laid down as a condition from the beginning, such a condition is valid. Finally we learn that for a stipulation to be valid it must be possible to fulfill it. For instance if one said, “If you fly to the sky then you are betrothed to me” the stipulation is invalid and she is betrothed immediately.

וכל שאפשר לו לקיימו בסופו – and the stipulation was prior to the action.

Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah eleven, section three: Why do you think that for a stipulation to be valid it must be possible for one to perform it? Why would someone state an impossible stipulation?

תנאו קיים – but it is impossible for him to fulfill it, the stipulation is null/void and the action is fulfilled, for it is not other than an evasive reply, for it is not in his heart to make a stipulation other than to merely annoy him, distancing and putting off his fellow with words.