Not because of Shevi‘it - Lest they take Shevi‘it produce from someone suspected of selling it. And it was taught in Sukkah (39a) One may not hand over the money of Shevi‘it produce to an am ha’aretz more than the value of three meals.

Nor because of ma‘aser (tithes) - For if they are amei ha’aretz and buy produce that is not tithed, it would turn out that this man causes them to eat untithed produce. But here he is not actually feeding them anything directly — he only gives them coins.

Nor because of yayin nesech (forbidden wine) - If they are gentiles, it would turn out he is causing them to drink yayin nesech, since he is responsible for their food, and thus he benefits from yayin nesech.

And I will pay - He himself is (effectively) the one purchasing the prohibition and feeding them. For now he has not withdrawn himself from it with the coins.

Who extends him credit - Who regularly extends him credit.

There is a lien on him - That employer: from the moment the shopkeeper gives produce [to the worker], it is as if he gave it directly into the workers’ hands.

[The shopkeeper] acquires the dinar that is with him [the employer] - The shopkeeper relies on this, as he is familiar with him [the employer]. that wherever the dinar is located, it is acquired by the shopkeeper, therefore it is a proper exchange. But those in the case of the household of R. Yannai, since the poor who lend them the produce are not shopkeepers who regularly extend them credit, they do not rely to the same extent [as the shopkeepers in getting repaid], and there is no real lien on the household of R. Yannai. Therefore when they repay at a later time [after prohibition] it is not considered an exchange of Shevi'it produce

If so - That the reason [it is forbidden] is the shopkeeper regularly gives him credit, but if he does not normally give credit it is permissible.

Why learn - In the first case, where the Tanna is looking for a case which is permitted, and only found the scenario of go out and eat with this dinar [that he hands to them] and thus removes himself with [handing over] these coins.

Let there be a [narrower] differentiation and learn - The permitted scenario, even when he has not removed himself [entirely], for example in the case of go and out and I will pay, and where the shopkeeper does not normally extend him credit and therefore there is no lien on the employer. And all the more so [it will be permitted] where he removes himself entirely

Further a shopkeeper who is not his credit-giver – If he gave [produce] to the householder’s messenger.

Does he not become obligated - to him [the shopkeeper]; the householder from that moment [of handing over the produce]. [And how is it] that you permitted the house of Rabbi Yannai based on this reasoning?

And Rava said: One who says to his fellow, “Give a maneh to so-and-so, and my property shall be acquired to you - With that maneh and he gave it.

He acquires it - The purchaser, the [donors] property, even though the benefit of that maneh did not reach him.

By the law of a guarantor - From that dinar {alternative text 'from that law'} that a guarantor becomes obligated to pay even though no benefit reached him. And here too it is the same. It follows, then, that even when it is not his regular shopkeeper, if he gave to his [the employer’s] messenger, the householder becomes obligated [from now].

Rather, Rava said - Do not teach that the reason of the baraita was “because of the lien” (shi’abuda), and only when it is his regular shopkeeper. For even when it is not his regular shopkeeper, a lien exists. However as for the house of R. Yannai there is no difficulty, as whether it was a regular shopkeeper or not.

Even though there is a lien - Assets to pay.

Since he did not designate a lien - He did not immediately designate money to him for this, it is not a proper exchange, and therefore the prohibition [of Shevi‘it does not transfer].

This is the correct version: 'And here Rav Pappa said' and we do not read 'Rather here the baraita says we are concerned says Rav Pappa'

When he advanced him - The employer a dinar to the shopkeeper before sending them [the workers] to him, that now they are eating directly from the employer’s money, and the prohibition is upon him.

And I will pay - He has already paid.

It should say and I will calculate - I will make a calculation from that which I have already given him.

That he handled - From the hands of the shopkeeper and gave to them, that now he is [directly] supplying them with the prohibited, and this is not because of the later payment, rather he acquires it with Meshicha (handling of the goods), and it transpires that he has taken possession of wine used for libation and given it to drink to his workers. But the house of R. Yannai when they take possession of the produce it is at a permitted time, and when they subsequently compensate at the time Shevi'it is forbidden it is no longer considered an exchange that effects a transfer [of the restrictions]

Go - Implies that he is not going with them (to the shop).

To break the yayin nesech - To break barrels, and to pour out the wine.

What is the law - That the wages are permitted?

Do we say since - That this Jew wants these barrels to remain intact, that the should not break by themselves, until he breaks them and takes payment it should be forbidden?

One may not hoe - May not dig