We've been talking about a worker who has the right to eat from the produce he is working with, even though it's not his property but the property of his employer. If he's working with produce, he's allowed to eat from it. We'll say here in this Mishnah that he's allowed to waive his Torah-given right in order to maybe make an agreement with his employer for more pay, so that he won't eat anything. Torah gives him that ability, and we'll say that he can even negotiate that type of agreement on behalf of another worker. For example, an older child of his, over the age of bar mitzvah (Jewish adulthood). But what we're going to say here is that the worker also has to have the ability to waive that right. He can't do that without confirming that the worker—for example, his older son—wants to waive that right. And that's why, for a son who's under bar mitzvah, who has no da'at, no proper ability to make decisions, and no knowledge, his right to eat cannot be waived. That's what we're going to say in this Mishnah. But that point is not going to be discussed much. But that's why we're making it clear over here: the worker has to agree to waive his right.
Mishnah says: A person is allowed to make an agreement for himself between himself and his employer that he's not going to eat the produce that he works with. In return, for example, the employer would give him extra pay. He can give up his right. The Torah allows this to happen. He's also allowed to make an agreement like that as the negotiator for his adult son or daughter, older than the age of bar u'vat mitzvah, 13 and 12 years old, or for his Kena'ani (Canaanite) slave or his maidservant, or on behalf of his wife, who's also an adult. All of these people—his adult children, slave, or wife—if they're hired to work with produce, he's allowed to be the negotiator for them with their employer. He's allowed to make the deal where they're not going to eat, but in return, they're going to get more pay. The agreement is binding only if the worker agrees to it. If they agree and consent not to eat, and they're okay with this arrangement, that's how it works. It works for all of these people. They could agree to this because they have da'at, they have understanding. They could halakhically, technically, legally give up their right if they consent to the agreement, and therefore it would be binding.
But, but he's not allowed to make this type of agreement for his minor son or daughter. He's not allowed to make this agreement on behalf of his Kena'ani slave or maidservant. He's also not allowed to make this agreement on behalf of his animal. If you hire out your animal to work with produce, you can't agree that it's going to get muzzled so that you get paid more, because you can't make an agreement on behalf of all of these people or the animal. The minor children, the slave, or the animal have no da'at; they can't consent to this agreement. They don't have the proper understanding to give up their rights, and therefore this type of agreement would be null and void. The same applies to the animal. Biblically, it is prohibited to muzzle your animal while it works, and therefore it would be asur (prohibited) for you to waive that part of the deal. You have no way to agree to have the Torah violated. So, whether it's a minor who doesn't have da'at and can't waive their rights, and therefore their rights are always there, or an animal, which it's prohibited to muzzle while it works, this agreement would not be in effect. It wouldn't be binding.