Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

June 17, 2024 | 讬状讗 讘住讬讜谉 转砖驻状讚

  • Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v鈥橸ehuda Tzvi.

    专讘讜转 讘谞讜转 注砖讜 讞讬诇 讜讗转 注诇讬转 注诇志讻诇谞讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

Bava Metzia 110

Today’s daf is sponsored in loving memory of Eilon Weiss, brother of Tzippy Huri, one of our learners, who was killed on Shabbat in Gaza. Eilon also learned daf yomi daily, even while he was serving in Gaza.

讬诪讻专讜 诇注爪讬诐 讜讬诇拽讞 讘讛谉 拽专拽注 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讗讬诪讗 讜讛讝拽讬谞讜


such trees are sold as wood and land is acquired with them, and her husband consumes the produce, while the land itself belongs to the wife. The Gemara answers that the text should be emended to say: And they grew old, meaning that the trees were not old when she inherited them but they aged with the passage of time.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇讗讜 诪讬 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 诇讛讛讬讗 讻讙讜谉 砖谞驻诇讜 诇讛 讘砖讚讛 讗讞专转 讚拽讗 讻诇讬讗 拽专谞讗


And if you wish, say: Did we not already establish that mishna as referring to a case where the vines or olive trees were bequeathed to her in a different field that did not belong to her? Since in that case she inherited only the trees but not the land itself, they are considered the principal. Consequently, the husband taking all of it would consume the principal entirely. Therefore, they must be sold as wood, with the proceeds used for the purchase of land.


讛讛讜讗 砖讟专讗 讚讛讜讛 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 砖谞讬谉 住转诪讗 诪诇讜讛 讗诪专 砖诇砖 诇讜讛 讗诪专 砖转讬诐 拽讚讬诐 诪诇讜讛 讜讗讻诇讬谞讛讜 诇驻讬专讬 诪讬 谞讗诪谉 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 拽专拽注 讘讞讝拽转 讘注诇讬讛 拽讬讬诪讗 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 驻讬专讜转 讘讞讝拽转 讗讜讻诇讬讛谉 拽讬讬诪讬


搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain mortgage document in which it was written that the land was granted to the creditor for an unspecified number of years. The creditor said it was for three years, whereas the debtor said it was for two years. While the issue was being adjudicated, the creditor arose and consumed the produce of the field in the third year. Which of them is deemed credible and accepted? Rav Yehuda said: The halakha is that land remains in its owner鈥檚 possession. Therefore, the debtor has the presumptive right to the land, while the creditor, who owns the document, must provide proof for his claim. Rav Kahana said: The produce remains in the possession of the one who consumed it, and therefore the creditor鈥檚 claim is accepted.


讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚讗诪专 驻讬专讜转 讘讞讝拽转 讗讜讻诇讬讛谉 拽讬讬诪讬 讜讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 拽专拽注 讘讞讝拽转 讘注诇讬讛 注讜诪讚转


The Gemara states: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Kahana, who said that the produce remains in the possession of the one who consumed it. The Gemara asks: But don鈥檛 we maintain that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an, who said with regard to uncertainty concerning a rental during the extra month of a leap year that land remains in its owner鈥檚 possession, and he has the rights to that month? These two rulings appear to contradict each other.


讛转诐 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚讗 诇讗讬讙诇讜讬讬 讛讬讗 讛讻讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚注讘讬讚讗 诇讗讬讙诇讜讬讬 讛讬讗 讜讗讟专讜讞讬 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 转专讬 讝诪谞讬 诇讗 诪讟专讞讬谞谉


The Gemara answers: There it is a matter that will not be revealed because it is impossible to clarify the uncertainty concerning whether the extra month is included. By contrast, here it is a matter that will be revealed, as the witnesses who signed the document may eventually reveal what it stated, and we do not trouble the court to convene twice. Therefore, the produce should remain in the possession of the one who consumed it until the matter is resolved.


诪诇讜讛 讗讜诪专 讞诪砖 诇讜讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬讬转讬 诇讬 砖讟专讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讟专讗 讗讬专讻住 诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪诇讜讛 谞讗诪谉 诪讙讜 讚讗讬 讘注讬 讗诪专 诇拽讜讞讛 讛讬讗 讘讬讚讬


The Gemara analyzes another case involving mortgaged land. The creditor says the mortgage was for five years while the debtor who owned the land says it was for three. The debtor said to the creditor: Give me your document so that we can see what is written there. The creditor said to him: I lost the document. Rav Yehuda said: The creditor is deemed credible and accepted in this case since he could have made a more advantageous claim [miggo]. As the mortgage document is missing and even according to the claim of the debtor he could be in control of the land for the three years required for presumptive ownership, if he wants to lie he could say: The land was purchased by me. Since he did not submit this superior claim, his claim should be accepted.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讜专讘 注讜讬专讗 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讛讗 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讗讬 砖讟专讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讙讜讘讬讬谞讗 拽讗讬 诪讬讝讛专 讝讛讬专 讘讬讛 讜诪讬讻讘砖 讛讜讗 讚讻讘砖讬讛 诇砖讟专讬讛 住讘专 讗讜讻诇讛 转专转讬谉 砖谞讬谉 讬转讬专转讗


Rav Pappa said to Rav Ashi: Rav Zevid and Rav Avira do not hold of this opinion of Rav Yehuda. What is the reason for this? Since this document stands ready for collecting the debt, the creditor would certainly have been careful with regard to it. Since he wants to ensure his money is returned it is unlikely he actually lost it. Rather, he is merely hiding his document, as he thinks: I will consume the produce of the field for two extra years.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讛讗讬 诪砖讻谞转讗 讚住讜专讗 讚讻转讘讬 讛讻讬 讘诪讬砖诇诐 砖谞讬讗 讗诇讬谉 转讬驻讜拽 讗专注讗 讚讗 讘诇讗 讻住祝 讛讬讻讗 讚讻讘砖讬讛 诇砖讟专 诪砖讻谞转讗 讜讗诪专 诇拽讜讞讛 讛讬讗 讘讬讚讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讛讬诪谉 讜讻讬 诪转拽谞讬 专讘谞谉 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗转讬 讘讛 [诇讬讚讬] 驻住讬讚讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 转拽讬谞讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 讚诪专讬 讗专注讗 讬讛讬讘 讟住拽讗 讜讻专讬 讻专讬讗


The Gemara analyzes Rav Yehuda鈥檚 opinion. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: If that is so, that Rav Yehuda is correct, then with regard to this mortgage according to the custom practiced in Sura, a city in Babylonia, in which they write this: Upon the completion of these years of the mortgage this land shall leave the creditor鈥檚 possession and return to its owner without the debtor paying any money (see 67b), in a case where the creditor hid the mortgage document and said that the land was purchased by me, so too is it possible that he is deemed credible? Would the Sages institute a matter that might cause a loss? Rav Ashi said to him: There, in the mortgage of Sura, the Sages instituted for the landowner, i.e., the debtor, that the landowner, i.e., the debtor, pays the land taxes and digs the trenches for the irrigation of the field. In this manner, his ownership is preserved and established.


讗专注讗 讚诇讬转 诇讛 讻专讬讗 讜诇讗 讬讛讬讘 讟住拽讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讞讜讬讬 诇讗 讗讬诪讞讗 诪讗讬 讗讬讛讜 讛讜讗 讚讗驻住讬讚 讗谞驻砖讬讛


Ravina asks further: With regard to land that has no need for trenches and for which he does not pay taxes, what could he have done? Rav Ashi said to him: He should have protested before the three years needed for presumptive status had passed by announcing that the land was his. Ravina again inquires: If he did not protest, what is the halakha? Rav Ashi replied: In that case, he caused his own loss by failing to take the necessary precautions.


讗专讬住 讗讜诪专 诇诪讞爪讛 讬专讚转讬 讜讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗讜诪专 诇砖诇讬砖 讛讜专讚转讬讜 诪讬 谞讗诪谉 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 谞讗诪谉 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讛讻诇 讻诪谞讛讙 讛诪讚讬谞讛


搂 The Gemara discusses another case. If a sharecropper says: I descended to the field for half the produce, as this was the agreement that we made, and the homeowner says: I sent him down for only one-third of the produce, who is deemed credible and his claim consequently accepted? Rav Yehuda says: The homeowner is deemed credible and his claim is consequently accepted, while Rav Na岣an says: All matters are in accordance with the regional custom. As the terms of their agreement are unknown, this sharecropper should have the same status as other sharecroppers in that location.


住讘讜专 诪讬谞讛 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讗 讘讗转专讗 讚砖拽讬诇 讗专讬住讗 驻诇讙讗 讛讗 讘讗转专讗 讚砖拽讬诇 讗专讬住讗 转讬诇转讗


They understood from the above discussion that these two Sages do not disagree, but were referring to different cases: This one, Rav Na岣an, stated his ruling with regard to a location where the sharecropper takes half, in which case the sharecropper is believed, while that one, Rav Yehuda, stated his ruling with regard to a location where the sharecropper takes one-third, in which case the homeowner is believed.


讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 诪专讬 讘专讛 讚讘转 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗转专讗 讚砖拽讬诇 讗专讬住讗 驻诇讙讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 谞讗诪谉 讚讗讬 讘注讬 讗诪专 砖讻讬专讬 讜诇拽讬讟讬 讛讜讗


Rav Mari, son of the daughter of Shmuel, said to them: This is what Abaye said: They even disagree with regard to a location where the sharecropper usually takes half. In that case, Rav Yehuda said that here too the homeowner is deemed credible and his claim is consequently accepted, as if he wants to lie he could say: The other is not a sharecropper at all but merely my hired worker, who received a stipulated wage, or my gleaner, who performs occasional work for me but has no prearranged share of the crop at all.


讬转讜诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗谞讜 讛砖讘讞谞讜 讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 讗讜诪专 讗讘讬讻诐 讛砖讘讬讞 注诇 诪讬 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛


The Gemara addresses another issue: If a field was on lien for a loan and the debtor died, and the orphans who inherited the field say: We enhanced the land after we inherited it, and therefore the creditor does not have a right to the value of that enhancement, and the creditor says: Your father enhanced it, and I am entitled to the land as it is, upon whom does the burden to bring proof fall?


住讘专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗专注讗 讘讞讝拽转 讬转诪讬 拽讬讬诪讗 讜注诇 讘注诇 讞讜讘 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注诇 讛讬转讜诪讬诐 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗专注讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讙讜讘讬讬谞讗 拽讬讬诪讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讙讘讬讗 讚诪讬讗 讜注诇 讛讬转讜诪讬谉 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛


Rabbi 岣nina thought to say that the land remains in the orphans鈥 possession, as they are currently in control of it, and therefore the responsibility falls upon the creditor to bring proof. A certain elder said to them: This is what Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The responsibility falls upon the orphans to bring proof. What is the reason for this? Since this land stands ready for collection, it is considered as though it has already been collected and is in the creditor鈥檚 possession. Consequently, the responsibility falls upon the orphans to bring proof.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 住驻拽 讝讛 拽讚诐 讜住驻拽 讝讛 拽讚诐 拽讜爪抓 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讜转谉 讚诪讬诐


Abaye said: We learn a similar halakha in the mishna (Bava Batra 24b) as well, with regard to a tree planted adjacent to a city. Such a tree must be chopped down in any event, regardless of what preceded what. If the city preceded the tree, the owner is not entitled to compensation, but if the tree was there first, he receives payment for the tree. If it is uncertain whether this one was first or that one was first, the owner of the tree cuts it down and the people of the city do not give money to the owner.


讗诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇诪讬拽抓 拽讬讬诪讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讬讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讜砖拽讜诇 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛讗讬 砖讟专讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讙讜讘讬讬谞讗 拽讬讬诪讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讙讘讬讗 讚诪讬讗 讜注诇 讛讬转讜诪讬诐 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛


Apparently, since this tree is standing to be chopped down, as it is chopped down regardless of whether it or the town was there first, we say to the owner of the tree: You must bring proof to support your claim that the tree was there before the town and only then you may take its value, although the tree is currently in his possession and has not yet been cut down. So too, with regard to this document recording the lien on the land, since it is ready for collection, it is considered as though it has been collected and the responsibility falls upon the orphans to bring proof.


讗讬讬转讜 讬转诪讬 专讗讬讛 讚讗讬谞讛讜 讗砖讘讞讜 住讘专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇诪讬诪专 讻讬 诪住诇拽讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讘讗专注讗 诪住诇拽讬谞谉 诇讛讜


In the case where the orphans brought proof that they indeed enhanced the land, Rabbi 岣nina thought to say: When we remove them, we remove them by giving them part of the land equivalent to the value of their enhancement.


讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讘讚诪讬 诪住诇拽讬谞谉 诇讛讜 诪讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诇砖讛 砖诪讬谉 诇讛诐 讗转 讛砖讘讞 讜诪注诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘讚诪讬诐 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讘讻讜专 诇驻砖讜讟


The Gemara comments: But that is not so, as we remove them by paying them with money, as derived from a statement of Rav Na岣an. As Rav Na岣an says that Shmuel says: In three cases the court appraises the enhanced value for the parties involved in enhancing a field, and they are paid in money rather than by being given a portion of the property. And these are they: The first is a firstborn son who makes payment to an ordinary, i.e., non-firstborn, son. This is a case where two sons, one firstborn and the other not, inherit a field from their father. Before it is divided, they both work and enhance the field. When the time comes to divide the field, the firstborn son, who receives a double portion, must pay his brother for the enhancement that the latter contributed to the former鈥檚 portion. This payment is given in money rather than land.


讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 诇讬转讜诪讬诐 讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 诇诇拽讜讞讜转


And the second case is that of payment taken by a creditor or the payment of a marriage contract by someone who is obligated to reimburse orphans, i.e., a creditor or widow who collects land from the orphans of the deceased debtor or husband, respectively. He or she must pay the orphans for any enhancements they made after their father鈥檚 death. This payment is also given in money rather than land. And the third case is that of a creditor who is obligated to purchasers, i.e., a creditor who collects the debt from lands that were sold by the debtor. He pays money to the purchaser for the enhancements generated by the purchaser but does not pay him in land.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚住讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘注诇 讞讜讘 诇诇拽讜讞讜转 讜诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 砖讘讞讗 诇诇讜拽讞 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛砖讘讞 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘砖讘讞 讛诪讙讬注 诇讻转驻讬诐 讻讗谉 讘砖讘讞 砖讗讬谉 诪讙讬注 诇讻转驻讬诐 讜讛讗 诪注砖讬诐 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讜拽讗 诪讙讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘讞 讛诪讙讬注 诇讻转驻讬诐


Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Is this to say that Shmuel maintains that a creditor must pay the value of the enhancement to the buyers? And what type of enhancement is there that is given to a buyer according to Shmuel? But doesn鈥檛 Shmuel say: A creditor collects even the enhancement, not only the land itself? And if you would say that this is not difficult, as here it is referring to enhancement that is so great that it reaches the shoulders, meaning it is large enough to be carried away on porters鈥 shoulders, whereas there it is referring to enhancement that does not reach the shoulders, that is still difficult. But aren鈥檛 there incidents every day where Shmuel would collect everything on behalf of a creditor, even enhancement that reaches the shoulders?


诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚诪住讬拽 讘讬讛 讻砖讬注讜专 讗专注讗 讜砖讘讞讗 讛讗 讚诇讗 诪住讬拽 讘讬讛 砖讬注讜专 讗专注讗 讜砖讘讞讗


The Gemara responds: It is not difficult; this is referring to a case where the debtor owed him the amount of the value of the land and the enhancement combined, and therefore the creditor does not leave the buyers with anything, whereas that involves a case where he did not owe him the amount of the value of the land and the enhancement. Since he has taken more than the sum to which he is entitled, he pays the buyers for the improvement.


讜讻讬 诇讗 诪住讬拽 砖讬注讜专 讗专注讗 讜砖讘讞讗 讚讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 诇诇讜拽讞 讜诪住诇拽 诇讬讛 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 诇诇讜拽讞 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪住诇拽 诇讬讛 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 诇诇讜拽讞 诪爪讬 诪住诇拽 诇讬讛 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讜讜 诇讬 讝讜讝讬 讛讜讛 诪住诇讬拽谞讗 诇讱 诪讻讜诇讗 讗专注讗 讛砖转讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬 讝讜讝讬 讛讘 诇讬 讙专讬讜讗 讚讗专注讗 讘讗专注讗讬 砖讬注讜专 砖讘讞讗讬


The Gemara asks: And if he did not owe him the amount of the value of the land and the enhancement, it was stated that the creditor gives the buyer money and removes him. This works out well according to the one who says that even if the buyer has money he cannot remove the creditor by paying him his debt in cash, as the creditor has the right to claim land. According to this opinion, it works well. But according to the one who says that if the buyer has money he may remove the creditor by paying him cash and keep the land for himself, let him say to him as follows: If I had money prepared I would remove you from the entire land; now that I do not have money equal to the value of the entire land, since you must repay me for the enhancement, at least give me a plot of earth in my land corresponding to the amount of the value of my enhancement.


讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚砖讜讬讗 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讛讗 诇讱 驻专注讜谉 讗诇讗 诪讝讜


The Gemara responds: Here we are dealing with a case where the debtor set aside this land as designated repayment [apoteiki] for the creditor, as he said to him: You shall be able to collect from only this land, but no other. Consequently, the creditor wants to take the entire land, as his lien applies only to this field, and if it turns out that he has other claims he will be unable to collect them from elsewhere.


诪转谞讬壮 讛诪拽讘诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 诇砖讘讜注 讗讞讚 讘砖讘注 诪讗讜转 讝讜讝 讛砖讘讬注讬转 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 拽讘诇讛 讛讬诪谞讜 砖讘注 砖谞讬诐 讘砖讘注 诪讗讜转 讝讜讝 讗讬谉 讛砖讘讬注讬转 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉


MISHNA: In the case of one who receives a field from another to cultivate for one Sabbatical cycle of seven years culminating with the Sabbatical Year for seven hundred dinars, the Sabbatical Year is included in the tally, despite the fact that he is unable to work the land during that year. If he received it from him to cultivate for seven years for seven hundred dinars, the Sabbatical Year is not included in the number, and he may keep the field for an additional year to take the place of the Sabbatical Year, during which he could not work the land.


砖讻讬专 讬讜诐 讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛 砖讻讬专 诇讬诇讛 讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 砖讻讬专 砖注讜转 讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛 讜讻诇 讛讬讜诐 砖讻讬专 砖讘转 砖讻讬专 讞讚砖 砖讻讬专 砖谞讛 砖讻讬专 砖讘讜注 讬爪讗 讘讬讜诐 讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讬爪讗 讘诇讬诇讛 讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛 讜讻诇 讛讬讜诐


The tanna addresses a different issue, the halakha of the payment of workers. A day laborer collects his wages from his employer all night following his work shift. A night laborer collects his wages all the following day, while an hourly laborer collects his wages all night and all day. With regard to a weekly laborer, a monthly laborer, a yearly laborer, or a laborer for a Sabbatical cycle of seven years, if he left upon the completion of his work in the day, he collects his wages all day; if he left at night, he collects his wages all night and all day.


讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪谞讬谉 诇砖讻讬专 讬讜诐 砖讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转诇讬谉 驻注诇转 砖讻讬专 讗转讱 注讚 讘拽专 讜诪谞讬谉 诇砖讻讬专 诇讬诇讛 砖讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讘讬讜诪讜 转转谉 砖讻专讜


GEMARA: The Sages taught: From where is it derived concerning a day laborer that he collects his wages all night? The verse states: 鈥淭he wages of a hired laborer shall not remain with you all night until the morning鈥 (Leviticus 19:13). This indicates that he must pay him by the morning, and he has therefore not transgressed the prohibition of delaying the payment of wages until that time. And from where is it derived concerning a night laborer that he collects his wages all day? As it is stated: 鈥淥n the same day you shall give him his wages鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:15).


讜讗讬诪讗 讗讬驻讻讗 砖讻讬专讜转 讗讬谞讛 诪砖转诇诪转 讗诇讗 讘住讜祝


The Gemara asks: But why not say the opposite, i.e., that a night laborer may be paid all night, while a day laborer receives his wages all day? The Gemara responds: The obligation to pay a person鈥檚 wage is incurred only at the end of the period for which he was hired.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转诇讬谉 驻注诇转 砖讻讬专 讗转讱 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖注讚 讘拽专 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注讚 讘拽专 诪诇诪讚 砖讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 讗诇讗 注讚 讘拽专 专讗砖讜谉 讘诇讘讚


The Sages taught: From the indication of that which is stated in the verse: 鈥淭he wages of a hired laborer shall not remain with you all night [lo talin],鈥 do I not know that this means: 鈥淯ntil the morning,鈥 as this is the meaning of: 鈥淩emain with you all night [talin]鈥? Why must the verse state: 鈥淯ntil the morning鈥? It teaches that he transgresses the prohibition of withholding payment only until the first morning alone, but does not transgress this prohibition another time for any further delay.


诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转砖讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 拽专讗讛 讗诇 转讗诪专 诇专注讱 诇讱 讜砖讜讘 讜诪讞专 讗转谉 讜讬砖 讗转讱


The Gemara asks: From that point forward, what is the halakha? Rav said: Although one no longer transgresses the prohibition of delaying payment of wages, one violates the prohibition of: Do not delay, by delaying his wages. Rav Yosef said: What is the verse from which it is derived? 鈥淒o not say to your neighbor: Go and come again, and tomorrow I will give, when you have it with you鈥 (Proverbs 3:28).


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 爪讗 砖讻讜专 诇讬 驻讜注诇讬诐 砖谞讬讛谉 讗讬谉 注讜讘专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转诇讬谉 讝讛 诇驻讬 砖诇讗 砖讻专谉


The Sages taught: Concerning one who says to another: Go out and hire workers for me, both of them do not violate the prohibition of delaying payment of wages if they fail to pay immediately. This one, the employer, is exempt because he did not hire them himself, and strictly speaking they are not his hired workers.


  • Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v鈥橸ehuda Tzvi.

    专讘讜转 讘谞讜转 注砖讜 讞讬诇 讜讗转 注诇讬转 注诇志讻诇谞讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Bava Metzia 鈥 106-112 鈥 Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn that if you leased a field and natural causes destroyed the crop, the tenant farmer...
talking talmud_square

Bava Metzia 110: Payday

The daf looks at the case of an ambiguous document and how do is payment determined. A new mishnah begins...

Bava Metzia 110

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 110

讬诪讻专讜 诇注爪讬诐 讜讬诇拽讞 讘讛谉 拽专拽注 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讗讬诪讗 讜讛讝拽讬谞讜


such trees are sold as wood and land is acquired with them, and her husband consumes the produce, while the land itself belongs to the wife. The Gemara answers that the text should be emended to say: And they grew old, meaning that the trees were not old when she inherited them but they aged with the passage of time.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇讗讜 诪讬 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 诇讛讛讬讗 讻讙讜谉 砖谞驻诇讜 诇讛 讘砖讚讛 讗讞专转 讚拽讗 讻诇讬讗 拽专谞讗


And if you wish, say: Did we not already establish that mishna as referring to a case where the vines or olive trees were bequeathed to her in a different field that did not belong to her? Since in that case she inherited only the trees but not the land itself, they are considered the principal. Consequently, the husband taking all of it would consume the principal entirely. Therefore, they must be sold as wood, with the proceeds used for the purchase of land.


讛讛讜讗 砖讟专讗 讚讛讜讛 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 砖谞讬谉 住转诪讗 诪诇讜讛 讗诪专 砖诇砖 诇讜讛 讗诪专 砖转讬诐 拽讚讬诐 诪诇讜讛 讜讗讻诇讬谞讛讜 诇驻讬专讬 诪讬 谞讗诪谉 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 拽专拽注 讘讞讝拽转 讘注诇讬讛 拽讬讬诪讗 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 驻讬专讜转 讘讞讝拽转 讗讜讻诇讬讛谉 拽讬讬诪讬


搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain mortgage document in which it was written that the land was granted to the creditor for an unspecified number of years. The creditor said it was for three years, whereas the debtor said it was for two years. While the issue was being adjudicated, the creditor arose and consumed the produce of the field in the third year. Which of them is deemed credible and accepted? Rav Yehuda said: The halakha is that land remains in its owner鈥檚 possession. Therefore, the debtor has the presumptive right to the land, while the creditor, who owns the document, must provide proof for his claim. Rav Kahana said: The produce remains in the possession of the one who consumed it, and therefore the creditor鈥檚 claim is accepted.


讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚讗诪专 驻讬专讜转 讘讞讝拽转 讗讜讻诇讬讛谉 拽讬讬诪讬 讜讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 拽专拽注 讘讞讝拽转 讘注诇讬讛 注讜诪讚转


The Gemara states: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Kahana, who said that the produce remains in the possession of the one who consumed it. The Gemara asks: But don鈥檛 we maintain that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an, who said with regard to uncertainty concerning a rental during the extra month of a leap year that land remains in its owner鈥檚 possession, and he has the rights to that month? These two rulings appear to contradict each other.


讛转诐 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚讗 诇讗讬讙诇讜讬讬 讛讬讗 讛讻讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚注讘讬讚讗 诇讗讬讙诇讜讬讬 讛讬讗 讜讗讟专讜讞讬 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 转专讬 讝诪谞讬 诇讗 诪讟专讞讬谞谉


The Gemara answers: There it is a matter that will not be revealed because it is impossible to clarify the uncertainty concerning whether the extra month is included. By contrast, here it is a matter that will be revealed, as the witnesses who signed the document may eventually reveal what it stated, and we do not trouble the court to convene twice. Therefore, the produce should remain in the possession of the one who consumed it until the matter is resolved.


诪诇讜讛 讗讜诪专 讞诪砖 诇讜讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬讬转讬 诇讬 砖讟专讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讟专讗 讗讬专讻住 诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪诇讜讛 谞讗诪谉 诪讙讜 讚讗讬 讘注讬 讗诪专 诇拽讜讞讛 讛讬讗 讘讬讚讬


The Gemara analyzes another case involving mortgaged land. The creditor says the mortgage was for five years while the debtor who owned the land says it was for three. The debtor said to the creditor: Give me your document so that we can see what is written there. The creditor said to him: I lost the document. Rav Yehuda said: The creditor is deemed credible and accepted in this case since he could have made a more advantageous claim [miggo]. As the mortgage document is missing and even according to the claim of the debtor he could be in control of the land for the three years required for presumptive ownership, if he wants to lie he could say: The land was purchased by me. Since he did not submit this superior claim, his claim should be accepted.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讜专讘 注讜讬专讗 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讛讗 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讗讬 砖讟专讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讙讜讘讬讬谞讗 拽讗讬 诪讬讝讛专 讝讛讬专 讘讬讛 讜诪讬讻讘砖 讛讜讗 讚讻讘砖讬讛 诇砖讟专讬讛 住讘专 讗讜讻诇讛 转专转讬谉 砖谞讬谉 讬转讬专转讗


Rav Pappa said to Rav Ashi: Rav Zevid and Rav Avira do not hold of this opinion of Rav Yehuda. What is the reason for this? Since this document stands ready for collecting the debt, the creditor would certainly have been careful with regard to it. Since he wants to ensure his money is returned it is unlikely he actually lost it. Rather, he is merely hiding his document, as he thinks: I will consume the produce of the field for two extra years.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讛讗讬 诪砖讻谞转讗 讚住讜专讗 讚讻转讘讬 讛讻讬 讘诪讬砖诇诐 砖谞讬讗 讗诇讬谉 转讬驻讜拽 讗专注讗 讚讗 讘诇讗 讻住祝 讛讬讻讗 讚讻讘砖讬讛 诇砖讟专 诪砖讻谞转讗 讜讗诪专 诇拽讜讞讛 讛讬讗 讘讬讚讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讛讬诪谉 讜讻讬 诪转拽谞讬 专讘谞谉 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗转讬 讘讛 [诇讬讚讬] 驻住讬讚讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 转拽讬谞讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 讚诪专讬 讗专注讗 讬讛讬讘 讟住拽讗 讜讻专讬 讻专讬讗


The Gemara analyzes Rav Yehuda鈥檚 opinion. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: If that is so, that Rav Yehuda is correct, then with regard to this mortgage according to the custom practiced in Sura, a city in Babylonia, in which they write this: Upon the completion of these years of the mortgage this land shall leave the creditor鈥檚 possession and return to its owner without the debtor paying any money (see 67b), in a case where the creditor hid the mortgage document and said that the land was purchased by me, so too is it possible that he is deemed credible? Would the Sages institute a matter that might cause a loss? Rav Ashi said to him: There, in the mortgage of Sura, the Sages instituted for the landowner, i.e., the debtor, that the landowner, i.e., the debtor, pays the land taxes and digs the trenches for the irrigation of the field. In this manner, his ownership is preserved and established.


讗专注讗 讚诇讬转 诇讛 讻专讬讗 讜诇讗 讬讛讬讘 讟住拽讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讞讜讬讬 诇讗 讗讬诪讞讗 诪讗讬 讗讬讛讜 讛讜讗 讚讗驻住讬讚 讗谞驻砖讬讛


Ravina asks further: With regard to land that has no need for trenches and for which he does not pay taxes, what could he have done? Rav Ashi said to him: He should have protested before the three years needed for presumptive status had passed by announcing that the land was his. Ravina again inquires: If he did not protest, what is the halakha? Rav Ashi replied: In that case, he caused his own loss by failing to take the necessary precautions.


讗专讬住 讗讜诪专 诇诪讞爪讛 讬专讚转讬 讜讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗讜诪专 诇砖诇讬砖 讛讜专讚转讬讜 诪讬 谞讗诪谉 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 谞讗诪谉 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讛讻诇 讻诪谞讛讙 讛诪讚讬谞讛


搂 The Gemara discusses another case. If a sharecropper says: I descended to the field for half the produce, as this was the agreement that we made, and the homeowner says: I sent him down for only one-third of the produce, who is deemed credible and his claim consequently accepted? Rav Yehuda says: The homeowner is deemed credible and his claim is consequently accepted, while Rav Na岣an says: All matters are in accordance with the regional custom. As the terms of their agreement are unknown, this sharecropper should have the same status as other sharecroppers in that location.


住讘讜专 诪讬谞讛 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讗 讘讗转专讗 讚砖拽讬诇 讗专讬住讗 驻诇讙讗 讛讗 讘讗转专讗 讚砖拽讬诇 讗专讬住讗 转讬诇转讗


They understood from the above discussion that these two Sages do not disagree, but were referring to different cases: This one, Rav Na岣an, stated his ruling with regard to a location where the sharecropper takes half, in which case the sharecropper is believed, while that one, Rav Yehuda, stated his ruling with regard to a location where the sharecropper takes one-third, in which case the homeowner is believed.


讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 诪专讬 讘专讛 讚讘转 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗转专讗 讚砖拽讬诇 讗专讬住讗 驻诇讙讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 谞讗诪谉 讚讗讬 讘注讬 讗诪专 砖讻讬专讬 讜诇拽讬讟讬 讛讜讗


Rav Mari, son of the daughter of Shmuel, said to them: This is what Abaye said: They even disagree with regard to a location where the sharecropper usually takes half. In that case, Rav Yehuda said that here too the homeowner is deemed credible and his claim is consequently accepted, as if he wants to lie he could say: The other is not a sharecropper at all but merely my hired worker, who received a stipulated wage, or my gleaner, who performs occasional work for me but has no prearranged share of the crop at all.


讬转讜诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗谞讜 讛砖讘讞谞讜 讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 讗讜诪专 讗讘讬讻诐 讛砖讘讬讞 注诇 诪讬 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛


The Gemara addresses another issue: If a field was on lien for a loan and the debtor died, and the orphans who inherited the field say: We enhanced the land after we inherited it, and therefore the creditor does not have a right to the value of that enhancement, and the creditor says: Your father enhanced it, and I am entitled to the land as it is, upon whom does the burden to bring proof fall?


住讘专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗专注讗 讘讞讝拽转 讬转诪讬 拽讬讬诪讗 讜注诇 讘注诇 讞讜讘 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注诇 讛讬转讜诪讬诐 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗专注讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讙讜讘讬讬谞讗 拽讬讬诪讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讙讘讬讗 讚诪讬讗 讜注诇 讛讬转讜诪讬谉 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛


Rabbi 岣nina thought to say that the land remains in the orphans鈥 possession, as they are currently in control of it, and therefore the responsibility falls upon the creditor to bring proof. A certain elder said to them: This is what Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The responsibility falls upon the orphans to bring proof. What is the reason for this? Since this land stands ready for collection, it is considered as though it has already been collected and is in the creditor鈥檚 possession. Consequently, the responsibility falls upon the orphans to bring proof.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 住驻拽 讝讛 拽讚诐 讜住驻拽 讝讛 拽讚诐 拽讜爪抓 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讜转谉 讚诪讬诐


Abaye said: We learn a similar halakha in the mishna (Bava Batra 24b) as well, with regard to a tree planted adjacent to a city. Such a tree must be chopped down in any event, regardless of what preceded what. If the city preceded the tree, the owner is not entitled to compensation, but if the tree was there first, he receives payment for the tree. If it is uncertain whether this one was first or that one was first, the owner of the tree cuts it down and the people of the city do not give money to the owner.


讗诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇诪讬拽抓 拽讬讬诪讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讬讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讜砖拽讜诇 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛讗讬 砖讟专讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讙讜讘讬讬谞讗 拽讬讬诪讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讙讘讬讗 讚诪讬讗 讜注诇 讛讬转讜诪讬诐 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛


Apparently, since this tree is standing to be chopped down, as it is chopped down regardless of whether it or the town was there first, we say to the owner of the tree: You must bring proof to support your claim that the tree was there before the town and only then you may take its value, although the tree is currently in his possession and has not yet been cut down. So too, with regard to this document recording the lien on the land, since it is ready for collection, it is considered as though it has been collected and the responsibility falls upon the orphans to bring proof.


讗讬讬转讜 讬转诪讬 专讗讬讛 讚讗讬谞讛讜 讗砖讘讞讜 住讘专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇诪讬诪专 讻讬 诪住诇拽讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讘讗专注讗 诪住诇拽讬谞谉 诇讛讜


In the case where the orphans brought proof that they indeed enhanced the land, Rabbi 岣nina thought to say: When we remove them, we remove them by giving them part of the land equivalent to the value of their enhancement.


讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讘讚诪讬 诪住诇拽讬谞谉 诇讛讜 诪讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诇砖讛 砖诪讬谉 诇讛诐 讗转 讛砖讘讞 讜诪注诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘讚诪讬诐 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讘讻讜专 诇驻砖讜讟


The Gemara comments: But that is not so, as we remove them by paying them with money, as derived from a statement of Rav Na岣an. As Rav Na岣an says that Shmuel says: In three cases the court appraises the enhanced value for the parties involved in enhancing a field, and they are paid in money rather than by being given a portion of the property. And these are they: The first is a firstborn son who makes payment to an ordinary, i.e., non-firstborn, son. This is a case where two sons, one firstborn and the other not, inherit a field from their father. Before it is divided, they both work and enhance the field. When the time comes to divide the field, the firstborn son, who receives a double portion, must pay his brother for the enhancement that the latter contributed to the former鈥檚 portion. This payment is given in money rather than land.


讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 诇讬转讜诪讬诐 讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 诇诇拽讜讞讜转


And the second case is that of payment taken by a creditor or the payment of a marriage contract by someone who is obligated to reimburse orphans, i.e., a creditor or widow who collects land from the orphans of the deceased debtor or husband, respectively. He or she must pay the orphans for any enhancements they made after their father鈥檚 death. This payment is also given in money rather than land. And the third case is that of a creditor who is obligated to purchasers, i.e., a creditor who collects the debt from lands that were sold by the debtor. He pays money to the purchaser for the enhancements generated by the purchaser but does not pay him in land.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚住讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘注诇 讞讜讘 诇诇拽讜讞讜转 讜诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 砖讘讞讗 诇诇讜拽讞 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛砖讘讞 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘砖讘讞 讛诪讙讬注 诇讻转驻讬诐 讻讗谉 讘砖讘讞 砖讗讬谉 诪讙讬注 诇讻转驻讬诐 讜讛讗 诪注砖讬诐 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讜拽讗 诪讙讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘讞 讛诪讙讬注 诇讻转驻讬诐


Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Is this to say that Shmuel maintains that a creditor must pay the value of the enhancement to the buyers? And what type of enhancement is there that is given to a buyer according to Shmuel? But doesn鈥檛 Shmuel say: A creditor collects even the enhancement, not only the land itself? And if you would say that this is not difficult, as here it is referring to enhancement that is so great that it reaches the shoulders, meaning it is large enough to be carried away on porters鈥 shoulders, whereas there it is referring to enhancement that does not reach the shoulders, that is still difficult. But aren鈥檛 there incidents every day where Shmuel would collect everything on behalf of a creditor, even enhancement that reaches the shoulders?


诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚诪住讬拽 讘讬讛 讻砖讬注讜专 讗专注讗 讜砖讘讞讗 讛讗 讚诇讗 诪住讬拽 讘讬讛 砖讬注讜专 讗专注讗 讜砖讘讞讗


The Gemara responds: It is not difficult; this is referring to a case where the debtor owed him the amount of the value of the land and the enhancement combined, and therefore the creditor does not leave the buyers with anything, whereas that involves a case where he did not owe him the amount of the value of the land and the enhancement. Since he has taken more than the sum to which he is entitled, he pays the buyers for the improvement.


讜讻讬 诇讗 诪住讬拽 砖讬注讜专 讗专注讗 讜砖讘讞讗 讚讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 诇诇讜拽讞 讜诪住诇拽 诇讬讛 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 诇诇讜拽讞 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪住诇拽 诇讬讛 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 诇诇讜拽讞 诪爪讬 诪住诇拽 诇讬讛 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讜讜 诇讬 讝讜讝讬 讛讜讛 诪住诇讬拽谞讗 诇讱 诪讻讜诇讗 讗专注讗 讛砖转讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬 讝讜讝讬 讛讘 诇讬 讙专讬讜讗 讚讗专注讗 讘讗专注讗讬 砖讬注讜专 砖讘讞讗讬


The Gemara asks: And if he did not owe him the amount of the value of the land and the enhancement, it was stated that the creditor gives the buyer money and removes him. This works out well according to the one who says that even if the buyer has money he cannot remove the creditor by paying him his debt in cash, as the creditor has the right to claim land. According to this opinion, it works well. But according to the one who says that if the buyer has money he may remove the creditor by paying him cash and keep the land for himself, let him say to him as follows: If I had money prepared I would remove you from the entire land; now that I do not have money equal to the value of the entire land, since you must repay me for the enhancement, at least give me a plot of earth in my land corresponding to the amount of the value of my enhancement.


讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚砖讜讬讗 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讛讗 诇讱 驻专注讜谉 讗诇讗 诪讝讜


The Gemara responds: Here we are dealing with a case where the debtor set aside this land as designated repayment [apoteiki] for the creditor, as he said to him: You shall be able to collect from only this land, but no other. Consequently, the creditor wants to take the entire land, as his lien applies only to this field, and if it turns out that he has other claims he will be unable to collect them from elsewhere.


诪转谞讬壮 讛诪拽讘诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 诇砖讘讜注 讗讞讚 讘砖讘注 诪讗讜转 讝讜讝 讛砖讘讬注讬转 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 拽讘诇讛 讛讬诪谞讜 砖讘注 砖谞讬诐 讘砖讘注 诪讗讜转 讝讜讝 讗讬谉 讛砖讘讬注讬转 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉


MISHNA: In the case of one who receives a field from another to cultivate for one Sabbatical cycle of seven years culminating with the Sabbatical Year for seven hundred dinars, the Sabbatical Year is included in the tally, despite the fact that he is unable to work the land during that year. If he received it from him to cultivate for seven years for seven hundred dinars, the Sabbatical Year is not included in the number, and he may keep the field for an additional year to take the place of the Sabbatical Year, during which he could not work the land.


砖讻讬专 讬讜诐 讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛 砖讻讬专 诇讬诇讛 讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 砖讻讬专 砖注讜转 讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛 讜讻诇 讛讬讜诐 砖讻讬专 砖讘转 砖讻讬专 讞讚砖 砖讻讬专 砖谞讛 砖讻讬专 砖讘讜注 讬爪讗 讘讬讜诐 讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讬爪讗 讘诇讬诇讛 讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛 讜讻诇 讛讬讜诐


The tanna addresses a different issue, the halakha of the payment of workers. A day laborer collects his wages from his employer all night following his work shift. A night laborer collects his wages all the following day, while an hourly laborer collects his wages all night and all day. With regard to a weekly laborer, a monthly laborer, a yearly laborer, or a laborer for a Sabbatical cycle of seven years, if he left upon the completion of his work in the day, he collects his wages all day; if he left at night, he collects his wages all night and all day.


讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪谞讬谉 诇砖讻讬专 讬讜诐 砖讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转诇讬谉 驻注诇转 砖讻讬专 讗转讱 注讚 讘拽专 讜诪谞讬谉 诇砖讻讬专 诇讬诇讛 砖讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讘讬讜诪讜 转转谉 砖讻专讜


GEMARA: The Sages taught: From where is it derived concerning a day laborer that he collects his wages all night? The verse states: 鈥淭he wages of a hired laborer shall not remain with you all night until the morning鈥 (Leviticus 19:13). This indicates that he must pay him by the morning, and he has therefore not transgressed the prohibition of delaying the payment of wages until that time. And from where is it derived concerning a night laborer that he collects his wages all day? As it is stated: 鈥淥n the same day you shall give him his wages鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:15).


讜讗讬诪讗 讗讬驻讻讗 砖讻讬专讜转 讗讬谞讛 诪砖转诇诪转 讗诇讗 讘住讜祝


The Gemara asks: But why not say the opposite, i.e., that a night laborer may be paid all night, while a day laborer receives his wages all day? The Gemara responds: The obligation to pay a person鈥檚 wage is incurred only at the end of the period for which he was hired.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转诇讬谉 驻注诇转 砖讻讬专 讗转讱 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖注讚 讘拽专 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注讚 讘拽专 诪诇诪讚 砖讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 讗诇讗 注讚 讘拽专 专讗砖讜谉 讘诇讘讚


The Sages taught: From the indication of that which is stated in the verse: 鈥淭he wages of a hired laborer shall not remain with you all night [lo talin],鈥 do I not know that this means: 鈥淯ntil the morning,鈥 as this is the meaning of: 鈥淩emain with you all night [talin]鈥? Why must the verse state: 鈥淯ntil the morning鈥? It teaches that he transgresses the prohibition of withholding payment only until the first morning alone, but does not transgress this prohibition another time for any further delay.


诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转砖讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 拽专讗讛 讗诇 转讗诪专 诇专注讱 诇讱 讜砖讜讘 讜诪讞专 讗转谉 讜讬砖 讗转讱


The Gemara asks: From that point forward, what is the halakha? Rav said: Although one no longer transgresses the prohibition of delaying payment of wages, one violates the prohibition of: Do not delay, by delaying his wages. Rav Yosef said: What is the verse from which it is derived? 鈥淒o not say to your neighbor: Go and come again, and tomorrow I will give, when you have it with you鈥 (Proverbs 3:28).


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 爪讗 砖讻讜专 诇讬 驻讜注诇讬诐 砖谞讬讛谉 讗讬谉 注讜讘专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转诇讬谉 讝讛 诇驻讬 砖诇讗 砖讻专谉


The Sages taught: Concerning one who says to another: Go out and hire workers for me, both of them do not violate the prohibition of delaying payment of wages if they fail to pay immediately. This one, the employer, is exempt because he did not hire them himself, and strictly speaking they are not his hired workers.


Scroll To Top