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

Daf Yomi

January 15, 2017 | 讬状讝 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讝

  • 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 Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • 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 111

Study Guide Bava Metzia 111. Halachot regarding the obligation to pay a worker on time: what is the time frame? 聽Does it depend on when he worked? 聽How long did you hire him for? 聽Was it a week long job, etc.? 聽What time of day/night did he finish the job? 聽Does the same apply for a rental payment for one who rents animals or vessels? 聽To a ger toshav (one who keeps the seven Noachide commandments)? 聽These laws appear in the Torah in 2 different places. 聽The rabbis understand each section as referring to 2 different cases (day worker/night worker). 聽Do each of these apply to rentals also and to a ger toshav 聽There is a 3 way tannaitic debate regarding this.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜讝讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 驻注讜诇转讜 讗爪诇讜 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖讻专讻诐 注诇讬 砖讻专讜 注诇讬讜 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛驻讜注诇 诇注砖讜转 讘砖诇讜 讜讛专讗讛讜 讘砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 谞讜转谉 诇讜 砖讻专讜 诪砖诇诐 讜讞讜讝专 讜谞讜讟诇 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪讛 砖讛讛谞讛 讗讜转讜

 

And that one, the middleman, is exempt because his work is not performed for him. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If the middleman said to them: Your wages are incumbent upon me, his wages are indeed upon him, as the one who hired the workers bears full responsibility. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who hires a laborer to perform work in his own field, and the employer inadvertently showed the laborer a field belonging to another in which he should work, the employer must give the laborer his full wages; and in addition, the employer goes back and takes from the owner of the field in which he worked the value of the benefit that owner received from the laborer. The employer is entitled to claim from the owner of the field the profit that owner gained from the work, but not the entire wages of the laborer. This indicates that one who says: Your wage is incumbent upon me, is responsible for the arrangement.

 

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖讻专讻诐 注诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转

 

The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to state this halakha where the middleman said to them: The obligation to pay your wages is incumbent upon the employer, in which case they share responsibility for the payment and neither violates the prohibition.

 

讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 诪专讬诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇砖诪注讬讛 讝讬诇 讗讙讬专 诇讬 驻讜注诇讬诐 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讛讜 砖讻专讻诐 注诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪专讬诪专 讜诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讗讙专讬 诇讛讚讚讬

 

The Gemara relates: Yehuda bar Mareimar would say to his attendant: Go hire workers for me and say to them: Your wages are upon the employer. Yehuda bar Mareimar instructed the attendant to do this in order to avoid violating the prohibition of delaying payment of wages. Mareimar and Mar Zutra would hire workers for each other for the same reason.

 

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛谞讬 砖讜拽讗讬 讚住讜专讗 诇讗 注讘专讬 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转诇讬谉 诪讬讚注 讬讚注讬 讚注诇 讬讜诪讗 讚砖讜拽讗 住诪讬讻讬 讗讘诇 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转砖讛讗 讜讚讗讬 注讜讘专

 

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: Those marketplace workers of Sura do not violate the prohibition by Torah law of delaying payment of wages, in the event that they do not pay their employees immediately. This is because everyone knows that they rely on the market day to earn their money, and the employees are aware that they will not be paid on the same day that they worked. But he certainly violates the prohibition by rabbinic law of: Do not delay, if he withholds payment any later than the market day.

 

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 讗诪专 专讘 砖讻讬专 砖注讜转 讚讬讜诐 讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 砖讻讬专 砖注讜转 讚诇讬诇讛 讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 砖讻讬专 砖注讜转 讚讬讜诐 讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讜砖讻讬专 砖注讜转 讚诇讬诇讛 讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛 讜讻诇 讛讬讜诐

 

搂 The mishna teaches that an hourly laborer collects his wages all night and all day. Rav says: An hourly laborer who worked by day collects his wages all that day, while an hourly laborer who worked by night collects his wages all that night. And Shmuel says: An hourly laborer who worked by day indeed collects his wages all that day, but an hourly laborer by night collects his wages all that night and all the following day.

 

转谞谉 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 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 诇爪讚讚讬谉 拽转谞讬 砖讻讬专 砖注讜转 讚讬讜诐 讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 砖讻讬专 砖注讜转 讚诇讬诇讛 讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛

 

We learned in the mishna: An hourly laborer collects his wages all night and all day. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of Rav. The Gemara answers: Rav could have said to you that he teaches the mishna disjunctively in the following manner: An hourly laborer by day collects his wages all day, while an hourly laborer by night collects his wages all night.

 

转谞谉 讛讬讛 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 讬讜爪讗 讘讬讜诐 讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讬讜爪讗 讘诇讬诇讛 讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛 讜讻诇 讛讬讜诐

 

We learned in the mishna: If he was 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. This indicates that one who finishes his work at night can be paid throughout the following day as well.

 

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖讻讬专 砖注讜转 讚讬讜诐 讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 砖讻讬专 砖注讜转 讚诇讬诇讛 讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖讻讬专 砖注讜转 讚讬讜诐 讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 砖讻讬专 砖注讜转 讚诇讬诇讛 讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛 讜讻诇 讛讬讜诐

 

The Gemara replies: Rav could have said to you that it is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: An hourly laborer by day collects his wages all day, while an hourly laborer by night collects his wages all night; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: An hourly laborer by day collects his wages all day, while an hourly laborer by night collects his wages all night and all day.

 

诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讻诇 讛讻讜讘砖 砖讻专 砖讻讬专 注讜讘专 讘讞诪砖讛 砖诪讜转 讛诇诇讜 讜注砖讛 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转注砖拽 讗转 专注讱 讜诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讙讝诇 讜诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转注砖拽 砖讻讬专 注谞讬 讜诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转诇讬谉 讜诪砖讜诐 讘讬讜诪讜 转转谉 砖讻专讜 讜诪砖讜诐 诇讗 转讘讗 注诇讬讜 讛砖诪砖

 

The baraita continues. From here the Sages stated: Anyone who withholds the wages of a hired laborer violates these five negative prohibitions and one positive mitzva. He violates the prohibition of: 鈥淒o not oppress your neighbor鈥 (Leviticus 19:13), and the prohibition of: 鈥淒o not steal鈥 (Leviticus 19:13), and the prohibition of: 鈥淵ou should not oppress a hired laborer who is poor鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:14), and the prohibition of delaying payment of wages (Leviticus 19:13), and he has not fulfilled the positive mitzva of: 鈥淥n the same day you shall give him his wages鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:15), and he has violated the prohibition of: 鈥淭he sun shall not set upon him鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:15).

 

讛谞讬 讚讗讬讻讗 讘讬诪诪讗 诇讬讻讗 讘诇讬诇讬讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讘诇讬诇讬讗 诇讬讻讗 讘讬诪诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 砖诐 砖讻讬专讜转 讘注诇诪讗

 

The Gemara asks: But these five prohibitions do not all take effect at the same time, since those that are applicable by day are not in effect by night, while those that are applicable by night are not relevant by day. How can he be in violation of them all? Rav 岣sda said: It means merely that the general concept of withholding the wages of a hired laborer includes all these prohibitions and one positive mitzva.

 

讗讬讝讛 讛讜讗 注讜砖拽 讜讗讬讝讛讜 讙讝诇 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讱 讜砖讜讘 诇讱 讜砖讜讘 讝讛 讛讜讗 注讜砖拽 讬砖 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讜讗讬谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讱 讝讛 讛讜讗 讙讝诇

 

搂 The Gemara asks: What is defined as oppression and what is defined as stealing, and what is the difference between them? Rav 岣sda said: If he told him: Go and return, go and return (see Proverbs 3:28), avoiding paying him while saying that he will pay him at some point, this is oppression. If he says to him: You have money owed to you in my possession but I will not give it to you, this is stealing.

 

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖砖转 讗讬讝讛讜 注讜砖拽 砖讞讬讬讘讛 注诇讬讜 转讜专讛 拽专讘谉 讚讜诪讬讗 讚驻拽讚讜谉 讚拽讗 讻驻专 诇讬讛 诪诪讜谞讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 谞转转讬讜 诇讱 讝讛讜 注讜砖拽 讬砖 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讜讗讬谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讱 讝讛 讛讜讗 讙讝诇

 

Rav Sheshet objects to this from a baraita: What is the type of oppression for which the Torah obligated him to bring an offering? It is similar to the case of one who had been entrusted with money as a deposit, where he then denies that he accepted it, thereby keeping the money. This contradicts Rav 岣sda鈥檚 claim that oppression is referring to one who admits that he owes him. Rather, Rav Sheshet said that the difference is as follows: If he said to him: I gave it to you, this is defined as oppression. If he tells him: You have money owed to you in my possession but I am not giving it to you, this is defined as stealing.

 

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬讝讛 讛讜讗 讙讝诇 砖讞讬讬讘讛 注诇讬讜 转讜专讛 拽专讘谉 讚讜诪讬讗 讚驻拽讚讜谉 讘注讬谞谉 讚拽讗 讻驻专 诇讬讛 诪诪讜谞讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖讻专转讬讱 诪注讜诇诐 讝讛 讛讜讗 注讜砖拽 谞转转讬讜 诇讱 讝讛 讛讜讗 讙讝诇

 

Abaye objects to this: What is the type of stealing for which the Torah obligated him to bring an offering? We require it to be similar to the case of one who had been entrusted with money as a deposit, where he then denies that he accepted it, thereby keeping the money. That is unlike the example of stealing given by Rav 岣sda and Rav Sheshet, where the party withholding the money concedes that he owes it. Rather, Abaye said: If he said to him: I never hired you, this is oppression; if he claimed: I gave it to you, this is stealing.

 

讜诇专讘 砖砖转 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 注讜砖拽 讚拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讙讝诇 讚诇讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讱 讙讝诇 讚讙讝诇讬讛 讜讛讚专 讻驻专讬讛

 

The Gemara asks: And according to Rav Sheshet, what is different about oppression that he raised a difficulty against Rav 岣sda concerning it, and what is different about stealing that he did not raise a difficulty, although Abaye鈥檚 question was similar to his. The Gemara explains: Rav Sheshet could have said to you: Stealing means that he first stole from him by stating that he will not give him the money, and later denied owing it.

 

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 注讜砖拽 谞诪讬 讚讛讚专 讻驻专讬讛 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 讻转讬讘 讗讜 讘讙讝诇 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讜讚讬 诇讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讘诇 讙讘讬 注讜砖拽 诪讬 讻转讬讘 讗讜 讘注讜砖拽 讗讜 注砖拽 讻转讬讘 砖注砖拽讜 讻讘专

 

The Gemara challenges: If so, then even with regard to oppression as well, the case can be that he first conceded that he owes the wages and then later denied it. Why does Rav Sheshet say that the case must be where the employer said to the laborer: I gave it to you? The Gemara responds: How can these cases be compared? Granted, there it is written: 鈥淎nd if he deals falsely with his neighbor in a matter of deposit, or of pledge, or of robbery鈥 (Leviticus 5:21), which by inference indicates that he admitted to him at the outset. But with regard to oppression is it written: Or by oppression? It is written: 鈥淥r he oppressed,鈥 which does not refer back to his previous denial but is referring to the actual sin, indicating that he had already oppressed him.

 

专讘讗 讗诪专 讝讛 讛讜讗 注讜砖拽 讝讛讜 讙讝诇 讜诇诪讛 讞诇拽谉 讛讻转讜讘 诇注讘讜专 注诇讬讜 讘砖谞讬 诇讗讜讬谉

 

Rava said: There is no need for such an artificial distinction, as oppression is the same as stealing, and no practical difference exists between the two categories. And why, then, did the verse divide them into two categories? It did this so that he will violate two prohibitions, stealing and oppression.

 

诪转谞讬壮 讗讞讚 砖讻专 讗讚诐 讜讗讞讚 砖讻专 讘讛诪讛 讜讗讞讚 砖讻专 讻诇讬诐 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讜诪讜 转转谉 砖讻专讜 讜讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 转诇讬谉 驻注诇转 砖讻讬专 讗转讱 注讚 讘拽专 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖转讘注讜 诇讗 转讘注讜 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 注诇讬讜 讛诪讞讛讜 讗爪诇 讞谞讜谞讬 讗讜 讗爪诇 砖讜诇讞谞讬 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 注诇讬讜

 

MISHNA: Whether referring to a person鈥檚 wages that he receives or the renting of an animal or the renting of utensils, are all subject to the prohibition of: 鈥淥n the same day you shall give him his wages鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:15), and are subject to the prohibition of: 鈥淭he wages of a hired laborer shall not remain with you all night until the morning鈥 (Leviticus 19:13). When does he transgress these prohibitions? He transgresses them when the one owed the money claimed the payment from him. If he did not claim his payment from him the other does not transgress the prohibitions. If the one who owes the money transferred his payment by leaving instructions with a storekeeper or with a money changer to pay him, he does not transgress the prohibitions.

 

砖讻讬专 讘讝诪谞讜 谞砖讘注 讜谞讜讟诇 注讘专 讝诪谞讜 讗讬谞讜 谞砖讘注 讜谞讜讟诇 讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 砖转讘注讜 讘讝诪谞讜 讛专讬 讝讛 谞砖讘注 讜谞讜讟诇

 

The mishna discusses other related halakhot: If a hired laborer requests payment at the proper time and the employer claims he already paid him, the laborer takes an oath that he did not receive his wages and then takes the wages from the employer. If the time had passed, he does not take an oath and take the wages. If there are witnesses who testify that he claimed the money from him at the proper time, he takes an oath and takes the money.

 

讙专 转讜砖讘 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讜诪讜 转转谉 砖讻专讜 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 转诇讬谉 驻注讜诇转 砖讻讬专 讗转讱 注讚 讘拽专

 

One who hires a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [ger toshav] is subject to the prohibition of: 鈥淥n the same day you shall give him his wages,鈥 but is not subject to the negative mitzva of: 鈥淭he wages of a hired laborer shall not remain with you all night until the morning.鈥

 

讙诪壮 诪谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讚诪讗讞讬讱 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗

 

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is not that of the first tanna of the baraita, who interprets the phrase: 鈥淔rom your brothers鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:14), and it is not Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara clarifies: What is this baraita that is referred to here? The Gemara explains: As it is taught in a baraita:

 

诪讗讞讬讱 驻专讟 诇讗讞专讬诐 讙专讱 讝讛 讙专 爪讚拽 讘砖注专讬讱 讝讛 讗讜讻诇 谞讘讬诇讜转

 

The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not oppress a hired laborer who is poor and needy, whether he be from your brothers or from your stranger that is in your land within your gates鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:14), which is interpreted as follows: The term 鈥渇rom your brothers鈥 serves to exclude others, i.e., gentiles, who are not your brothers. As for the term 鈥測our stranger,鈥 this is referring to a righteous convert. As for the term 鈥渨ithin your gates,鈥 this is referring to a ger toshav who lives in Eretz Yisrael and eats unslaughtered animal carcasses because he has not accepted Judaism upon himself.

 

讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 砖讻专 讗讚诐 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讘讛诪讛 讜讻诇讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讗专爪讱 讻诇 砖讘讗专爪讱 讜讻讜诇谉 注讜讘专讬诐 讘讻诇 讛砖诪讜转 讛诇诇讜

 

I have derived only that the prohibitions of delaying wages apply to the hire of people. From where do I know to include payment for the rental of animals and utensils in the prohibition of delaying wages? The verse states: 鈥淚n your land,鈥 which includes all that is in your land. And in all of the above cases of delaying payment they transgress all of these prohibitions which apply to delaying payment.

 

诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讗讞讚 砖讻专 讗讚诐 讜讗讞讚 砖讻专 讘讛诪讛 讜讗讞讚 砖讻专 讻诇讬诐 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讜诪讜 转转谉 砖讻专讜 讜讬砖 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转诇讬谉 驻注诇转 砖讻讬专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讙专 转讜砖讘 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讜诪讜 转转谉 砖讻专讜 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 转诇讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讜讻诇讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转注砖拽 讘诇讘讚

 

From here the Sages stated: Whether referring to the hire of a person or the rental of an animal or the rental of utensils, all are subject to the prohibition of: 鈥淥n the same day you shall give him his wages鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:15), and they are likewise subject to the prohibition of delaying the payment of wages of a hired laborer (Leviticus 19:13). Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: One who hires a ger toshav is subject to the prohibition of: 鈥淥n the same day you shall give him his wages,鈥 but is not subject to the prohibition of delaying payment of wages, and the payment of rent of an animal or vessels is included only in the prohibition of: 鈥淒o not oppress鈥 alone.

 

诪谞讬 讗讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讚诪讗讞讬讱 拽砖讬讗 讙专 转讜砖讘 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 拽砖讬讗 讘讛诪讛 讜讻诇讬诐

 

The Gemara returns to its initial question: In accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna of the baraita, who interprets the verse: 鈥淔rom your brothers,鈥 the halakha of a ger toshav is difficult, as he equates a ger toshav with a Jew, unlike the mishna. If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, the halakha of the rental payment of animals and vessels is difficult, as Rabbi Yosei maintains they are not included in any of the prohibitions except for: Do not oppress.

 

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 转谞讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讜讗 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讞讚 砖讻专 讗讚诐 讜讗讞讚 砖讻专 讘讛诪讛 讜讗讞讚 砖讻专 讻诇讬诐 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讜诪讜 转转谉 砖讻专讜 讜诪砖讜诐 诇讗 转诇讬谉 讙专 转讜砖讘 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讜诪讜 转转谉 砖讻专讜 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转诇讬谉

 

Rava said: This tanna of the mishna is a tanna from the school of Rabbi Yishmael, as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Whether in the case of the hire of a person, the rental of an animal, or the rental of vessels, all of these payments are subject to the mitzva of: 鈥淥n the same day you shall give him his wages,鈥 and the prohibition of delaying payment of wages. A ger toshav is subject to the mitzva of: 鈥淥n the same day you shall give him his wages,鈥 but he is not subject to the prohibition of delaying payment of wages.

 

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讚诪讗讞讬讱 讙诪专 砖讻讬专 砖讻讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讙诪专 砖讻讬专 砖讻讬专

 

Until this point, the Gemara has discussed the source of the ruling of the first tanna. It now analyzes the reasons behind the different opinions. What is the reason of the first tanna of the baraita, who interprets the verse: 鈥淔rom your brothers鈥? He derives it by verbal analogy comparing the words: 鈥淵ou shall not oppress a hired laborer,鈥 and the verse: 鈥淭he wages of a hired laborer shall not remain with you all night until the morning.鈥 Just as the former verse includes a Jew, a ger toshav, the rental of an animal, and the rental of utensils, so too, the latter verse includes all of the above. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, does not derive this verbal analogy of: 鈥淗ired laborer鈥 and 鈥渉ired laborer.鈥

 

谞讛讬 讚诇讗 讙诪专 砖讻讬专 砖讻讬专 讘讛诪讛 讜讻诇讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讜诪讜 转转谉 砖讻专讜 谞诪讬 谞讬讞讬讬讘 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诇讗 转讘讗 注诇讬讜 讛砖诪砖 讻讬 注谞讬 讛讜讗 诪讬 砖讛谉 讘讗讬谉 诇讬讚讬 注谞讬讜转 讜注砖讬专讜转 讬爪讗讜 讘讛诪讛 讜讻诇讬诐 砖讗讬谞谉 讘讗讬谉 诇讬讚讬 注谞讬讜转 讜注砖讬专讜转

 

The Gemara challenges: Although Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, does not derive the verbal analogy of the words: 鈥淗ired laborer鈥 and 鈥渉ired laborer,鈥 one should still also be liable in the case of animals or vessels due to the injunction of: 鈥淥n the same day you shall give him his wages.鈥 From where does he derive that such items are not included in this prohibition? Rabbi 岣nanya teaches in a baraita that the verse states: 鈥淥n his day you shall give him his wages, and the sun shall not set upon him, for he is poor鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:15). This verse clearly is referring to one who can enter into a state of poverty and wealth, which excludes animals and vessels, which cannot enter into a state of poverty and wealth.

 

讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 讛讗讬 讻讬 注谞讬 讛讜讗 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讛拽讚讬诐 注谞讬 诇注砖讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讛讜讗 诪诇讗 转注砖拽 砖讻讬专 注谞讬 讜讗讘讬讜谉 谞驻拽讗

 

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the first tanna, who does not address this verse of: 鈥淔or he is poor,鈥 what does he do with it? The Gemara answers: That verse is necessary to give precedence to a poor person over a wealthy person if the employer does not have enough money to pay all his workers. And how does Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, derive that halakha? In his opinion that halakha is derived from: 鈥淵ou shall not oppress a hired laborer who is poor and needy鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:14).

 

讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 讞讚 诇讛拽讚讬诐 注谞讬 诇注砖讬专 讜讞讚 诇讛拽讚讬诐 注谞讬 诇讗讘讬讜谉

 

The Gemara asks: But if so, why does the first tanna require another verse? The Gemara explains: He maintains that one verse serves to give a poor person precedence over a wealthy person, while the other one serves to give a poor person precedence over a destitute person, i.e., a complete pauper who owns nothing.

 

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讗讘讬讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讻住讬祝 诇诪转讘注讬讛 讗讘诇 注砖讬专 讚讻住讬祝 诇诪转讘注讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 注砖讬专 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讗讘讬讜谉 讚爪专讬讱 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

 

The Gemara adds: And both verses are necessary, as had the Torah taught us only that a poor person comes before one who is destitute one could have said that this is because a destitute person is not ashamed to demand his money; he is so needy he is not embarrassed to ask for money. But with regard to a wealthy person, who is ashamed to demand his wages, one might say that a poor person does not receive precedence over him. And conversely, had the Torah taught us only that this halakha applies to a wealthy person one could have said that it is because he does not need his wages right away, but with regard to a destitute person, who does need it immediately, say that it does not apply. It was therefore necessary for both verses to be stated.

 

讜转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讬诇讬祝 砖讻讬专 砖讻讬专 讗驻讬诇讜 讙专 转讜砖讘 谞诪讬 讗讬 诇讗 讬诇讬祝 砖讻讬专 砖讻讬专 讘讛诪讛 讜讻诇讬诐 诪谞讗 诇讬讛

 

The Gemara asks: And with the regard to the ruling of the tanna of our mishna, whichever way you look at it, it requires clarification. If he derives the verbal analogy of the words: 鈥淗ired laborer鈥 and 鈥渉ired laborer,鈥 then even a ger toshav should be included. If he does not derive the verbal analogy of the words: 鈥淗ired laborer鈥 and 鈥渉ired laborer,鈥 from where does he derive that this halakha applies to animals and vessels?

 

诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 讬诇讬祝 砖讻讬专 砖讻讬专 讜砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诇讗 转诇讬谉 驻注诇转 砖讻讬专 讗转讱 注讚 讘拽专 讻诇 砖驻注讜诇转讜 讗转讱 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讙专 转讜砖讘 谞诪讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 专注讱 专注讱 讜诇讗 讙专 转讜砖讘

 

The Gemara answers: Actually, he does not derive the analogy of: 鈥淗ired laborer鈥 and 鈥渉ired laborer,鈥 and there it is different, as the verse states: 鈥淭he wages of [pe鈥檜lat] a hired laborer shall not remain with you all night until the morning鈥 (Leviticus 19:13). This verse is referring to any case where its work [pe鈥檜lato] is with you, which includes animals and vessels. The Gemara asks: If so, then even a ger toshav should be included, as he too performs work for you. The Gemara responds: The initial section of the verse states: 鈥淵our neighbor,鈥 which refers to your neighbor who is Jewish, and not a ger toshav, who is not called a neighbor.

 

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讛诪讛 讜讻诇讬诐 谞诪讬 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讗转讱 诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 讘讛诪讛 讜讻诇讬诐 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讙专 转讜砖讘 诪住转讘专讗 讘讛诪讛 讜讻诇讬诐 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜转 砖讻谉 讬砖谞谉 讘讻诇诇 诪诪讜谉 专注讱 讙专 转讜砖讘 讗讬谞讜 讘讻诇诇 诪诪讜谉 专注讱

 

The Gemara asks: If so, then even animals and utensils should not be included, as they too are not called: Your neighbor. The Gemara replies: It is written: 鈥淲ith you,鈥 which includes all items that work with you. The Gemara asks: What did you see to decide to include animals and utensils, and to exclude a ger toshav? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that he should include animals and utensils, as they are at least included in the category of your neighbor鈥檚 money, whereas a ger toshav is not included in your neighbor鈥檚 money.

 

讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 讚诪讗讞讬讱 讛讗讬 专注讱 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 专注讱 讜诇讗 谞讻专讬 谞讻专讬 诪讗讞讬讱 谞驻拽讗

 

The Gemara asks: And the first tanna of the baraita, who interprets: 鈥淔rom your brothers,鈥 what does he do with this verse: 鈥淵our neighbor鈥? The Gemara explains: That verse is necessary for him for that which is taught in a baraita: 鈥淵our neighbor,鈥 and not a gentile. The Gemara challenges: The exclusion of a gentile is derived from: 鈥淵our brothers,鈥 and no additional verses are necessary for this purpose.

 

讞讚 诇诪砖专讗 注讜砖拽讜 讜讞讚 诇诪砖专讗 讙讝诇讜 讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讙讝诇讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讟专讞 讘讬讛 讗讘诇 注讜砖拽讜 讚讟专讞 讘讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 注讜砖拽讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗转讗 诇讬讚讬讛 讗讘诇 讙讝诇讜 讚讗转讗 诇讬讚讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

 

The Gemara answers: One verse serves to permit one who oppresses him, and the other one serves to permit stealing from him, and both are necessary. Because had the Torah taught us this halakha only with regard to stealing from him, one could have said that this is because the gentile did not toil for him, but one who oppresses him, where he has toiled for him, you might say that he is not permitted to oppress him. And conversely, had the Torah taught us only that the practice of he who oppresses him is permitted, it might have been said that this is because the money has not yet reached his hand, but with regard to stealing from him, when he takes money that has already reached his hand, say that this halakha does not apply. Therefore, both cases are necessary.

 

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗讬 诇讗 转诇讬谉 驻注诇转 砖讻讬专 讗转讱 注讚 讘拽专 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘 讗住讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 砖讻专讜 讗诇讗 诇讘爪讜专 诇讜 讗砖讻讜诇 讗讞讚 砖诇 注谞讘讬诐 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转诇讬谉

 

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, do with this verse: 鈥淭he wages of a hired laborer shall not remain with you all night until the morning鈥? The Gemara answers: It is necessary for him for that which Rav Asi teaches, as Rav Asi says: Even if one hired the laborer to harvest only one cluster of grapes for him, one violates the prohibition of delaying payment of wages.

 

讜讗讬讚讱 诪讜讗诇讬讜 讛讜讗 谞砖讗 讗转 谞驻砖讜 谞驻拽讗 讚讘专 讛诪讜住专 谞驻砖讜 注诇讬讜

 

The Gemara asks: And from where does the other Sage, i.e., the first tanna, derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the phrase: 鈥淔or he sets his soul upon it鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:15). This indicates that one is liable for delaying the payment of wages due for any work; as a laborer obligates himself to perform the work, it is something for which he gives his soul.

 

  • 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 Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • 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

on second thought thumbnail

Withholding a Worker’s Wages – On Second Thought

On Second Thought: Delving Into the Sugya with Rabbanit Yafit Clymer Sources Bava Metzia 111 112 113 Listen here: Watch...
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...
din & daf elana stein hain thumbnail

Din & Daf: A (Biblical) Loan is Tzedakah – Mashkon Limitations

Din & Daf: Conceptual Analysis of Halakha Through Case Study with Dr. Elana Stein Hain 诪砖讻讜谉 In this shiur, we...
talking talmud_square

Bava Metzia 111: Oshek and Gezel

If wages are withheld is it oshek or gezel? Does the prohibition against withholding wages also apply to animals and...

Bava Metzia 111

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 111

讜讝讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 驻注讜诇转讜 讗爪诇讜 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖讻专讻诐 注诇讬 砖讻专讜 注诇讬讜 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛驻讜注诇 诇注砖讜转 讘砖诇讜 讜讛专讗讛讜 讘砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 谞讜转谉 诇讜 砖讻专讜 诪砖诇诐 讜讞讜讝专 讜谞讜讟诇 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪讛 砖讛讛谞讛 讗讜转讜

 

And that one, the middleman, is exempt because his work is not performed for him. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If the middleman said to them: Your wages are incumbent upon me, his wages are indeed upon him, as the one who hired the workers bears full responsibility. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who hires a laborer to perform work in his own field, and the employer inadvertently showed the laborer a field belonging to another in which he should work, the employer must give the laborer his full wages; and in addition, the employer goes back and takes from the owner of the field in which he worked the value of the benefit that owner received from the laborer. The employer is entitled to claim from the owner of the field the profit that owner gained from the work, but not the entire wages of the laborer. This indicates that one who says: Your wage is incumbent upon me, is responsible for the arrangement.

 

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖讻专讻诐 注诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转

 

The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to state this halakha where the middleman said to them: The obligation to pay your wages is incumbent upon the employer, in which case they share responsibility for the payment and neither violates the prohibition.

 

讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 诪专讬诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇砖诪注讬讛 讝讬诇 讗讙讬专 诇讬 驻讜注诇讬诐 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讛讜 砖讻专讻诐 注诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪专讬诪专 讜诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讗讙专讬 诇讛讚讚讬

 

The Gemara relates: Yehuda bar Mareimar would say to his attendant: Go hire workers for me and say to them: Your wages are upon the employer. Yehuda bar Mareimar instructed the attendant to do this in order to avoid violating the prohibition of delaying payment of wages. Mareimar and Mar Zutra would hire workers for each other for the same reason.

 

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛谞讬 砖讜拽讗讬 讚住讜专讗 诇讗 注讘专讬 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转诇讬谉 诪讬讚注 讬讚注讬 讚注诇 讬讜诪讗 讚砖讜拽讗 住诪讬讻讬 讗讘诇 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转砖讛讗 讜讚讗讬 注讜讘专

 

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: Those marketplace workers of Sura do not violate the prohibition by Torah law of delaying payment of wages, in the event that they do not pay their employees immediately. This is because everyone knows that they rely on the market day to earn their money, and the employees are aware that they will not be paid on the same day that they worked. But he certainly violates the prohibition by rabbinic law of: Do not delay, if he withholds payment any later than the market day.

 

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 讗诪专 专讘 砖讻讬专 砖注讜转 讚讬讜诐 讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 砖讻讬专 砖注讜转 讚诇讬诇讛 讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 砖讻讬专 砖注讜转 讚讬讜诐 讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讜砖讻讬专 砖注讜转 讚诇讬诇讛 讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛 讜讻诇 讛讬讜诐

 

搂 The mishna teaches that an hourly laborer collects his wages all night and all day. Rav says: An hourly laborer who worked by day collects his wages all that day, while an hourly laborer who worked by night collects his wages all that night. And Shmuel says: An hourly laborer who worked by day indeed collects his wages all that day, but an hourly laborer by night collects his wages all that night and all the following day.

 

转谞谉 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 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 诇爪讚讚讬谉 拽转谞讬 砖讻讬专 砖注讜转 讚讬讜诐 讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 砖讻讬专 砖注讜转 讚诇讬诇讛 讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛

 

We learned in the mishna: An hourly laborer collects his wages all night and all day. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of Rav. The Gemara answers: Rav could have said to you that he teaches the mishna disjunctively in the following manner: An hourly laborer by day collects his wages all day, while an hourly laborer by night collects his wages all night.

 

转谞谉 讛讬讛 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 讬讜爪讗 讘讬讜诐 讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讬讜爪讗 讘诇讬诇讛 讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛 讜讻诇 讛讬讜诐

 

We learned in the mishna: If he was 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. This indicates that one who finishes his work at night can be paid throughout the following day as well.

 

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖讻讬专 砖注讜转 讚讬讜诐 讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 砖讻讬专 砖注讜转 讚诇讬诇讛 讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖讻讬专 砖注讜转 讚讬讜诐 讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 砖讻讬专 砖注讜转 讚诇讬诇讛 讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛 讜讻诇 讛讬讜诐

 

The Gemara replies: Rav could have said to you that it is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: An hourly laborer by day collects his wages all day, while an hourly laborer by night collects his wages all night; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: An hourly laborer by day collects his wages all day, while an hourly laborer by night collects his wages all night and all day.

 

诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讻诇 讛讻讜讘砖 砖讻专 砖讻讬专 注讜讘专 讘讞诪砖讛 砖诪讜转 讛诇诇讜 讜注砖讛 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转注砖拽 讗转 专注讱 讜诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讙讝诇 讜诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转注砖拽 砖讻讬专 注谞讬 讜诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转诇讬谉 讜诪砖讜诐 讘讬讜诪讜 转转谉 砖讻专讜 讜诪砖讜诐 诇讗 转讘讗 注诇讬讜 讛砖诪砖

 

The baraita continues. From here the Sages stated: Anyone who withholds the wages of a hired laborer violates these five negative prohibitions and one positive mitzva. He violates the prohibition of: 鈥淒o not oppress your neighbor鈥 (Leviticus 19:13), and the prohibition of: 鈥淒o not steal鈥 (Leviticus 19:13), and the prohibition of: 鈥淵ou should not oppress a hired laborer who is poor鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:14), and the prohibition of delaying payment of wages (Leviticus 19:13), and he has not fulfilled the positive mitzva of: 鈥淥n the same day you shall give him his wages鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:15), and he has violated the prohibition of: 鈥淭he sun shall not set upon him鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:15).

 

讛谞讬 讚讗讬讻讗 讘讬诪诪讗 诇讬讻讗 讘诇讬诇讬讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讘诇讬诇讬讗 诇讬讻讗 讘讬诪诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 砖诐 砖讻讬专讜转 讘注诇诪讗

 

The Gemara asks: But these five prohibitions do not all take effect at the same time, since those that are applicable by day are not in effect by night, while those that are applicable by night are not relevant by day. How can he be in violation of them all? Rav 岣sda said: It means merely that the general concept of withholding the wages of a hired laborer includes all these prohibitions and one positive mitzva.

 

讗讬讝讛 讛讜讗 注讜砖拽 讜讗讬讝讛讜 讙讝诇 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讱 讜砖讜讘 诇讱 讜砖讜讘 讝讛 讛讜讗 注讜砖拽 讬砖 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讜讗讬谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讱 讝讛 讛讜讗 讙讝诇

 

搂 The Gemara asks: What is defined as oppression and what is defined as stealing, and what is the difference between them? Rav 岣sda said: If he told him: Go and return, go and return (see Proverbs 3:28), avoiding paying him while saying that he will pay him at some point, this is oppression. If he says to him: You have money owed to you in my possession but I will not give it to you, this is stealing.

 

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖砖转 讗讬讝讛讜 注讜砖拽 砖讞讬讬讘讛 注诇讬讜 转讜专讛 拽专讘谉 讚讜诪讬讗 讚驻拽讚讜谉 讚拽讗 讻驻专 诇讬讛 诪诪讜谞讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 谞转转讬讜 诇讱 讝讛讜 注讜砖拽 讬砖 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讜讗讬谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讱 讝讛 讛讜讗 讙讝诇

 

Rav Sheshet objects to this from a baraita: What is the type of oppression for which the Torah obligated him to bring an offering? It is similar to the case of one who had been entrusted with money as a deposit, where he then denies that he accepted it, thereby keeping the money. This contradicts Rav 岣sda鈥檚 claim that oppression is referring to one who admits that he owes him. Rather, Rav Sheshet said that the difference is as follows: If he said to him: I gave it to you, this is defined as oppression. If he tells him: You have money owed to you in my possession but I am not giving it to you, this is defined as stealing.

 

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬讝讛 讛讜讗 讙讝诇 砖讞讬讬讘讛 注诇讬讜 转讜专讛 拽专讘谉 讚讜诪讬讗 讚驻拽讚讜谉 讘注讬谞谉 讚拽讗 讻驻专 诇讬讛 诪诪讜谞讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖讻专转讬讱 诪注讜诇诐 讝讛 讛讜讗 注讜砖拽 谞转转讬讜 诇讱 讝讛 讛讜讗 讙讝诇

 

Abaye objects to this: What is the type of stealing for which the Torah obligated him to bring an offering? We require it to be similar to the case of one who had been entrusted with money as a deposit, where he then denies that he accepted it, thereby keeping the money. That is unlike the example of stealing given by Rav 岣sda and Rav Sheshet, where the party withholding the money concedes that he owes it. Rather, Abaye said: If he said to him: I never hired you, this is oppression; if he claimed: I gave it to you, this is stealing.

 

讜诇专讘 砖砖转 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 注讜砖拽 讚拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讙讝诇 讚诇讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讱 讙讝诇 讚讙讝诇讬讛 讜讛讚专 讻驻专讬讛

 

The Gemara asks: And according to Rav Sheshet, what is different about oppression that he raised a difficulty against Rav 岣sda concerning it, and what is different about stealing that he did not raise a difficulty, although Abaye鈥檚 question was similar to his. The Gemara explains: Rav Sheshet could have said to you: Stealing means that he first stole from him by stating that he will not give him the money, and later denied owing it.

 

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 注讜砖拽 谞诪讬 讚讛讚专 讻驻专讬讛 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 讻转讬讘 讗讜 讘讙讝诇 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讜讚讬 诇讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讘诇 讙讘讬 注讜砖拽 诪讬 讻转讬讘 讗讜 讘注讜砖拽 讗讜 注砖拽 讻转讬讘 砖注砖拽讜 讻讘专

 

The Gemara challenges: If so, then even with regard to oppression as well, the case can be that he first conceded that he owes the wages and then later denied it. Why does Rav Sheshet say that the case must be where the employer said to the laborer: I gave it to you? The Gemara responds: How can these cases be compared? Granted, there it is written: 鈥淎nd if he deals falsely with his neighbor in a matter of deposit, or of pledge, or of robbery鈥 (Leviticus 5:21), which by inference indicates that he admitted to him at the outset. But with regard to oppression is it written: Or by oppression? It is written: 鈥淥r he oppressed,鈥 which does not refer back to his previous denial but is referring to the actual sin, indicating that he had already oppressed him.

 

专讘讗 讗诪专 讝讛 讛讜讗 注讜砖拽 讝讛讜 讙讝诇 讜诇诪讛 讞诇拽谉 讛讻转讜讘 诇注讘讜专 注诇讬讜 讘砖谞讬 诇讗讜讬谉

 

Rava said: There is no need for such an artificial distinction, as oppression is the same as stealing, and no practical difference exists between the two categories. And why, then, did the verse divide them into two categories? It did this so that he will violate two prohibitions, stealing and oppression.

 

诪转谞讬壮 讗讞讚 砖讻专 讗讚诐 讜讗讞讚 砖讻专 讘讛诪讛 讜讗讞讚 砖讻专 讻诇讬诐 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讜诪讜 转转谉 砖讻专讜 讜讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 转诇讬谉 驻注诇转 砖讻讬专 讗转讱 注讚 讘拽专 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖转讘注讜 诇讗 转讘注讜 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 注诇讬讜 讛诪讞讛讜 讗爪诇 讞谞讜谞讬 讗讜 讗爪诇 砖讜诇讞谞讬 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 注诇讬讜

 

MISHNA: Whether referring to a person鈥檚 wages that he receives or the renting of an animal or the renting of utensils, are all subject to the prohibition of: 鈥淥n the same day you shall give him his wages鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:15), and are subject to the prohibition of: 鈥淭he wages of a hired laborer shall not remain with you all night until the morning鈥 (Leviticus 19:13). When does he transgress these prohibitions? He transgresses them when the one owed the money claimed the payment from him. If he did not claim his payment from him the other does not transgress the prohibitions. If the one who owes the money transferred his payment by leaving instructions with a storekeeper or with a money changer to pay him, he does not transgress the prohibitions.

 

砖讻讬专 讘讝诪谞讜 谞砖讘注 讜谞讜讟诇 注讘专 讝诪谞讜 讗讬谞讜 谞砖讘注 讜谞讜讟诇 讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 砖转讘注讜 讘讝诪谞讜 讛专讬 讝讛 谞砖讘注 讜谞讜讟诇

 

The mishna discusses other related halakhot: If a hired laborer requests payment at the proper time and the employer claims he already paid him, the laborer takes an oath that he did not receive his wages and then takes the wages from the employer. If the time had passed, he does not take an oath and take the wages. If there are witnesses who testify that he claimed the money from him at the proper time, he takes an oath and takes the money.

 

讙专 转讜砖讘 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讜诪讜 转转谉 砖讻专讜 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 转诇讬谉 驻注讜诇转 砖讻讬专 讗转讱 注讚 讘拽专

 

One who hires a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [ger toshav] is subject to the prohibition of: 鈥淥n the same day you shall give him his wages,鈥 but is not subject to the negative mitzva of: 鈥淭he wages of a hired laborer shall not remain with you all night until the morning.鈥

 

讙诪壮 诪谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讚诪讗讞讬讱 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗

 

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is not that of the first tanna of the baraita, who interprets the phrase: 鈥淔rom your brothers鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:14), and it is not Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara clarifies: What is this baraita that is referred to here? The Gemara explains: As it is taught in a baraita:

 

诪讗讞讬讱 驻专讟 诇讗讞专讬诐 讙专讱 讝讛 讙专 爪讚拽 讘砖注专讬讱 讝讛 讗讜讻诇 谞讘讬诇讜转

 

The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not oppress a hired laborer who is poor and needy, whether he be from your brothers or from your stranger that is in your land within your gates鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:14), which is interpreted as follows: The term 鈥渇rom your brothers鈥 serves to exclude others, i.e., gentiles, who are not your brothers. As for the term 鈥測our stranger,鈥 this is referring to a righteous convert. As for the term 鈥渨ithin your gates,鈥 this is referring to a ger toshav who lives in Eretz Yisrael and eats unslaughtered animal carcasses because he has not accepted Judaism upon himself.

 

讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 砖讻专 讗讚诐 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讘讛诪讛 讜讻诇讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讗专爪讱 讻诇 砖讘讗专爪讱 讜讻讜诇谉 注讜讘专讬诐 讘讻诇 讛砖诪讜转 讛诇诇讜

 

I have derived only that the prohibitions of delaying wages apply to the hire of people. From where do I know to include payment for the rental of animals and utensils in the prohibition of delaying wages? The verse states: 鈥淚n your land,鈥 which includes all that is in your land. And in all of the above cases of delaying payment they transgress all of these prohibitions which apply to delaying payment.

 

诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讗讞讚 砖讻专 讗讚诐 讜讗讞讚 砖讻专 讘讛诪讛 讜讗讞讚 砖讻专 讻诇讬诐 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讜诪讜 转转谉 砖讻专讜 讜讬砖 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转诇讬谉 驻注诇转 砖讻讬专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讙专 转讜砖讘 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讜诪讜 转转谉 砖讻专讜 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 转诇讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讜讻诇讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转注砖拽 讘诇讘讚

 

From here the Sages stated: Whether referring to the hire of a person or the rental of an animal or the rental of utensils, all are subject to the prohibition of: 鈥淥n the same day you shall give him his wages鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:15), and they are likewise subject to the prohibition of delaying the payment of wages of a hired laborer (Leviticus 19:13). Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: One who hires a ger toshav is subject to the prohibition of: 鈥淥n the same day you shall give him his wages,鈥 but is not subject to the prohibition of delaying payment of wages, and the payment of rent of an animal or vessels is included only in the prohibition of: 鈥淒o not oppress鈥 alone.

 

诪谞讬 讗讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讚诪讗讞讬讱 拽砖讬讗 讙专 转讜砖讘 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 拽砖讬讗 讘讛诪讛 讜讻诇讬诐

 

The Gemara returns to its initial question: In accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna of the baraita, who interprets the verse: 鈥淔rom your brothers,鈥 the halakha of a ger toshav is difficult, as he equates a ger toshav with a Jew, unlike the mishna. If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, the halakha of the rental payment of animals and vessels is difficult, as Rabbi Yosei maintains they are not included in any of the prohibitions except for: Do not oppress.

 

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 转谞讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讜讗 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讞讚 砖讻专 讗讚诐 讜讗讞讚 砖讻专 讘讛诪讛 讜讗讞讚 砖讻专 讻诇讬诐 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讜诪讜 转转谉 砖讻专讜 讜诪砖讜诐 诇讗 转诇讬谉 讙专 转讜砖讘 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讜诪讜 转转谉 砖讻专讜 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转诇讬谉

 

Rava said: This tanna of the mishna is a tanna from the school of Rabbi Yishmael, as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Whether in the case of the hire of a person, the rental of an animal, or the rental of vessels, all of these payments are subject to the mitzva of: 鈥淥n the same day you shall give him his wages,鈥 and the prohibition of delaying payment of wages. A ger toshav is subject to the mitzva of: 鈥淥n the same day you shall give him his wages,鈥 but he is not subject to the prohibition of delaying payment of wages.

 

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讚诪讗讞讬讱 讙诪专 砖讻讬专 砖讻讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讙诪专 砖讻讬专 砖讻讬专

 

Until this point, the Gemara has discussed the source of the ruling of the first tanna. It now analyzes the reasons behind the different opinions. What is the reason of the first tanna of the baraita, who interprets the verse: 鈥淔rom your brothers鈥? He derives it by verbal analogy comparing the words: 鈥淵ou shall not oppress a hired laborer,鈥 and the verse: 鈥淭he wages of a hired laborer shall not remain with you all night until the morning.鈥 Just as the former verse includes a Jew, a ger toshav, the rental of an animal, and the rental of utensils, so too, the latter verse includes all of the above. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, does not derive this verbal analogy of: 鈥淗ired laborer鈥 and 鈥渉ired laborer.鈥

 

谞讛讬 讚诇讗 讙诪专 砖讻讬专 砖讻讬专 讘讛诪讛 讜讻诇讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讜诪讜 转转谉 砖讻专讜 谞诪讬 谞讬讞讬讬讘 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诇讗 转讘讗 注诇讬讜 讛砖诪砖 讻讬 注谞讬 讛讜讗 诪讬 砖讛谉 讘讗讬谉 诇讬讚讬 注谞讬讜转 讜注砖讬专讜转 讬爪讗讜 讘讛诪讛 讜讻诇讬诐 砖讗讬谞谉 讘讗讬谉 诇讬讚讬 注谞讬讜转 讜注砖讬专讜转

 

The Gemara challenges: Although Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, does not derive the verbal analogy of the words: 鈥淗ired laborer鈥 and 鈥渉ired laborer,鈥 one should still also be liable in the case of animals or vessels due to the injunction of: 鈥淥n the same day you shall give him his wages.鈥 From where does he derive that such items are not included in this prohibition? Rabbi 岣nanya teaches in a baraita that the verse states: 鈥淥n his day you shall give him his wages, and the sun shall not set upon him, for he is poor鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:15). This verse clearly is referring to one who can enter into a state of poverty and wealth, which excludes animals and vessels, which cannot enter into a state of poverty and wealth.

 

讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 讛讗讬 讻讬 注谞讬 讛讜讗 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讛拽讚讬诐 注谞讬 诇注砖讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讛讜讗 诪诇讗 转注砖拽 砖讻讬专 注谞讬 讜讗讘讬讜谉 谞驻拽讗

 

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the first tanna, who does not address this verse of: 鈥淔or he is poor,鈥 what does he do with it? The Gemara answers: That verse is necessary to give precedence to a poor person over a wealthy person if the employer does not have enough money to pay all his workers. And how does Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, derive that halakha? In his opinion that halakha is derived from: 鈥淵ou shall not oppress a hired laborer who is poor and needy鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:14).

 

讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 讞讚 诇讛拽讚讬诐 注谞讬 诇注砖讬专 讜讞讚 诇讛拽讚讬诐 注谞讬 诇讗讘讬讜谉

 

The Gemara asks: But if so, why does the first tanna require another verse? The Gemara explains: He maintains that one verse serves to give a poor person precedence over a wealthy person, while the other one serves to give a poor person precedence over a destitute person, i.e., a complete pauper who owns nothing.

 

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讗讘讬讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讻住讬祝 诇诪转讘注讬讛 讗讘诇 注砖讬专 讚讻住讬祝 诇诪转讘注讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 注砖讬专 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讗讘讬讜谉 讚爪专讬讱 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

 

The Gemara adds: And both verses are necessary, as had the Torah taught us only that a poor person comes before one who is destitute one could have said that this is because a destitute person is not ashamed to demand his money; he is so needy he is not embarrassed to ask for money. But with regard to a wealthy person, who is ashamed to demand his wages, one might say that a poor person does not receive precedence over him. And conversely, had the Torah taught us only that this halakha applies to a wealthy person one could have said that it is because he does not need his wages right away, but with regard to a destitute person, who does need it immediately, say that it does not apply. It was therefore necessary for both verses to be stated.

 

讜转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讬诇讬祝 砖讻讬专 砖讻讬专 讗驻讬诇讜 讙专 转讜砖讘 谞诪讬 讗讬 诇讗 讬诇讬祝 砖讻讬专 砖讻讬专 讘讛诪讛 讜讻诇讬诐 诪谞讗 诇讬讛

 

The Gemara asks: And with the regard to the ruling of the tanna of our mishna, whichever way you look at it, it requires clarification. If he derives the verbal analogy of the words: 鈥淗ired laborer鈥 and 鈥渉ired laborer,鈥 then even a ger toshav should be included. If he does not derive the verbal analogy of the words: 鈥淗ired laborer鈥 and 鈥渉ired laborer,鈥 from where does he derive that this halakha applies to animals and vessels?

 

诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 讬诇讬祝 砖讻讬专 砖讻讬专 讜砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诇讗 转诇讬谉 驻注诇转 砖讻讬专 讗转讱 注讚 讘拽专 讻诇 砖驻注讜诇转讜 讗转讱 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讙专 转讜砖讘 谞诪讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 专注讱 专注讱 讜诇讗 讙专 转讜砖讘

 

The Gemara answers: Actually, he does not derive the analogy of: 鈥淗ired laborer鈥 and 鈥渉ired laborer,鈥 and there it is different, as the verse states: 鈥淭he wages of [pe鈥檜lat] a hired laborer shall not remain with you all night until the morning鈥 (Leviticus 19:13). This verse is referring to any case where its work [pe鈥檜lato] is with you, which includes animals and vessels. The Gemara asks: If so, then even a ger toshav should be included, as he too performs work for you. The Gemara responds: The initial section of the verse states: 鈥淵our neighbor,鈥 which refers to your neighbor who is Jewish, and not a ger toshav, who is not called a neighbor.

 

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讛诪讛 讜讻诇讬诐 谞诪讬 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讗转讱 诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 讘讛诪讛 讜讻诇讬诐 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讙专 转讜砖讘 诪住转讘专讗 讘讛诪讛 讜讻诇讬诐 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜转 砖讻谉 讬砖谞谉 讘讻诇诇 诪诪讜谉 专注讱 讙专 转讜砖讘 讗讬谞讜 讘讻诇诇 诪诪讜谉 专注讱

 

The Gemara asks: If so, then even animals and utensils should not be included, as they too are not called: Your neighbor. The Gemara replies: It is written: 鈥淲ith you,鈥 which includes all items that work with you. The Gemara asks: What did you see to decide to include animals and utensils, and to exclude a ger toshav? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that he should include animals and utensils, as they are at least included in the category of your neighbor鈥檚 money, whereas a ger toshav is not included in your neighbor鈥檚 money.

 

讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 讚诪讗讞讬讱 讛讗讬 专注讱 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 专注讱 讜诇讗 谞讻专讬 谞讻专讬 诪讗讞讬讱 谞驻拽讗

 

The Gemara asks: And the first tanna of the baraita, who interprets: 鈥淔rom your brothers,鈥 what does he do with this verse: 鈥淵our neighbor鈥? The Gemara explains: That verse is necessary for him for that which is taught in a baraita: 鈥淵our neighbor,鈥 and not a gentile. The Gemara challenges: The exclusion of a gentile is derived from: 鈥淵our brothers,鈥 and no additional verses are necessary for this purpose.

 

讞讚 诇诪砖专讗 注讜砖拽讜 讜讞讚 诇诪砖专讗 讙讝诇讜 讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讙讝诇讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讟专讞 讘讬讛 讗讘诇 注讜砖拽讜 讚讟专讞 讘讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 注讜砖拽讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗转讗 诇讬讚讬讛 讗讘诇 讙讝诇讜 讚讗转讗 诇讬讚讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

 

The Gemara answers: One verse serves to permit one who oppresses him, and the other one serves to permit stealing from him, and both are necessary. Because had the Torah taught us this halakha only with regard to stealing from him, one could have said that this is because the gentile did not toil for him, but one who oppresses him, where he has toiled for him, you might say that he is not permitted to oppress him. And conversely, had the Torah taught us only that the practice of he who oppresses him is permitted, it might have been said that this is because the money has not yet reached his hand, but with regard to stealing from him, when he takes money that has already reached his hand, say that this halakha does not apply. Therefore, both cases are necessary.

 

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗讬 诇讗 转诇讬谉 驻注诇转 砖讻讬专 讗转讱 注讚 讘拽专 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘 讗住讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 砖讻专讜 讗诇讗 诇讘爪讜专 诇讜 讗砖讻讜诇 讗讞讚 砖诇 注谞讘讬诐 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转诇讬谉

 

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, do with this verse: 鈥淭he wages of a hired laborer shall not remain with you all night until the morning鈥? The Gemara answers: It is necessary for him for that which Rav Asi teaches, as Rav Asi says: Even if one hired the laborer to harvest only one cluster of grapes for him, one violates the prohibition of delaying payment of wages.

 

讜讗讬讚讱 诪讜讗诇讬讜 讛讜讗 谞砖讗 讗转 谞驻砖讜 谞驻拽讗 讚讘专 讛诪讜住专 谞驻砖讜 注诇讬讜

 

The Gemara asks: And from where does the other Sage, i.e., the first tanna, derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the phrase: 鈥淔or he sets his soul upon it鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:15). This indicates that one is liable for delaying the payment of wages due for any work; as a laborer obligates himself to perform the work, it is something for which he gives his soul.

 

Scroll To Top