Bava Metzia 111

וזה לפי שאין פעולתו אצלו היכי דמי אי דאמר להו שכרכם עלי שכרו עליו הוא דתניא השוכר את הפועל לעשות בשלו והראהו בשל חבירו נותן לו שכרו משלם וחוזר ונוטל מבעל הבית מה שההנה אותו

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.

לא צריכא דאמר להו שכרכם על בעל הבית

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.

יהודה בר מרימר אמר ליה לשמעיה זיל אגיר לי פועלים ואימא להו שכרכם על בעל הבית מרימר ומר זוטרא אגרי להדדי

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.

אמר רבה בר רב הונא הני שוקאי דסורא לא עברי משום בל תלין מידע ידעי דעל יומא דשוקא סמיכי אבל משום בל תשהא ודאי עובר

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.

שכיר שעות גובה כל הלילה וכל היום אמר רב שכיר שעות דיום גובה כל היום שכיר שעות דלילה גובה כל הלילה ושמואל אמר שכיר שעות דיום גובה כל היום ושכיר שעות דלילה גובה כל הלילה וכל היום

§ 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.

תנן שכיר שעות גובה כל הלילה וכל היום תיובתא דרב אמר לך רב לצדדין קתני שכיר שעות דיום גובה כל היום שכיר שעות דלילה גובה כל הלילה

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.

תנן היה שכיר שבת שכיר חדש שכיר שנה שכיר שבוע יוצא ביום גובה כל היום יוצא בלילה גובה כל הלילה וכל היום

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.

אמר לך רב תנאי היא דתניא שכיר שעות דיום גובה כל היום שכיר שעות דלילה גובה כל הלילה דברי רבי יהודה רבי שמעון אומר שכיר שעות דיום גובה כל היום שכיר שעות דלילה גובה כל הלילה וכל היום

The Gemara replies: Rav could have said to you that it is a dispute between tanna’im, 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.

מכאן אמרו כל הכובש שכר שכיר עובר בחמשה שמות הללו ועשה משום בל תעשק את רעך ומשום בל תגזל ומשום בל תעשק שכיר עני ומשום בל תלין ומשום ביומו תתן שכרו ומשום לא תבא עליו השמש

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: “Do not oppress your neighbor” (Leviticus 19:13), and the prohibition of: “Do not steal” (Leviticus 19:13), and the prohibition of: “You should not oppress a hired laborer who is poor” (Deuteronomy 24:14), and the prohibition of delaying payment of wages (Leviticus 19:13), and he has not fulfilled the positive mitzva of: “On the same day you shall give him his wages” (Deuteronomy 24:15), and he has violated the prohibition of: “The sun shall not set upon him” (Deuteronomy 24:15).

הני דאיכא ביממא ליכא בליליא דאיכא בליליא ליכא ביממא אמר רב חסדא שם שכירות בעלמא

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 Ḥisda said: It means merely that the general concept of withholding the wages of a hired laborer includes all these prohibitions and one positive mitzva.

איזה הוא עושק ואיזהו גזל אמר רב חסדא לך ושוב לך ושוב זה הוא עושק יש לך בידי ואיני נותן לך זה הוא גזל

§ The Gemara asks: What is defined as oppression and what is defined as stealing, and what is the difference between them? Rav Ḥisda 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.

מתקיף לה רב ששת איזהו עושק שחייבה עליו תורה קרבן דומיא דפקדון דקא כפר ליה ממונא אלא אמר רב ששת נתתיו לך זהו עושק יש לך בידי ואיני נותן לך זה הוא גזל

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 Ḥisda’s 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.

מתקיף לה אביי איזה הוא גזל שחייבה עליו תורה קרבן דומיא דפקדון בעינן דקא כפר ליה ממונא אלא אמר אביי לא שכרתיך מעולם זה הוא עושק נתתיו לך זה הוא גזל

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 Ḥisda 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.

ולרב ששת מאי שנא עושק דקשיא ליה ומאי שנא גזל דלא קשיא ליה אמר לך גזל דגזליה והדר כפריה

The Gemara asks: And according to Rav Sheshet, what is different about oppression that he raised a difficulty against Rav Ḥisda concerning it, and what is different about stealing that he did not raise a difficulty, although Abaye’s 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.

אי הכי אפילו עושק נמי דהדר כפריה הכי השתא בשלמא התם כתיב או בגזל מכלל דאודי ליה מעיקרא אבל גבי עושק מי כתיב או בעושק או עשק כתיב שעשקו כבר

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: “And if he deals falsely with his neighbor in a matter of deposit, or of pledge, or of robbery” (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: “Or he oppressed,” which does not refer back to his previous denial but is referring to the actual sin, indicating that he had already oppressed him.

רבא אמר זה הוא עושק זהו גזל ולמה חלקן הכתוב לעבור עליו בשני לאוין

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.

מתני׳ אחד שכר אדם ואחד שכר בהמה ואחד שכר כלים יש בו משום ביומו תתן שכרו ויש בו משום לא תלין פעלת שכיר אתך עד בקר אימתי בזמן שתבעו לא תבעו אינו עובר עליו המחהו אצל חנוני או אצל שולחני אינו עובר עליו

MISHNA: Whether referring to a person’s wages that he receives or the renting of an animal or the renting of utensils, are all subject to the prohibition of: “On the same day you shall give him his wages” (Deuteronomy 24:15), and are subject to the prohibition of: “The wages of a hired laborer shall not remain with you all night until the morning” (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.

שכיר בזמנו נשבע ונוטל עבר זמנו אינו נשבע ונוטל אם יש עדים שתבעו בזמנו הרי זה נשבע ונוטל

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.

גר תושב יש בו משום ביומו תתן שכרו ואין בו משום לא תלין פעולת שכיר אתך עד בקר

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

גמ׳ מני מתניתין לא תנא קמא דמאחיך ולא רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה מאי היא דתניא

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: “From your brothers” (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:

מאחיך פרט לאחרים גרך זה גר צדק בשעריך זה אוכל נבילות

The verse states: “You 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” (Deuteronomy 24:14), which is interpreted as follows: The term “from your brothers” serves to exclude others, i.e., gentiles, who are not your brothers. As for the term “your stranger,” this is referring to a righteous convert. As for the term “within your gates,” 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.

אין לי אלא שכר אדם מנין לרבות בהמה וכלים תלמוד לומר בארצך כל שבארצך וכולן עוברים בכל השמות הללו

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: “In your land,” 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.

מכאן אמרו אחד שכר אדם ואחד שכר בהמה ואחד שכר כלים יש בו משום ביומו תתן שכרו ויש בהן משום בל תלין פעלת שכיר רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר גר תושב יש בו משום ביומו תתן שכרו ואין בו משום לא תלין בהמה וכלים אין בהן אלא משום בל תעשק בלבד

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: “On the same day you shall give him his wages” (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: “On the same day you shall give him his wages,” 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: “Do not oppress” alone.

מני אי תנא קמא דמאחיך קשיא גר תושב אי רבי יוסי קשיא בהמה וכלים

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: “From your brothers,” 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.

אמר רבא האי תנא תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל הוא דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל אחד שכר אדם ואחד שכר בהמה ואחד שכר כלים יש בו משום ביומו תתן שכרו ומשום לא תלין גר תושב יש בו משום ביומו תתן שכרו ואין בו משום בל תלין

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: “On the same day you shall give him his wages,” and the prohibition of delaying payment of wages. A ger toshav is subject to the mitzva of: “On the same day you shall give him his wages,” but he is not subject to the prohibition of delaying payment of wages.

מאי טעמא דתנא קמא דמאחיך גמר שכיר שכיר ורבי יוסי ברבי יהודה לא גמר שכיר שכיר

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: “From your brothers”? He derives it by verbal analogy comparing the words: “You shall not oppress a hired laborer,” and the verse: “The wages of a hired laborer shall not remain with you all night until the morning.” 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: “Hired laborer” and “hired laborer.”

נהי דלא גמר שכיר שכיר בהמה וכלים משום ביומו תתן שכרו נמי ניחייב תני רבי חנניא אמר קרא ולא תבא עליו השמש כי עני הוא מי שהן באין לידי עניות ועשירות יצאו בהמה וכלים שאינן באין לידי עניות ועשירות

The Gemara challenges: Although Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, does not derive the verbal analogy of the words: “Hired laborer” and “hired laborer,” one should still also be liable in the case of animals or vessels due to the injunction of: “On the same day you shall give him his wages.” From where does he derive that such items are not included in this prohibition? Rabbi Ḥananya teaches in a baraita that the verse states: “On his day you shall give him his wages, and the sun shall not set upon him, for he is poor” (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.

ותנא קמא האי כי עני הוא מאי עביד ליה ההוא מיבעי להקדים עני לעשיר ורבי יוסי ברבי יהודה ההוא מלא תעשק שכיר עני ואביון נפקא

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the first tanna, who does not address this verse of: “For he is poor,” 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: “You shall not oppress a hired laborer who is poor and needy” (Deuteronomy 24:14).

ותנא קמא חד להקדים עני לעשיר וחד להקדים עני לאביון

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.

וצריכא דאי אשמעינן אביון משום דלא כסיף למתבעיה אבל עשיר דכסיף למתבעיה אימא לא ואי אשמעינן עשיר משום דלא צריך ליה אבל אביון דצריך ליה אימא לא צריכא

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.

ותנא דידן מה נפשך אי יליף שכיר שכיר אפילו גר תושב נמי אי לא יליף שכיר שכיר בהמה וכלים מנא ליה

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: “Hired laborer” and “hired laborer,” then even a ger toshav should be included. If he does not derive the verbal analogy of the words: “Hired laborer” and “hired laborer,” from where does he derive that this halakha applies to animals and vessels?

לעולם לא יליף שכיר שכיר ושאני התם דאמר קרא ולא תלין פעלת שכיר אתך עד בקר כל שפעולתו אתך אי הכי אפילו גר תושב נמי אמר קרא רעך רעך ולא גר תושב

The Gemara answers: Actually, he does not derive the analogy of: “Hired laborer” and “hired laborer,” and there it is different, as the verse states: “The wages of [pe’ulat] a hired laborer shall not remain with you all night until the morning” (Leviticus 19:13). This verse is referring to any case where its work [pe’ulato] 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: “Your neighbor,” which refers to your neighbor who is Jewish, and not a ger toshav, who is not called a neighbor.

אי הכי אפילו בהמה וכלים נמי הא כתיב אתך מה ראית לרבות בהמה וכלים ולהוציא גר תושב מסתברא בהמה וכלים הוה ליה לרבות שכן ישנן בכלל ממון רעך גר תושב אינו בכלל ממון רעך

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: “With you,” 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’s money, whereas a ger toshav is not included in your neighbor’s money.

ותנא קמא דמאחיך האי רעך מאי עבדי ליה ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדתניא רעך ולא נכרי נכרי מאחיך נפקא

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

חד למשרא עושקו וחד למשרא גזלו וצריכי דאי אשמעינן גזלו משום דלא טרח ביה אבל עושקו דטרח ביה אימא לא ואי אשמעינן עושקו משום דלא אתא לידיה אבל גזלו דאתא לידיה אימא לא צריכא

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.

ורבי יוסי ברבי יהודה האי לא תלין פעלת שכיר אתך עד בקר מאי עביד ליה מיבעיא ליה לכדרב אסי דאמר רב אסי אפילו לא שכרו אלא לבצור לו אשכול אחד של ענבים עובר משום בל תלין

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, do with this verse: “The wages of a hired laborer shall not remain with you all night until the morning”? 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.

ואידך מואליו הוא נשא את נפשו נפקא דבר המוסר נפשו עליו

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: “For he sets his soul upon it” (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.