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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 16, 2017 | 讬状讞 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Bava Metzia 112

Study Guide Bava Metzia 112. Halachot are derived from the various words in the verses about holding back another’s salary to match the 3 different opinions of the tannaim discussed in the previous daf. 聽 Further drashot are made to explain all the exceptions to the halacha. 聽Do these laws apply also to a kablan – one who gets paid for the job and not per hour? 聽If there is disagreement between the employer and the worker about whether he was paid or not, if it was before the time he was supposed to get paid, we allow the worker to swear that he didn’t get paid and then the employer needs to pay. 聽This goes against the general principal that the one who swears is the one who doesn’t pay. 聽Why is that? 聽Is there a reason to protect the laborer more than the employer? 聽Various arguments are brought and rejected as the issue is complex.


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

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讜讗诇讬讜 讛讜讗 谞砖讗 讗转 谞驻砖讜 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 注诇讛 讝讛 讘讻讘砖 讜谞转诇讛 讘讗讬诇谉 讜诪住专 讗转 注爪诪讜 诇诪讬转讛 诇讗 注诇 砖讻专讜


The Gemara asks: And what does the other Sage, the second tanna, derive from this verse? The Gemara responds: That verse is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: The expression 鈥渇or he sets his soul upon it鈥 explains why one must be so precise when paying a laborer his wages: For what reason did this laborer ascend on a tall ramp or suspend himself from a tree and risk death to himself? Was it not for his wages? How, then, can his employer delay his payment?


讚讘专 讗讞专 讜讗诇讬讜 讛讜讗 谞砖讗 讗转 谞驻砖讜 讻诇 讛讻讜讘砖 砖讻专 砖讻讬专 讻讗讬诇讜 谞讜讟诇 谞驻砖讜 诪诪谞讜 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讞讚 讗诪专 谞驻砖讜 砖诇 讙讝诇谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 谞驻砖讜 砖诇 谞讙讝诇


Alternatively, the words 鈥渇or he sets his soul upon it鈥 teach that concerning one who withholds the wages of a hired laborer, it is as though he takes his soul from him. Rav Huna and Rav 岣sda disagreed over the meaning of this statement. One says it is referring to the soul of the robber, meaning that one who steals from a hired laborer by delaying payment of his wages causes Heaven to remove his own soul, and one says that he takes the soul of the robbery victim, meaning that one who steals from a hired worker causes the death of the worker.


诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞驻砖讜 砖诇 讙讝诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇 转讙讝诇 讚诇 讻讬 讚诇 讛讜讗 讜讗诇 转讚讻讗 注谞讬 讘砖注专 讜讻转讬讘 讻讬 讛壮 讬专讬讘 专讬讘诐 讜拽讘注 讗转 拽讘注讬讛诐 谞驻砖 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞驻砖讜 砖诇 谞讙讝诇 讚讻转讬讘 讻谉 讗专讞讜转 讻诇 讘讜爪注 讘爪注 讗转 谞驻砖 讘注诇讬讜 讬拽讞


The Gemara cites proof for these two opinions. The one who says it is referring to the soul of the robber bases his opinion on a verse, as it is written: 鈥淒o not rob from the weak because he is weak, nor crush the poor in the gate鈥 (Proverbs 22:22), and it is written immediately afterward: 鈥淔or the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those who spoil them鈥 (Proverbs 22:23). This indicates that God will take the soul of one who steals from a poor person. And the one who says it is referring to the soul of the robbery victim bases his opinion on a verse, as it is written: 鈥淪o are the ways of everyone who is greedy for gain; it takes away the life of its owners鈥 (Proverbs 1:19). A robber is considered as if he removed the very soul of his victim.


讜讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 讗转 谞驻砖 讘注诇讬讜 讬拽讞 讘注诇讬讜 讚讛砖转讗 讜讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 讜拽讘注 讗转 拽讘注讬讛诐 谞驻砖 诪讛 讟注诐 拽讗诪专 诪讛 讟注诐 拽讘注 讗转 拽讘注讬讛诐 诪砖讜诐 讚谞讟诇讜 谞驻砖


The Gemara asks: And according to the other Sage too, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淚t takes away the life of its owners鈥? How does he interpret this verse? The Gemara answers: This is referring to its current owner, i.e., the robber, who took the money and now owns it. The Gemara asks: And according to the other Sage too, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd spoil the soul of those who spoil them鈥? How does he interpret this verse? The Gemara answers: This verse employs the style know as: What is the reason, as follows: What is the reason that God will spoil those who spoil them? Because they took someone鈥檚 soul, for which He will exact retribution.


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 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 转诇讬谉 驻注诇转 砖讻讬专 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 转讘注讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转讱 诇讚注转讱


搂 The mishna teaches: 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. The Sages taught: With regard to the verse: 鈥淭he wages of a hired laborer shall not remain with you all night until the morning鈥 (Leviticus 19:13), one might have thought that he should be liable even if the laborer did not claim his wages from him. The verse states 鈥渨ith you,鈥 meaning the prohibition is not transgressed unless it is with your knowledge and consent that you have not paid him. But if he did not even request his wages yet, the prohibition has not been violated.


讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转讱 砖讬砖 讗转讱 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讛诪讞讛讜 讗爪诇 讞谞讜谞讬 讜讗爪诇 砖讜诇讞谞讬 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转讱 讜诇讗 砖讛诪讞讛讜 讗爪诇 讞谞讜谞讬 讜讗爪诇 砖讜诇讞谞讬


Furthermore, one might have thought that the employer is liable even if he does not have the money to pay him. Therefore, the verse states 鈥渨ith you,鈥 indicating that there is money with you. One might have thought that even if the employer transferred his payment to a storekeeper or to a money changer, he still violates the prohibition of delaying payment of wages. Therefore, the verse states 鈥渨ith you,鈥 indicating that it applies only if the payment is your obligation, but not if he transferred it to a storekeeper or to a money changer, as then the payment of the laborer鈥檚 wages is no longer his responsibility.


讛诪讞讛讜 讗爪诇 讞谞讜谞讬 讜讗爪诇 砖讜诇讞谞讬 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讞讜讝专 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讜专讘讛 讗诪专 讞讜讝专


搂 The mishna teaches: 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. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If the storekeeper or money changer neglected to pay the wages, may the laborer return to the employer and claim his money from him, or may he not return, as the storekeeper or money changer is now his exclusive address for complaints? Rav Sheshet says he may not return, and Rabba says he may return.


讗诪专 专讘讛 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 诪讚拽转谞讬 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 注诇讬讜 诪注讘专 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 注讘专 讛讗 诪讬讛讚专 讛讚专 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 讗讬谞讜 讘转讜专转 诇注讘讜专


Rabba said: From where do I state my opinion? From the fact that the mishna teaches: He does not transgress the prohibition, from which it may be inferred: He does not transgress the prohibition, but the laborer may still return to him to collect his wages. And Rav Sheshet said: What is the meaning of the ruling that he does not transgress the prohibition? It means that he is not included in the category of transgressing, as his transfer of the payment exempts him from all responsibility.


讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 砖砖转 拽讘诇谞讜转 注讜讘专 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转诇讬谉 讗讜 讗讬谉 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转诇讬谉


The Sages inquired of Rav Sheshet: If the laborer worked as a contractor, who is paid for a completed job rather than by the hour, does the employer violate the prohibition of delaying payment of wages or does he not violate the prohibition of delaying payment of wages?


讗讜诪谉 拽讜谞讛 讘砖讘讞 讻诇讬 讜讛诇讜讗讛 讛讬讗 讗讜 讗讬谉 讗讜诪谉 拽讜谞讛 讘砖讘讞 讻诇讬 讜砖讻讬专讜转 讛讬讗


The resolution to this inquiry depends on how a craftsman鈥檚 wages are classified. Does a craftsman, who is a type of contractor, acquire ownership rights through enhancement of the vessel? This would mean that the craftsman is considered to have acquired the vessel through his work, which enhances its value, and it remains in his possession until he returns it to the owners, who are then considered to have purchased the enhanced item from him. And accordingly, his payment is akin to a loan in that it will not be subject to the prohibition of delaying the payment of wages. Or perhaps a craftsman does not acquire ownership rights through enhancement of the vessel,and the obligation of the owner to pay him is similar to the obligation to pay wages to any laborer, in which case the money is classified as a wage, and is subject to the prohibition of delaying wages.


讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 砖砖转 注讜讘专 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 讛转诐 砖讛诪讞讛讜 讗爪诇 讞谞讜谞讬 讜讗爪诇 砖讜诇讞谞讬


Rav Sheshet said to them: He does violate the prohibition. They asked Rav Sheshet: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that a contractor does not violate the prohibition? Rav Sheshet replied: There it is referring to a case where he transferred the wages to a storekeeper or to a money changer.


谞讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注讗 诇讬讛 讛谞讜转谉 讟诇讬转讜 诇讗讜诪谉 讙诪专讛 讜讛讜讚讬注讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转诇讬谉 谞转谞讛 诇讜 讘讞爪讬 讛讬讜诐 诪砖砖拽注讛 注诇讬讜 讞诪讛 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转诇讬谉


The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita supports the opinion of Rav Sheshet: With regard to one who gave his garment to a craftsman, and the craftsman concluded the work and notified the owner that the work was complete, even if the owner delays paying the craftsman from now until ten days henceforth, he does not violate the prohibition of delaying the payment of wages. If the craftsman gave the garment to him at midday, then once the sun has set and the owner has not paid him, the owner does violate the prohibition of delaying the payment of wages.


讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讜诪谉 拽讜谞讛 讘砖讘讞 讻诇讬 讗诪讗讬 注讜讘专


The Gemara concludes: And if it enters your mind to say that a craftsman acquires ownership rights through the enhancement of the vessel, why does the owner violate the prohibition of delaying the payment of wages? It is as if the craftsman acquired the garment, and the payment is considered to be a purchase of the garment by the owner, rather than a wage.


讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘讙专讚讗 讚住专讘诇讗 诇诪讗讬 讬讛讘讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 诇专讻讜讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 砖讘讞讬讛


Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, said: There is no proof from here, as the baraita is stating the halakha with regard to the laundering of a thick garment, where there is no enhancement of the garment. Therefore, the craftsman does not acquire it. The Gemara asks: Ultimately, to what end did the owner of the garment give it to the craftsman? He gave it to him in order to soften it. Once he has softened it, that is its enhancement, and the craftsman has therefore acquired it.


诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚拽讗 讗讙专讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 诇讘讟讜砖讬 讘讟砖讗 讜讘讟砖讗 讘诪注转讗


The Gemara responds: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha in a case where the owner hired the craftsman for treading, i.e., to forcefully tread on the garment in water until it softens, with the owner paying the craftsman a ma鈥檃 coin for each tread. Accordingly, this is considered hired labor, where the craftsman is paid based on the amount of times he performed an action, and not contractual labor, where he is paid based on the outcome, in this case, a softened garment, and the prohibition of delaying payment of wages does apply to this case.


砖讻讬专 讘讝诪谞讜 谞砖讘注 讜谞讜讟诇 讜讻讜壮 砖讻讬专 讗诪讗讬 转拽讬谞讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇诪砖转讘注 讜砖拽讬诇


The mishna teaches: 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 receives the wages from the employer. The Gemara asks: Why did the Sages institute for a hired laborer, who is the plaintiff, to take an oath and receive his wages, in opposition to the principle that in the case of a monetary dispute between two parties, the defendant takes an oath that he is not liable and thereby exempts himself from payment?


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讜转 讙讚讜诇讜转 砖谞讜 讻讗谉 讛谞讬 讛诇讻转讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讛谞讬 转拽谞讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 转拽谞讜转 讙讚讜诇讜转 砖谞讜 讻讗谉 讙讚讜诇讜转 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 拽讟谞讜转


Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: They taught great halakhot here. The Gemara is puzzled by this choice of words: Are these halakhot? They are ordinances designed for the proper running of business transactions, not halakhot that apply to everyone at all times. The Gemara emends the above statement: Rather, Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: They taught great ordinances here. The Gemara is still unsatisfied with the terminology: Does the word great indicate by inference that there are minor ordinances? Which ordinances are considered of minor importance?


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 转拽谞讜转 拽讘讜注讜转 砖谞讜 讻讗谉 砖讘讜注讛 讚讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讛讬讗 讜注拽专讜讛 专讘谞谉 诇砖讘讜注讛 讚讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜砖讚讬讜讛 讗砖讻讬专 诪砖讜诐 讻讚讬 讞讬讬讜 讚砖讻讬专 讜诪砖讜诐 讻讚讬 讞讬讬讜 讚砖讻讬专 诪驻住讚谞讗 诇讬讛 诇讘注诇 讛讘讬转


Rather, Rav Na岣an says that Shmuel says: They taught fixed ordinances here that are necessary for practical life. The reason is that taking the oath is actually the duty of the employer, but the Sages transferred the oath of the employer and imposed it upon the hired laborer due to the livelihood of the hired laborer. The laborer requires his wages to survive, and therefore if the employer is allowed to exempt himself by taking an oath, the laborer will be left with nothing. The Gemara asks: And simply due to the livelihood of the hired laborer should we cause the employer to lose out? If the employer is entitled to take an oath to exempt himself, why should he suffer due to the laborer鈥檚 needs?


讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讙讜驻讬讛 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诪砖转讘注 砖讻讬专 讜砖拽讬诇 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬转讙专讜 诇讬讛 驻讜注诇讬诐 砖讻讬专 讙讜驻讬讛 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诪砖转讘注 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜讬驻拽注 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬讙专讜讛讜 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 注诇 讻专讞讬讛 讗讙专 砖讻讬专 谞诪讬 讘注诇 讻专讞讬讛 讗讬转讙专


The Gemara answers: It is preferable for the employer himself that the hired laborer should take an oath and receive his wages so that laborers will hire themselves out to him with the knowledge that their wages are secure. The Gemara asks: Why not argue the reverse, that it is preferable for the hired laborer himself that the employer should take an oath and be exempt so that he should be hired? If the terms of labor are too imposing, people will not hire laborers. The Gemara responds: The employer must perforce find a laborer to hire. The Gemara retorts: A hired laborer, too, must perforce allow himself to be hired out.


讗诇讗 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讟专讜讚 讘驻讜注诇讬诐 讛讜讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 谞讬转讘 诇讬讛 讘诇讗 砖讘讜注讛 讻讚讬 诇讛驻讬住 讚注转讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转


The Gemara now retracts the previous explanation: Rather, the employer is preoccupied with many laborers, and it is more likely that he forgot and mistakenly believed that he already paid this laborer鈥檚 wages. The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if it is reasonable that the employer forgot, we should give the laborer his wages without him taking an oath, as there are grounds to presume that the employer erred. The Gemara responds: The laborer takes an oath in order to alleviate the concerns of the employer, as, if he is not required to take an oath, the employer will feel that he has been cheated.


讜谞讬转讘 诇讬讛 讘注讚讬诐 讟专讬讞讗 诇讛讜 诪讬诇转讗 讜谞讬转讘 诇讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 砖谞讬讛诐 专讜爪讬诐 讘讛拽驻讛


The Gemara asks: But why not have the employer instead give him his wages in the presence of witnesses each time, which would remove any uncertainty? The Gemara answers: The matter would be an inconvenience to them both if they needed to find witnesses before each payment. The Gemara asks: But why not have the employer give him the wages at the outset, before he starts working, when he is less preoccupied? The Gemara answers: Both of them want the payment to be in the form of credit, i.e., that the wages not be paid in advance. The employer prefers this arrangement in case he has no ready cash at his disposal, while the laborer also prefers to be paid at the end of the day so that he does not lose his money in the meantime.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 拽爪抓 谞诪讬 讗诇诪讛 转谞讬讗 讗讜诪谉 讗讜诪专 砖转讬诐 拽爪爪转 诇讬 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 拽爪爪转讬 诇讱 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛 拽爪讬爪讛 讜讚讗讬 诪讬讚讻专 讚讻讬专讬 诇讛 讗讬谞砖讬


The Gemara asks: If so, then even if the dispute between them concerns a fixed amount of payment as well, the laborer should take an oath. Why did we learn in a baraita: If the craftsman says: You fixed two coins for me as my payment, and the other, i.e., the employer, says: I fixed only one coin for you, then the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. Why is it not assumed that the employer was preoccupied and forgot, as in the previous case? The Gemara answers: The fixing of wages is certainly an event that people remember, and there is no concern that the employer forgot how much he stipulated.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 注讘专 讝诪谞讜 谞诪讬 讗诇诪讛 转谞谉 注讘专 讝诪谞讜 讗讬谞讜 谞砖讘注 讜谞讜讟诇 讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转诇讬谉


The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if the concern exists that the employer might have forgotten, then even if his time had passed for claiming his wages, the laborer should be entitled to take an oath and claim his wages. Why did we learn in the mishna: If the time had passed he does not take an oath and receive the wages? The Gemara answers: The reason in that case is that a presumption exists that an employer does not generally violate the prohibition of delaying payment of wages.


讜讛讗 讗诪专转 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讟专讜讚 讘驻讜注诇讬讜 讛讜讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪拽诪讬讛 讚诇讬诪讟讬讬讛 讝诪谉 讞讬讜讘讬讛


The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 you say that the employer is preoccupied with his laborers? The Gemara answers: This statement applies only before the time of his obligation to pay arrives, as it is possible that his preoccupation with other matters caused him to forget whether he had already paid him,

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Metzia 112

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 112

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讜讗诇讬讜 讛讜讗 谞砖讗 讗转 谞驻砖讜 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 注诇讛 讝讛 讘讻讘砖 讜谞转诇讛 讘讗讬诇谉 讜诪住专 讗转 注爪诪讜 诇诪讬转讛 诇讗 注诇 砖讻专讜


The Gemara asks: And what does the other Sage, the second tanna, derive from this verse? The Gemara responds: That verse is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: The expression 鈥渇or he sets his soul upon it鈥 explains why one must be so precise when paying a laborer his wages: For what reason did this laborer ascend on a tall ramp or suspend himself from a tree and risk death to himself? Was it not for his wages? How, then, can his employer delay his payment?


讚讘专 讗讞专 讜讗诇讬讜 讛讜讗 谞砖讗 讗转 谞驻砖讜 讻诇 讛讻讜讘砖 砖讻专 砖讻讬专 讻讗讬诇讜 谞讜讟诇 谞驻砖讜 诪诪谞讜 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讞讚 讗诪专 谞驻砖讜 砖诇 讙讝诇谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 谞驻砖讜 砖诇 谞讙讝诇


Alternatively, the words 鈥渇or he sets his soul upon it鈥 teach that concerning one who withholds the wages of a hired laborer, it is as though he takes his soul from him. Rav Huna and Rav 岣sda disagreed over the meaning of this statement. One says it is referring to the soul of the robber, meaning that one who steals from a hired laborer by delaying payment of his wages causes Heaven to remove his own soul, and one says that he takes the soul of the robbery victim, meaning that one who steals from a hired worker causes the death of the worker.


诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞驻砖讜 砖诇 讙讝诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇 转讙讝诇 讚诇 讻讬 讚诇 讛讜讗 讜讗诇 转讚讻讗 注谞讬 讘砖注专 讜讻转讬讘 讻讬 讛壮 讬专讬讘 专讬讘诐 讜拽讘注 讗转 拽讘注讬讛诐 谞驻砖 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞驻砖讜 砖诇 谞讙讝诇 讚讻转讬讘 讻谉 讗专讞讜转 讻诇 讘讜爪注 讘爪注 讗转 谞驻砖 讘注诇讬讜 讬拽讞


The Gemara cites proof for these two opinions. The one who says it is referring to the soul of the robber bases his opinion on a verse, as it is written: 鈥淒o not rob from the weak because he is weak, nor crush the poor in the gate鈥 (Proverbs 22:22), and it is written immediately afterward: 鈥淔or the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those who spoil them鈥 (Proverbs 22:23). This indicates that God will take the soul of one who steals from a poor person. And the one who says it is referring to the soul of the robbery victim bases his opinion on a verse, as it is written: 鈥淪o are the ways of everyone who is greedy for gain; it takes away the life of its owners鈥 (Proverbs 1:19). A robber is considered as if he removed the very soul of his victim.


讜讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 讗转 谞驻砖 讘注诇讬讜 讬拽讞 讘注诇讬讜 讚讛砖转讗 讜讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 讜拽讘注 讗转 拽讘注讬讛诐 谞驻砖 诪讛 讟注诐 拽讗诪专 诪讛 讟注诐 拽讘注 讗转 拽讘注讬讛诐 诪砖讜诐 讚谞讟诇讜 谞驻砖


The Gemara asks: And according to the other Sage too, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淚t takes away the life of its owners鈥? How does he interpret this verse? The Gemara answers: This is referring to its current owner, i.e., the robber, who took the money and now owns it. The Gemara asks: And according to the other Sage too, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd spoil the soul of those who spoil them鈥? How does he interpret this verse? The Gemara answers: This verse employs the style know as: What is the reason, as follows: What is the reason that God will spoil those who spoil them? Because they took someone鈥檚 soul, for which He will exact retribution.


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 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 转诇讬谉 驻注诇转 砖讻讬专 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 转讘注讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转讱 诇讚注转讱


搂 The mishna teaches: 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. The Sages taught: With regard to the verse: 鈥淭he wages of a hired laborer shall not remain with you all night until the morning鈥 (Leviticus 19:13), one might have thought that he should be liable even if the laborer did not claim his wages from him. The verse states 鈥渨ith you,鈥 meaning the prohibition is not transgressed unless it is with your knowledge and consent that you have not paid him. But if he did not even request his wages yet, the prohibition has not been violated.


讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转讱 砖讬砖 讗转讱 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讛诪讞讛讜 讗爪诇 讞谞讜谞讬 讜讗爪诇 砖讜诇讞谞讬 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转讱 讜诇讗 砖讛诪讞讛讜 讗爪诇 讞谞讜谞讬 讜讗爪诇 砖讜诇讞谞讬


Furthermore, one might have thought that the employer is liable even if he does not have the money to pay him. Therefore, the verse states 鈥渨ith you,鈥 indicating that there is money with you. One might have thought that even if the employer transferred his payment to a storekeeper or to a money changer, he still violates the prohibition of delaying payment of wages. Therefore, the verse states 鈥渨ith you,鈥 indicating that it applies only if the payment is your obligation, but not if he transferred it to a storekeeper or to a money changer, as then the payment of the laborer鈥檚 wages is no longer his responsibility.


讛诪讞讛讜 讗爪诇 讞谞讜谞讬 讜讗爪诇 砖讜诇讞谞讬 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讞讜讝专 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讜专讘讛 讗诪专 讞讜讝专


搂 The mishna teaches: 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. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If the storekeeper or money changer neglected to pay the wages, may the laborer return to the employer and claim his money from him, or may he not return, as the storekeeper or money changer is now his exclusive address for complaints? Rav Sheshet says he may not return, and Rabba says he may return.


讗诪专 专讘讛 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 诪讚拽转谞讬 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 注诇讬讜 诪注讘专 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 注讘专 讛讗 诪讬讛讚专 讛讚专 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 讗讬谞讜 讘转讜专转 诇注讘讜专


Rabba said: From where do I state my opinion? From the fact that the mishna teaches: He does not transgress the prohibition, from which it may be inferred: He does not transgress the prohibition, but the laborer may still return to him to collect his wages. And Rav Sheshet said: What is the meaning of the ruling that he does not transgress the prohibition? It means that he is not included in the category of transgressing, as his transfer of the payment exempts him from all responsibility.


讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 砖砖转 拽讘诇谞讜转 注讜讘专 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转诇讬谉 讗讜 讗讬谉 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转诇讬谉


The Sages inquired of Rav Sheshet: If the laborer worked as a contractor, who is paid for a completed job rather than by the hour, does the employer violate the prohibition of delaying payment of wages or does he not violate the prohibition of delaying payment of wages?


讗讜诪谉 拽讜谞讛 讘砖讘讞 讻诇讬 讜讛诇讜讗讛 讛讬讗 讗讜 讗讬谉 讗讜诪谉 拽讜谞讛 讘砖讘讞 讻诇讬 讜砖讻讬专讜转 讛讬讗


The resolution to this inquiry depends on how a craftsman鈥檚 wages are classified. Does a craftsman, who is a type of contractor, acquire ownership rights through enhancement of the vessel? This would mean that the craftsman is considered to have acquired the vessel through his work, which enhances its value, and it remains in his possession until he returns it to the owners, who are then considered to have purchased the enhanced item from him. And accordingly, his payment is akin to a loan in that it will not be subject to the prohibition of delaying the payment of wages. Or perhaps a craftsman does not acquire ownership rights through enhancement of the vessel,and the obligation of the owner to pay him is similar to the obligation to pay wages to any laborer, in which case the money is classified as a wage, and is subject to the prohibition of delaying wages.


讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 砖砖转 注讜讘专 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 讛转诐 砖讛诪讞讛讜 讗爪诇 讞谞讜谞讬 讜讗爪诇 砖讜诇讞谞讬


Rav Sheshet said to them: He does violate the prohibition. They asked Rav Sheshet: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that a contractor does not violate the prohibition? Rav Sheshet replied: There it is referring to a case where he transferred the wages to a storekeeper or to a money changer.


谞讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注讗 诇讬讛 讛谞讜转谉 讟诇讬转讜 诇讗讜诪谉 讙诪专讛 讜讛讜讚讬注讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转诇讬谉 谞转谞讛 诇讜 讘讞爪讬 讛讬讜诐 诪砖砖拽注讛 注诇讬讜 讞诪讛 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转诇讬谉


The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita supports the opinion of Rav Sheshet: With regard to one who gave his garment to a craftsman, and the craftsman concluded the work and notified the owner that the work was complete, even if the owner delays paying the craftsman from now until ten days henceforth, he does not violate the prohibition of delaying the payment of wages. If the craftsman gave the garment to him at midday, then once the sun has set and the owner has not paid him, the owner does violate the prohibition of delaying the payment of wages.


讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讜诪谉 拽讜谞讛 讘砖讘讞 讻诇讬 讗诪讗讬 注讜讘专


The Gemara concludes: And if it enters your mind to say that a craftsman acquires ownership rights through the enhancement of the vessel, why does the owner violate the prohibition of delaying the payment of wages? It is as if the craftsman acquired the garment, and the payment is considered to be a purchase of the garment by the owner, rather than a wage.


讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘讙专讚讗 讚住专讘诇讗 诇诪讗讬 讬讛讘讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 诇专讻讜讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 砖讘讞讬讛


Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, said: There is no proof from here, as the baraita is stating the halakha with regard to the laundering of a thick garment, where there is no enhancement of the garment. Therefore, the craftsman does not acquire it. The Gemara asks: Ultimately, to what end did the owner of the garment give it to the craftsman? He gave it to him in order to soften it. Once he has softened it, that is its enhancement, and the craftsman has therefore acquired it.


诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚拽讗 讗讙专讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 诇讘讟讜砖讬 讘讟砖讗 讜讘讟砖讗 讘诪注转讗


The Gemara responds: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha in a case where the owner hired the craftsman for treading, i.e., to forcefully tread on the garment in water until it softens, with the owner paying the craftsman a ma鈥檃 coin for each tread. Accordingly, this is considered hired labor, where the craftsman is paid based on the amount of times he performed an action, and not contractual labor, where he is paid based on the outcome, in this case, a softened garment, and the prohibition of delaying payment of wages does apply to this case.


砖讻讬专 讘讝诪谞讜 谞砖讘注 讜谞讜讟诇 讜讻讜壮 砖讻讬专 讗诪讗讬 转拽讬谞讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇诪砖转讘注 讜砖拽讬诇


The mishna teaches: 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 receives the wages from the employer. The Gemara asks: Why did the Sages institute for a hired laborer, who is the plaintiff, to take an oath and receive his wages, in opposition to the principle that in the case of a monetary dispute between two parties, the defendant takes an oath that he is not liable and thereby exempts himself from payment?


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讜转 讙讚讜诇讜转 砖谞讜 讻讗谉 讛谞讬 讛诇讻转讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讛谞讬 转拽谞讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 转拽谞讜转 讙讚讜诇讜转 砖谞讜 讻讗谉 讙讚讜诇讜转 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 拽讟谞讜转


Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: They taught great halakhot here. The Gemara is puzzled by this choice of words: Are these halakhot? They are ordinances designed for the proper running of business transactions, not halakhot that apply to everyone at all times. The Gemara emends the above statement: Rather, Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: They taught great ordinances here. The Gemara is still unsatisfied with the terminology: Does the word great indicate by inference that there are minor ordinances? Which ordinances are considered of minor importance?


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 转拽谞讜转 拽讘讜注讜转 砖谞讜 讻讗谉 砖讘讜注讛 讚讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讛讬讗 讜注拽专讜讛 专讘谞谉 诇砖讘讜注讛 讚讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜砖讚讬讜讛 讗砖讻讬专 诪砖讜诐 讻讚讬 讞讬讬讜 讚砖讻讬专 讜诪砖讜诐 讻讚讬 讞讬讬讜 讚砖讻讬专 诪驻住讚谞讗 诇讬讛 诇讘注诇 讛讘讬转


Rather, Rav Na岣an says that Shmuel says: They taught fixed ordinances here that are necessary for practical life. The reason is that taking the oath is actually the duty of the employer, but the Sages transferred the oath of the employer and imposed it upon the hired laborer due to the livelihood of the hired laborer. The laborer requires his wages to survive, and therefore if the employer is allowed to exempt himself by taking an oath, the laborer will be left with nothing. The Gemara asks: And simply due to the livelihood of the hired laborer should we cause the employer to lose out? If the employer is entitled to take an oath to exempt himself, why should he suffer due to the laborer鈥檚 needs?


讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讙讜驻讬讛 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诪砖转讘注 砖讻讬专 讜砖拽讬诇 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬转讙专讜 诇讬讛 驻讜注诇讬诐 砖讻讬专 讙讜驻讬讛 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诪砖转讘注 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜讬驻拽注 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬讙专讜讛讜 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 注诇 讻专讞讬讛 讗讙专 砖讻讬专 谞诪讬 讘注诇 讻专讞讬讛 讗讬转讙专


The Gemara answers: It is preferable for the employer himself that the hired laborer should take an oath and receive his wages so that laborers will hire themselves out to him with the knowledge that their wages are secure. The Gemara asks: Why not argue the reverse, that it is preferable for the hired laborer himself that the employer should take an oath and be exempt so that he should be hired? If the terms of labor are too imposing, people will not hire laborers. The Gemara responds: The employer must perforce find a laborer to hire. The Gemara retorts: A hired laborer, too, must perforce allow himself to be hired out.


讗诇讗 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讟专讜讚 讘驻讜注诇讬诐 讛讜讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 谞讬转讘 诇讬讛 讘诇讗 砖讘讜注讛 讻讚讬 诇讛驻讬住 讚注转讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转


The Gemara now retracts the previous explanation: Rather, the employer is preoccupied with many laborers, and it is more likely that he forgot and mistakenly believed that he already paid this laborer鈥檚 wages. The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if it is reasonable that the employer forgot, we should give the laborer his wages without him taking an oath, as there are grounds to presume that the employer erred. The Gemara responds: The laborer takes an oath in order to alleviate the concerns of the employer, as, if he is not required to take an oath, the employer will feel that he has been cheated.


讜谞讬转讘 诇讬讛 讘注讚讬诐 讟专讬讞讗 诇讛讜 诪讬诇转讗 讜谞讬转讘 诇讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 砖谞讬讛诐 专讜爪讬诐 讘讛拽驻讛


The Gemara asks: But why not have the employer instead give him his wages in the presence of witnesses each time, which would remove any uncertainty? The Gemara answers: The matter would be an inconvenience to them both if they needed to find witnesses before each payment. The Gemara asks: But why not have the employer give him the wages at the outset, before he starts working, when he is less preoccupied? The Gemara answers: Both of them want the payment to be in the form of credit, i.e., that the wages not be paid in advance. The employer prefers this arrangement in case he has no ready cash at his disposal, while the laborer also prefers to be paid at the end of the day so that he does not lose his money in the meantime.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 拽爪抓 谞诪讬 讗诇诪讛 转谞讬讗 讗讜诪谉 讗讜诪专 砖转讬诐 拽爪爪转 诇讬 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 拽爪爪转讬 诇讱 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛 拽爪讬爪讛 讜讚讗讬 诪讬讚讻专 讚讻讬专讬 诇讛 讗讬谞砖讬


The Gemara asks: If so, then even if the dispute between them concerns a fixed amount of payment as well, the laborer should take an oath. Why did we learn in a baraita: If the craftsman says: You fixed two coins for me as my payment, and the other, i.e., the employer, says: I fixed only one coin for you, then the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. Why is it not assumed that the employer was preoccupied and forgot, as in the previous case? The Gemara answers: The fixing of wages is certainly an event that people remember, and there is no concern that the employer forgot how much he stipulated.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 注讘专 讝诪谞讜 谞诪讬 讗诇诪讛 转谞谉 注讘专 讝诪谞讜 讗讬谞讜 谞砖讘注 讜谞讜讟诇 讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转诇讬谉


The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if the concern exists that the employer might have forgotten, then even if his time had passed for claiming his wages, the laborer should be entitled to take an oath and claim his wages. Why did we learn in the mishna: If the time had passed he does not take an oath and receive the wages? The Gemara answers: The reason in that case is that a presumption exists that an employer does not generally violate the prohibition of delaying payment of wages.


讜讛讗 讗诪专转 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讟专讜讚 讘驻讜注诇讬讜 讛讜讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪拽诪讬讛 讚诇讬诪讟讬讬讛 讝诪谉 讞讬讜讘讬讛


The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 you say that the employer is preoccupied with his laborers? The Gemara answers: This statement applies only before the time of his obligation to pay arrives, as it is possible that his preoccupation with other matters caused him to forget whether he had already paid him,

Scroll To Top