Bava Metzia 75
הַלְוֵינִי כּוֹר חִטִּין וְקוֹצֵץ לוֹ דָּמִים, הוּזְלוּ – נוֹתֵן לוֹ חִטִּים, הוּקְרוּ – נוֹתֵן דְּמֵיהֶם.
Lend me a kor of wheat, and the lender may set a price for him, stating that the borrower must repay the wheat in the future according to the value of wheat at the time of the loan. If, by the time the borrower must repay the loan, the wheat depreciates in value, he gives the lender a quantity of wheat equivalent to what he borrowed, and if it appreciates, he gives the value of the wheat he borrowed as per the market rate when he borrowed it, as agreed, but no more.
וַהֲלֹא קָצַץ! אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: הָכִי קָאָמַר. אִם לֹא קָצַץ – הוּזְלוּ – נוֹטֵל חִטָּיו. הוּקְרוּ – נוֹתֵן דְּמֵיהֶם.
The Gemara questions this ruling: If the price of wheat depreciates, why should it be permitted for the borrower to pay him with wheat worth less than the value of the amount he borrowed? But he fixed a price at the time of the loan, and therefore the borrower owes him this amount of money. Rav Sheshet said: This is what the tanna is saying: If the lender did not set a price but merely lent him wheat, and it depreciates in value, the lender takes his wheat, as they did not agree that the borrower must repay the wheat according to its value at the time that the loan was taken out. But if it appreciates in value, the borrower gives the value of the wheat he borrowed as per the market rate when he borrowed it, in order to avoid the payment of interest.
מַתְנִי׳ לֹא יֹאמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ: הַלְוֵינִי כּוֹר חִטִּין וַאֲנִי אֶתֵּן לָךְ לַגּוֹרֶן. אֲבָל אוֹמֵר לוֹ: הַלְוֵינִי עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא בְּנִי אוֹ עַד שֶׁאֶמְצָא מַפְתֵּחַ. וְהִלֵּל אוֹסֵר. וְכֵן הָיָה הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר: לֹא תַּלְוֶה אִשָּׁה כִּכָּר לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ עַד שֶׁתַּעֲשֶׂיהָ דָּמִים, שֶׁמָּא יוּקְרוּ חִטִּין, וְנִמְצְאוּ בָּאוֹת לִידֵי רִבִּית.
MISHNA: A person may not say to another: Lend me a kor of wheat and I will give it back to you at the time the wheat is brought to the granary, as the wheat may increase in value, which would mean that when he gives him back a kor of wheat at the time the wheat is brought to the granary it is worth more than the value of the loan, and he therefore will have paid interest. But he may say to him: Lend me a kor of wheat for a short period of time, e.g., until my son comes or until I find the key, as there is no concern about a change in price during such a short interval of time. And Hillel prohibits the practice even in this case. And Hillel would similarly say: A woman may not lend a loaf of bread to another unless she establishes its monetary value, lest the wheat appreciate in value before she returns it, and they will therefore have come to transgress the prohibition of interest.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: יֵשׁ לוֹ סְאָה – לֹוֶה סְאָה. סָאתַיִם – לֹוֶה סָאתַיִם. רַבִּי יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ יֵשׁ לוֹ סְאָה – לֹוֶה עָלֶיהָ כַּמָּה כּוֹרִין.
GEMARA: Rav Huna said: One who has a se’a of an item in his house may borrow a se’a of that item. Since he has available a se’a that he could give back right away, he may borrow one se’a, and similarly, if he has two se’a available he may borrow two se’a. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: Even if he has only one se’a, he may borrow several kor in reliance upon it. Since he can repay part of the loan immediately, and as the market value has yet to change there is only a concern about future interest, this concern is mitigated when it does not apply to the entire loan.
תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא לְסַיּוֹעֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יִצְחָק: טִיפַּת יַיִן אֵין לוֹ, טִיפַּת שֶׁמֶן אֵין לוֹ. הָא יֵשׁ לוֹ – לֹוֶה עָלֶיהָ כַּמָּה טִיפִּין.
The Gemara comments: Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches a baraita in support of Rabbi Yitzḥak’s ruling: If one does not have a drop of wine or if he does not have a drop of oil, he may not borrow wine or oil. Consequently, by inference it can be derived: If he does have a drop of wine or oil, he may borrow many drops in reliance upon it, as the tanna is certainly not referring to a case where he borrows just a few meager drops.
וְהִלֵּל אוֹסֵר. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי הִלֵּל. וְלֵית הִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ.
§ The mishna teaches: And Hillel prohibits this practice. Rav Naḥman says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of Hillel. The Gemara comments: But the halakha is not, in fact, in accordance with the ruling of Shmuel.
וְכֵן הָיָה הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר: לֹא תַּלְוֶה אִשָּׁה [וְכוּ׳]. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי הִלֵּל, אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹוִים סְתָם וּפוֹרְעִים סְתָם.
§ The mishna further teaches: And Hillel would similarly say: A woman may not lend even a loaf of bread due to concern that she will violate the prohibition of interest. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: This is the statement of Hillel, but the Rabbis say that one may borrow various types of foods without specification and repay them without specification. If neighbors are not particular with one another about these items, there is no concern about interest, in contrast to Hillel’s opinon.
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּנֵי חֲבוּרָה הַמַּקְפִּידִין זֶה עַל זֶה, עוֹבְרִין מִשּׁוּם מִדָּה וּמִשּׁוּם מִשְׁקָל וּמִשּׁוּם מִנְיָן, וּמִשּׁוּם לֹוִין וּפוֹרְעִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב, וּכְדִבְרֵי הִלֵּל אַף מִשּׁוּם רִבִּית.
And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: With regard to the members of a group of people that eat together who are particular with each other and insist that each pay for precisely what he ate, if they dine together on Shabbat, they transgress a prohibition with regard to the strictures of measure, and with regard to the strictures of weight, and with regard to the strictures of counting, all of which are calculations that are forbidden on Shabbat. And they transgress a prohibition with regard to lending and repaying on a Festival, and according to the statement of Hillel, they also transgress the prohibition with regard to interest.
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים מוּתָּרִים לִלְווֹת זֶה מִזֶּה בְּרִבִּית. מַאי טַעְמָא – מִידָּע יָדְעִי דְּרִבִּית אֲסוּרָה, וּמַתָּנָה הוּא דְּיָהֲבִי אַהֲדָדֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לַאֲבוּהּ בַּר אִיהִי: הַלְוֵינִי מֵאָה פִּלְפְּלִין בְּמֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִין פִּלְפְּלִין, וַאֲרִיךְ.
And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: It is permitted for Torah scholars to borrow from one another with interest. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this? It is because they are fully aware that interest is prohibited, and therefore they do not intend the loan to be a formal business transaction. They willingly forgo the additional payments to each other at the outset, and the extra payment is a gift that they give one another. The Gemara relates: Shmuel said to Avuh bar Ihi: Lend me one hundred peppers in exchange for 120 peppers that I will give you at a later date. And you should know that this matter is fitting and appropriate, as I intend that the additional twenty peppers be a gift.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מוּתָּר לוֹ לָאָדָם לְהַלְווֹת בָּנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵיתוֹ בְּרִבִּית, כְּדֵי לְהַטְעִימָן טַעַם רִבִּית. וְלָאו מִילְּתָא הִיא, מִשּׁוּם דְּאָתֵי לְמִיסְרַךְ.
Similarly, Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: It is permitted for a person to lend to his sons and the members of his household with interest, in order to have them taste the taste of interest so that they will understand how interest increases and how hard it is to repay it, which will discourage them from ever borrowing with interest again. The Gemara comments: But this is not correct, because the members of his household may become corrupted by doing so and act similarly with others in cases when there is no justification for such behavior.
מַתְנִי׳ אוֹמֵר אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ: נַכֵּשׁ עִמִּי וַאֲנַכֵּשׁ עִמָּךְ, עֲדוֹר עִמִּי וְאֶעֱדוֹר עִמָּךְ. וְלֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ: נַכֵּשׁ עִמִּי וְאֶעֱדוֹר עִמָּךְ, עֲדוֹר עִמִּי וַאֲנַכֵּשׁ עִמָּךְ.
MISHNA: A person may say to another: Weed the wild growths from my field with me now, and I will weed your field with you at a later stage, or: Till my field with me today and I will till with you on a different day. But he may not say to him: Weed with me today and I will till with you a different day, or: Till with me today and I will weed with you, as due to the different nature of the tasks it is possible that one of them will have to work harder than the other did, which is a type of interest, since he repaid him with additional labor.
כׇּל יְמֵי גְּרִיד – אֶחָד. כׇּל יְמֵי רְבִיעָה – אַחַת. לֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ: חֲרוֹשׁ עִמִּי בִּגְרִיד וַאֲנִי אֶחְרוֹשׁ עִמְּךָ בָּרְבִיעָה.
All the dry days during the summer, when it does not rain, are viewed as one period, meaning that if they each agreed to work one day, the dry days are viewed as though they were all exactly equal in length, despite the slight differences between them. Similarly, all the rainy days are treated as one period. But he may not say to him: Plow with me in the dry season and I will plow with you in the rainy season.
רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ רִבִּית מוּקְדֶּמֶת וְיֵשׁ רִבִּית מְאוּחֶרֶת. כֵּיצַד? נָתַן עֵינָיו לִלְווֹת הֵימֶנּוּ, וְהוּא מְשַׁלֵּחַ לוֹ וְאוֹמֵר: בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁתַּלְוֵנִי – זוֹ הִיא רִבִּית מוּקְדֶּמֶת. לָוָה הֵימֶנּוּ וְהֶחְזִיר לוֹ אֶת מְעוֹתָיו, וְהוּא מְשַׁלֵּחַ לוֹ וְאוֹמֵר: בִּשְׁבִיל מְעוֹתֶיךָ שֶׁהָיוּ בְּטֵילוֹת אֶצְלִי – זוֹ הִיא רִבִּית מְאוּחֶרֶת.
Rabban Gamliel says: There is a case of pre-paid interest, and there is also a case of interest paid later, both of which are prohibited. How so? If he had hopes of borrowing money from him in the future, and he sends him money or a gift and says: I am sending you this gift in order that you will lend to me, this is pre-paid interest. Similarly, if he borrowed money from him and subsequently returned his money, and he later sends a gift to him and says: I am sending you this gift in order to repay you for your money, which was idle with me, preventing you from earning a profit from it, this is interest paid later.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ רִבִּית דְּבָרִים. לֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ ״דַּע כִּי בָּא אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מִמָּקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי״.
Rabbi Shimon says: Not only is there interest consisting of payment of money or items, but there is also verbal interest. For example, the borrower may not say to the lender: You should know that so-and-so has come from such and such a place, when he is aware that this information is of significance to his creditor. Since his intention is to provide a benefit to the lender, he has effectively paid him an extra sum for the money he lent him, which constitutes interest.
וְאֵלּוּ עוֹבְרִין בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה: הַמַּלְוֶה וְהַלֹּוֶה וְהֶעָרֵב וְהָעֵדִים. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אַף הַסּוֹפֵר. עוֹבְרִים מִשּׁוּם ״לֹא תִתֵּן״, וּמִשּׁוּם ״אַל תִּקַּח מֵאִתּוֹ״, וּמִשּׁוּם ״לֹא תִהְיֶה לוֹ כְּנוֹשֶׁה״, וּמִשּׁוּם ״לֹא תְשִׂימוּן עָלָיו נֶשֶׁךְ״, וּמִשּׁוּם ״וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשׁוֹל וְיָרֵאתָ מֵּאֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲנִי ה׳״.
And these people violate a prohibition of interest: The lender, and the borrower, and the guarantor, and the witnesses. And the Rabbis say: Also the scribe who writes the promissory note violates this prohibition. These parties to the transaction violate different prohibtions. Some are in violation of: “You shall not give him your money with interest” (Leviticus 25:37), and of: “Do not take from him interest or increase” (Leviticus 25:36), and of: “Do not be to him as a creditor” (Exodus 22:24), and of “Do not place interest upon him” (Exodus 22:24), and of: “And you shall not place a stumbling block before the blind, and you shall fear your God; I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:14).
גְּמָ׳ תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן לַנּוֹשֶׁה בַּחֲבֵירוֹ מָנֶה, וְאֵינוֹ רָגִיל לְהַקְדִּים לוֹ שָׁלוֹם, שֶׁאָסוּר לְהַקְדִּים לוֹ שָׁלוֹם – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״נֶשֶׁךְ כׇּל דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יִשָּׁךְ״ – אֲפִילּוּ דִּיבּוּר אָסוּר.
GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: From where is it derived with regard to one who is owed one hundred dinars by another, and the borrower is not accustomed to greeting that lender, that it is prohibited to start greeting him after being granted the loan? The verse states: “Interest of any matter [davar] that is lent with interest” (Deuteronomy 23:20), which can also be read as indicating that even speech [dibbur] can be prohibited as interest.
וְאֵלּוּ עוֹבְרִין, אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַלְוֶה עוֹבֵר בְּכוּלָּן. לֹוֶה עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם ״לֹא תַשִּׁיךְ לְאָחִיךָ״. ״וּלְאָחִיךָ לֹא תַשִּׁיךְ״, ״וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשׁוֹל״. עָרֵב וְהָעֵדִים אֵין עוֹבְרִין אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם ״לֹא תְשִׂימוּן עָלָיו נֶשֶׁךְ״.
§ The mishna teaches: And these people violate the prohibition of interest. Abaye says: The lender violates all of them, meaning all of the prohibitions listed in the mishna. The borrower violates the prohibition of: “You shall not lend to your brother with interest” (Deuteronomy 23:20), as he enables his brother to lend with interest. And they also violate the prohibition: “You may lend to a gentile with interest, but to your brother you shall not lend with interest” (Deuteronomy 23:21), as well as: “And you shall not place a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14). The guarantor and the witness violate only: “Do not place interest upon him” (Exodus 22:24).
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מַלְוֵי רִבִּית יוֹתֵר מִמַּה שֶּׁמַּרְוִיחִים – מַפְסִידִים. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁמְּשִׂימִים מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ חָכָם וְתוֹרָתוֹ אֱמֶת. וְאוֹמְרִין: אִילּוּ הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה רֶיוַח בַּדָּבָר לֹא הָיָה כּוֹתְבוֹ.
It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: Those who lend with interest lose more than they gain, as they will eventually be punished by God. Moreover, a loan of this kind desecrates the name of Heaven, as they cause it to seem that Moses our teacher is a scholar and his Torah is true. This is a euphemism; Rabbi Shimon means that their actions make a mockery of Moses and his Torah. And this is because they say: Had Moses our teacher known that there was a profit involved in the matter, he would not have written it as a prohibition. Not only do they violate a mitzva but they also belittle the Torah.
כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר: מִנַּיִן לַנּוֹשֶׁה בַּחֲבֵירוֹ מָנֶה, וְיוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ, שֶׁאָסוּר לַעֲבוֹר לְפָנָיו – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תִהְיֶה לוֹ כְּנֹשֶׁה״.
§ The Gemara cites further statements with regard to loans in general. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he said: From where is it derived that with regard to one who is owed one hundred dinars by another and knows that the borrower does not have the funds to repay him, that it is prohibited for him to pass before the borrower, so as not to embarrass the borrower and cause him discomfort? The verse states: “Do not be to him as a creditor” (Exodus 22:24). Even if he does not claim the debt from the borrower, his presence reminds the latter of the debt, which distresses him.
רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי אַסִּי דְאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ כְּאִילּוּ דָּנוֹ בִּשְׁנֵי דִּינִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הִרְכַּבְתָּ אֱנוֹשׁ לְרֹאשֵׁנוּ בָּאנוּ בָאֵשׁ וּבַמַּיִם״.
Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi both say that if one upsets another in this way, it is as though he sentences him to two types of punishments, as it is stated: “You have caused men to ride over our heads; we went through fire and through water” (Psalms 66:12). As the one in control, a creditor is regarded as though he had brought the debtor through fire and water.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כָּל מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מָעוֹת וּמַלְוֶה אוֹתָן שֶׁלֹּא בְּעֵדִים – עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם ״וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל״. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: גּוֹרֵם קְלָלָה לְעַצְמוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״תֵּאָלַמְנָה שִׂפְתֵי שָׁקֶר הַדּוֹבְרוֹת עַל צַדִּיק עָתָק״.
§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Whoever has money and lends it not in the presence of witnesses violates the prohibition of: “And you shall not place a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14), as this tempts the borrower not to repay his debt. And Reish Lakish says: He brings a curse upon himself, as it is stated: “Let the lying lips be dumb, which speak arrogantly against the righteous, with pride and contempt” (Psalms 31:19), as when the lender comes to claim his money without any proof, people will think he is falsely accusing the borrower, and they will end up cursing him.
אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַב אָשֵׁי: קָא מְקַיֵּים רָבִינָא כֹּל מָה דַּאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן. שְׁלַח לֵיהּ בַּהֲדֵי פַּנְיָא דְּמַעֲלֵי שַׁבְּתָא: לִישַׁדַּר לִי מָר עַשְׂרָה זוּזֵי דְּאִתְרְמִי לִי קַטִּינָא דְּאַרְעָא לְמִזְבַּן. שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: נַיְתֵי מָר סָהֲדֵי וְנִכְתֹּב כְּתָבָא. שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: אֲפִילּוּ אֲנָא נָמֵי? שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן מָר דִּטְרִיד בְּגִירְסֵיהּ מִשְׁתְּלֵי וְגוֹרֵם קְלָלָה לְעַצְמוֹ.
The Gemara cites a related incident: The Sages said to Rav Ashi: Ravina fulfills all of the directives that the Sages say. Seeking to test him, Rav Ashi sent a messenger to him close to sunset on the eve of Shabbat, at the busiest time of the week, with the following request: Let the Master send me ten dinars as a loan, as I have happened upon a small piece of land for an acquisition and I need the money. Ravina sent a message to him: Let the Master bring witnesses and we will write a written document for this loan. Rav Ashi sent a message to him: Even I, as well? Do you suspect even me of shirking payment? Ravina sent a message to him: All the more so it is necessary to document a loan to the Master, who is occupied with his studies and therefore very likely to forget, and I will thereby bring a curse upon myself.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁלֹשָׁה צוֹעֲקִין וְאֵינָן נַעֲנִין, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מָעוֹת וּמַלְוֶה אוֹתָן שֶׁלֹּא בְּעֵדִים, וְהַקּוֹנֶה אָדוֹן לְעַצְמוֹ, וּמִי שֶׁאִשְׁתּוֹ מוֹשֶׁלֶת עָלָיו.
The Sages taught in a baraita: There are three who cry out and are not answered, as they are responsible for their own troubles. And they are: One who has money and lends it not in the presence of witnesses, and one who acquires a master for himself, and one whose wife rules over him.
קוֹנָה אָדוֹן לְעַצְמוֹ מַאי הִיא? אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: תּוֹלֶה נְכָסָיו בְּגוֹי. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: הַכּוֹתֵב נְכָסָיו לְבָנָיו בְּחַיָּיו. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: דְּבִישׁ לֵיהּ בְּהָא מָתָא וְלָא אָזֵיל לְמָתָא אַחֲרִיתִי.
The Gemara clarifies: One who acquires a master for himself, what is it? There are those who say that it is referring to one who attributes his property to a gentile. He falsely claims that his possessions belong to a gentile in order to evade his obligations, thereby inviting the gentile to take advantage of this declaration. And there are those who say that it is referring to one who writes a document bequeathing his property as a gift to his children in his lifetime, as he becomes financially dependent on them. And there are those who say that it is referring to one who has bad fortune in this town but does not go to a different town. He is consequently responsible for his own misfortunes.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ אֵיזֶהוּ נֶשֶׁךְ
מַתְנִי׳ הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הָאוּמָּנִין וְהִטְעוּ זֶה אֶת זֶה – אֵין לָהֶם זֶה עַל זֶה אֶלָּא תַּרְעוֹמֶת. שָׂכַר אֶת הַחַמָּר וְאֶת הַקַּדָּר לְהָבִיא פְּרִיָיפָרִין וַחֲלִילִים לַכַּלָּה אוֹ לַמֵּת, וּפוֹעֲלִין לְהַעֲלוֹת פִּשְׁתָּנוֹ מִן הַמִּשְׁרָה, וְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁאָבֵד וְחָזְרוּ בָּהֶן, מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין שָׁם אָדָם – שׂוֹכֵר עֲלֵיהֶן אוֹ מַטְעָן.
MISHNA: With regard to one who hires artisans or laborers, and they deceived one another, they have nothing but a grievance against one another, and they have no financial claim against the deceptive party. If one hired a donkey driver or a potter to bring posts [piryafarin] for a canopy or flutes to play in honor of a bride or the dead, or if he hired laborers to bring up his flax from the retting tub, i.e., the container of water in which flax is placed in the first stage of the manufacture of linen, and likewise any matter that involves financial loss if not performed on time and the laborers reneged, if this occurred in a place where there is no other person to perform the task, he may hire replacements for a large fee at the expense of the first workers, or deceive them to get them to return to work.
הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הָאוּמָּנִין וְחָזְרוּ בָּהֶן – יָדָם עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה.
The mishna states a related halakha: With regard to one who hires artisans or laborers to perform work and they reneged on the agreement midway through the work, they are at a disadvantage. They must ensure that the employer does not suffer a loss.
