Bava Metzia 76

אם בעל הבית חוזר בו ידו על התחתונה כל המשנה ידו על התחתונה וכל החוזר בו ידו על התחתונה

Conversely, if the employer reneges, he is at a disadvantage. These two rulings are in accordance with the principle that whoever changes the terms accepted by both parties is at a disadvantage, and whoever reneges on an agreement is at a disadvantage.

גמ׳ חזרו זה בזה לא קתני אלא הטעו זה את זה דאטעו פועלים אהדדי היכי דמי דאמר ליה בעל הבית זיל אוגר לי פועלים ואזל איהו ואטעינהו

GEMARA: The Gemara starts by analyzing the phrase: And they deceived one another. The Gemara comments: The tanna does not teach: They reneged on the agreement with one another, which would indicate that either the employer or the laborers changed their mind. Rather, it states that they deceived one another, which evidently means that the laborers deceived one another. The Gemara therefore inquires: What are the circumstances? The Gemara explains: This is referring to a case where, for example, the employer said to one of the laborers: Go and hire laborers for me, and that laborer went and deceived those other laborers.

היכי דמי אי דאמר ליה בעל הבית בארבעה ואזיל איהו אמר להו בתלתא תרעומת מאי עבידתיה סבור וקביל אי דאמר ליה בעל הבית בתלתא ואזיל איהו אמר להו בארבעה היכי דמי אי דאמר להו שכרכם עלי נתיב להו מדידיה

The Gemara again asks: What are the circumstances of this deception? If the employer said to him: Hire for me laborers at four dinars, and he went and told them that they are hired for three dinars, what is the relevance of this grievance? After all, they knew and accepted the conditions of their hire. What grounds for complaint do they have? If the employer said to him to hire laborers for three dinars, and the middleman went and told them it was for four, what are the circumstances? If he told them at the time: The monetary value of your services, i.e., your wage, is incumbent upon me, let that middleman give them the difference from his own pocket.

דתניא השוכר את הפועל לעשות בשלו והראהו בשל חבירו נותן לו שכרו משלם וחוזר ונוטל מבעל הבית מה שההנהו

This is 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, must pay the specified sum.

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, and it subsequently became apparent that the employer was not willing to pay that much. In this case the laborers have a grievance only against the laborer who hired them.

ולחזי פועלים היכי מיתגרי לא צריכא דאיכא דמגר בארבעה ואיכא דמתגר בתלתא דאמרו ליה אי לאו דאמרת לן בארבעה טרחינן ומתגרינן בארבעה

The Gemara challenges: But let us see how much laborers are hired for in that place, and the employer should pay them in accordance with the accepted custom. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary in a place where there are those who hire for four dinars and there are others who hire for three. The reason for their grievance is that the laborers can say to the middleman: Had you not told us that you were hiring us for four dinars, we would have made an effort and found another employer, and we would have hired ourselves out for four dinars. Consequently, you caused us a loss.

איבעית אימא הכא בבעל הבית עסקינן דאמרו ליה אי לאו דאמרת לן בארבעה הוה זילא בן מילתא לאתגורי

If you wish, say that the mishna is referring even to a place where there is a fixed wage for laborers. But here we are dealing with a homeowner, i.e., one usually not accustomed to labor, who was hired for his services. In order to supplement their earnings, such people will occasionally work for others as well. The reason for their grievance is that these laborers who own fields say to the middleman: Had you not told us that we are hired for four, it would have been too demeaning for us to be hired, as it is not worthwhile to work in the field of another for so little when we have our own plots of land. This is the cause of their grievance.

איבעית אימא לעולם בפועלים עסקינן דאמרי ליה כיון דאמרת לן בארבעה טרחינן ועבדינן לך עבידתא שפירתא ולחזי עבידתייהו בריפקא ריפקא נמי מידע ידע דמלי מיא ולא ידיע

If you wish, say that actually, we are dealing with regular laborers, not a homeowner, and the reason for their grievance is that they say to the middleman: Since you spoke to us of four, we made an effort to do higher-quality work for you. The Gemara challenges: And let us see their work. If it is evident that they performed the task more effectively, they deserve to be paid more money. The Gemara responds: This is referring to tilling the land, where the quality of the work is not immediately apparent. The Gemara asks: With regard to tilling as well, doesn’t the employer know what they have done, as he can examine the earth they tilled? The Gemara answers: The laborers dug a ditch that is now filled with water, and therefore the employer does not know exactly what they have accomplished.

איבעית אימא לעולם דאמר ליה בעל הבית בארבעה ואזל איהו אמר להו בתלתא ודקאמרת סבור וקביל דאמרי ליה לית לך אל תמנע טוב מבעליו

If you wish, say that actually, we are dealing with an employer who said to the middleman: Hire laborers for four, and he went and told them that they were hired for three. And as for that which you said: Why should they have a grievance against him, as they knew and accepted these terms? Although they agreed to those terms, they still have a grievance, as they can say to the one who came to terms with them: Don’t you have respect for the verse: “Do not withhold good from him to whom it is due, when it is in the power of your hand to do it” (Proverbs 3:27)?

פשיטא אי אמר ליה בעל הבית בתלתא ואזל איהו אמר להו בארבעה ואמרי ליה כמו שאמר בעל הבית דעתייהו אעילויא

§ After analyzing the circumstances of the case in the mishna, the Gemara observes: It is obvious that if the employer said to someone that he should hire laborers for three dinars, and that person went and said to them that they were hired for four, and they said to him: We agree to be paid as the employer says, in that case it is clear that their minds are on any additional sum the employer might have offered, and they certainly did not intend to accept less than the one with whom they spoke proposed.

אלא אי אמר ליה בעל הבית בארבעה ואזל איהו אמר להו בתלתא ואמרי כמה שאמר בעל הבית מאי אדיבורא דידיה קא סמכי דאמרי ליה מהימנת לן דהכי אמר בעל הבית או דלמא אדיבורא דבעל הבית קא סמכי

But if the employer said he would hire them for four dinars, and the middleman went and told them that the offer was for three, and they said to him: We agree to be paid as the employer said, what is the halakha? Is it correct to say that the laborers rely on his statement, as they are effectively saying to him: We trust you that the employer said that which you reported in his name? Or perhaps they rely on the employer’s statement, and therefore they are entitled to the higher wages specified by the employer?

תא שמע הבא לי גיטי

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution of this dilemma from a halakha concerning a bill of divorce: A woman said to her agent: Bring my bill of divorce for me. Knowing her husband was writing a bill of divorce, she asked the agent to collect the document and transmit it to her. According to the terms of his agency, the wife is divorced only when the document reaches her possession, as he was not appointed as an agent to receive the bill of divorce on her behalf.

ואשתך אמרה התקבל לי גיטי והוא אומר הילך כמה שאמרה אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר רב אפילו הגיע גט לידה אינה מגורשת

But the agent went and told the husband: Your wife said to me: Receive my bill of divorce for me. This statement indicates that the wife had appointed him to receive the bill of divorce in her stead, as an agent of receipt, which would mean that she is divorced as soon as the agent is given the document. And the husband said: Take it in the manner in which my wife said. With regard to this case, Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: Even when the bill of divorce reaches her possession, she is not divorced.

שמעת מינה אדיבורא דידיה קא סמיך דאי סלקא דעתך דאדיבורא דידה קא סמיך מכי מטי גיטא לידה מיהא תיגרש אמר רב אשי

One can learn from this that the husband relies on the agent’s statement. Since the husband was under the mistaken impression that he was interacting with an agent of receipt, he did not instruct him to deliver the document to his wife, and therefore the bill of divorce was not transmitted in the proper manner, which is why she is not divorced at all. As, if it enters your mind that the husband relies on her statement, she should at least be divorced when the bill of divorce reaches her possession, in accordance with the terms of an agent for delivery. This shows that the statement of an agent is accepted as a faithful representation of the wishes of the one who appointed him. Rav Ashi said:

הכי השתא בשלמא אי איתמר איפכא התקבל לי גיטי ואשתך אמרה הבא לי גיטי והוא אומר הילך כמו שאמרה ואמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר רב משיגיע גט לידו מגורשת אלמא דאדיבורא דידה קא סמיך

How can these cases be compared? Granted, if the opposite was stated, i.e., in a case where the woman said: Receive my bill of divorce for me, and the agent said to the husband: Your wife said: Bring me my bill of divorce, and the husband said: Here you are, as she said; and Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: From when the bill of divorce reaches the agent’s possession, she is divorced, it would be understandable. Apparently, the husband relies upon her statement that the agent is an agent of receipt.

אי נמי משהגיע גט לידה מגורשת אלמא דאדיבורא דידיה קא סמיך אלא התם משום דעקר שליח לשליחותיה לגמרי דאמר ליה שליח לקבלה הוינא להולכה לא הוינא

Alternatively, had Rav Naḥman ruled: From when the bill of divorce reaches her possession, she is divorced, one could conclude that evidently, the husband relies on the agent’s statement, and based on that statement, the agent is designated as an agent for delivery. But there, in the case cited, where Rav Naḥman rules that she is not divorced, it is not because the husband relies on one statement or the other. Rather, it is due to the fact that by means of his statement the agent negates his agency entirely, as he said to the husband: I am an agent for receipt, meaning: I am not to be an agent for delivery. He is essentially saying that he is not prepared to go to the trouble of delivering the bill of divorce to her. Therefore, even if he does ultimately deliver the bill of divorce to her, he is an agent neither for the woman nor for her husband. No conclusion can be drawn with regard to the question of which statement the husband relies upon.

איבעית אימא האי תנא חזרו נמי הטעו קרי ליה דתניא השוכר את האומנין והטעו את בעל הבית או בעל הבית הטעה אותן אין להם זה על זה אלא תרעומת

§ The Gemara had assumed that the term deceived used in the mishna must be referring to an inaccuracy stated by the middleman in his discussion with the laborers. The Gemara now offers an alternative explanation. If you wish, say that when the mishna teaches: They deceived one another, it means that one of the parties reneged on the agreement, as this tanna also calls a circumstance described by the term reneged, meaning that either the employer or the laborers reneged on their agreement, by the term deceived. As it is taught in a baraita in a similar manner: With regard to one who hires artisans or laborers, and they deceived the employer, or the employer deceived them, they have nothing but a grievance against one another, and no monetary claim.

במה דברים אמורים שלא הלכו אבל הלכו חמרים ולא מצאו תבואה פועלין ומצאו שדה כשהיא לחה נותן להן שכרן משלם אבל אינו דומה הבא טעון לבא ריקן עושה מלאכה ליושב ובטל

The baraita continues: In what case is this statement said? When they did not go to the workplace, i.e., the employer reneged immediately. But if donkey drivers went and could not find any produce to carry, or laborers went off to work and found that the field was too moist for tilling, the employer must give them their full wages to which they are entitled. But he does not give them the entire stipulated amount, as a donkey driver who comes back loaded cannot be compared to one who comes back empty, nor can a laborer who performs work be compared to one who sits idle. The employer deducts a sum from the laborers’ wages, paying them the amount they are willing to receive given that they do not actually have to perform the work.

במה דברים אמורים שלא התחילו במלאכה אבל התחילו במלאכה שמין להן מה שעשו כיצד קבלו קמה לקצור בשני סלעים קצרו חציה והניחו חציה בגד לארוג בשני סלעים ארגו חציו והניחו חציו שמין להן את מה שעשו

In what case is this statement, that if they reneged they have only a grievance, said? When they had not started the work at all. But if they had started the work, the court appraises for them that which they have done, for which they receive some form of compensation. How so? If they received standing grain to reap for a contractual agreement of two sela for the entire field, and they reaped half of it and left half of it, or if they took a garment to weave at two sela, and they weaved half of it and left half of it, in these cases the court appraises for them that which they have done.

היה יפה ששה דינרים נותן להן סלע או יגמרו מלאכתן ויטלו שני סלעים ואם סלע נותן להם סלע

The baraita details this appraisal: If the current wage for the part of the task they had done was now worth six dinars, a sela and a half, as the price for this assignment increased, either he gives them a sela, as originally agreed upon, since they do not forfeit their stipulated wages, or they finish their work and take two sela. And if the current wage for the part of the task they had done was worth a sela, he gives them a sela. This statement will be explained by the Gemara.

רבי דוסא אומר שמין להן מה שעתיד להעשות היה יפה ששה דינרים נותן להם שקל או יגמרו מלאכתן ויטלו שני סלעים ואם סלע נותן להם סלע

Rabbi Dosa says: The court appraises for them that which must still be done. If the current wage for the part of the task they had not done was worth six dinars, i.e., he can only find laborers who will complete it for six dinars, which is equivalent to one and a half sela, either he gives the first laborers a shekel, which is equivalent to half a sela, or they finish their work and take two sela. And if the current wage for the part of the task they had not done was worth a sela, he gives them a sela.

במה דברים אמורים בדבר שאין אבוד אבל בדבר האבוד שוכר עליהן או מטען כיצד מטען אומר להן סלע קצצתי לכם באו וטלו שתים ועד כמה שוכר עליהן עד ארבעים וחמשים זוז

The baraita continues: In what case is this statement said, i.e., in what circumstance are the laborers paid for the amount they performed and the employer has only a grievance against them? It is said with regard to a matter that does not involve financial loss due to the work stoppage, but with regard to a matter that involves financial loss due to the work stoppage, the employer may hire replacement laborers for a high price at the expense of the first laborers or deceive the first laborers. How does he deceive them? For example, he can say to them: I fixed a sela as wages for you; come and take two. And up to what amount may he hire at their expense? Even up to forty or fifty dinars. He can pay other laborers far more than the first laborers’ wages to ensure that the work is completed.

במה דברים אמורים בזמן שאין שם פועלים לשכור אבל יש שם פועלים לשכור ואמר צא ושכור מאלו אין לו עליהן אלא תרעומת

In what case is this statement said, i.e., in what circumstance may the employer deceive them to such an extent in order to ensure that the work is completed? When there are no other laborers there, in that place, to hire. Since the employer will suffer a heavy loss, he may resort to one of these methods. But if there are laborers there to hire, and the laborers who reneged said to the employer: Go and hire from these, the employer has nothing but a grievance against them.

תני תנא קמיה דרב נותן להם שכרן משלם אמר ליה חביבי אמר אילו אנא הואי לא הוה יהיבנא להן אלא כפועל בטל ואת אמרת נותן להם שכרן משלם והא עלה קתני אינו דומה הבא טעון להבא ריקן עושה מלאכה ליושב ובטל לא סיימוה קמיה

A tanna taught that baraita before Rav: The employer must give them their full wages. Rav said to him: My uncle [ḥavivi], Rabbi Ḥiyya, said: If I were ruling on this case, I would give them only the wages of an idle laborer, but no more, and yet you said that he gives them their full wages? The Gemara asks: But the baraita teaches concerning this very matter: A donkey driver who comes back loaded cannot be compared to one who comes back empty, nor can a laborer who performs work be compared to one who sits idle. Evidently, even the tanna of the baraita agrees that they do not receive their full wages. The Gemara answers: The tanna teaching the baraita before Rav did not conclude it, and he was unaware of this limitation, which is why he commented that they do not deserve their entire wages.

איכא דאמרי סיימוה קמיה והכי קאמר חביבי אמר אי הואי אנא לא הוה יהיבנא ליה כלל ואת אמרת כפועל בטל אלא קשיא הך

There are those who say that the tanna indeed concluded it before him, and this is what Rav is saying: My uncle said: If I were ruling on this case I would not give them anything, and yet you said that he gives them the wages of an idle laborer? The Gemara questions this version: But this is difficult. How can one account for the difference between the ruling of the baraita and that of Rav’s uncle, Rabbi Ḥiyya?

לא קשיא הא דסיירא לארעיה מדאורתא הא דלא סיירא לארעיה מאורתא

The Gemara responds: It is not difficult, as this case, where Rabbi Ḥiyya would rule that the laborers are not paid at all, is referring to one who surveyed his land the night before, observed that it was fit to be tilled, and hired laborers on the basis of this examination. It is their misfortune that something occurred in the meantime to prevent them from carrying out the task. Conversely, that case, where the baraita rules that they are given some payment, is referring to a landowner who did not survey his land the night before. Since he failed to check his own field, he must bear the responsibility.

כי הא דאמר רבא האי מאן דאגר אגירי לרפקא ואתא מטרא ומלייה מיא אי סיירא לארעיה מאורתא

This is like that which Rava said: With regard to one who hires laborers to till, and rain fell and filled his land with water, preventing the laborers from performing the work, if he surveyed his land the night before and did all he could,