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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 11, 2016 | 讬状讗 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Metzia 76

What happens when a worker or an employer back out of an agreement? 聽Various circumstances are discusses in the gemara in an attempt to understand the case brought in the mishna.

Study Guide Bava Metzia 76.


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

讗诐 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讞讜讝专 讘讜 讬讚讜 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讻诇 讛诪砖谞讛 讬讚讜 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讜讻诇 讛讞讜讝专 讘讜 讬讚讜 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛

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.

讙诪壮 讞讝专讜 讝讛 讘讝讛 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讛讟注讜 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讚讗讟注讜 驻讜注诇讬诐 讗讛讚讚讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讝讬诇 讗讜讙专 诇讬 驻讜注诇讬诐 讜讗讝诇 讗讬讛讜 讜讗讟注讬谞讛讜

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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讘讗专讘注讛 讜讗讝讬诇 讗讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘转诇转讗 转专注讜诪转 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讛 住讘讜专 讜拽讘讬诇 讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讘转诇转讗 讜讗讝讬诇 讗讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘讗专讘注讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖讻专讻诐 注诇讬 谞转讬讘 诇讛讜 诪讚讬讚讬讛

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.

讚转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛驻讜注诇 诇注砖讜转 讘砖诇讜 讜讛专讗讛讜 讘砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 谞讜转谉 诇讜 砖讻专讜 诪砖诇诐 讜讞讜讝专 讜谞讜讟诇 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪讛 砖讛讛谞讛讜

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.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖讻专讻诐 注诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转

The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to state this halakha where the middleman said to them: The obligation to pay your wages is incumbent upon the employer, 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.

讜诇讞讝讬 驻讜注诇讬诐 讛讬讻讬 诪讬转讙专讬 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讚诪讙专 讘讗专讘注讛 讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪转讙专 讘转诇转讗 讚讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专转 诇谉 讘讗专讘注讛 讟专讞讬谞谉 讜诪转讙专讬谞谉 讘讗专讘注讛

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.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讻讗 讘讘注诇 讛讘讬转 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专转 诇谉 讘讗专讘注讛 讛讜讛 讝讬诇讗 讘谉 诪讬诇转讗 诇讗转讙讜专讬

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.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘驻讜注诇讬诐 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专转 诇谉 讘讗专讘注讛 讟专讞讬谞谉 讜注讘讚讬谞谉 诇讱 注讘讬讚转讗 砖驻讬专转讗 讜诇讞讝讬 注讘讬讚转讬讬讛讜 讘专讬驻拽讗 专讬驻拽讗 谞诪讬 诪讬讚注 讬讚注 讚诪诇讬 诪讬讗 讜诇讗 讬讚讬注

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鈥檛 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.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讘讗专讘注讛 讜讗讝诇 讗讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘转诇转讗 讜讚拽讗诪专转 住讘讜专 讜拽讘讬诇 讚讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诇讬转 诇讱 讗诇 转诪谞注 讟讜讘 诪讘注诇讬讜

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鈥檛 you have respect for the verse: 鈥淒o not withhold good from him to whom it is due, when it is in the power of your hand to do it鈥 (Proverbs 3:27)?

驻砖讬讟讗 讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讘转诇转讗 讜讗讝诇 讗讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘讗专讘注讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讻诪讜 砖讗诪专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讚注转讬讬讛讜 讗注讬诇讜讬讗

搂 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.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讘讗专讘注讛 讜讗讝诇 讗讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘转诇转讗 讜讗诪专讬 讻诪讛 砖讗诪专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪讗讬 讗讚讬讘讜专讗 讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 住诪讻讬 讚讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诪讛讬诪谞转 诇谉 讚讛讻讬 讗诪专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讚讬讘讜专讗 讚讘注诇 讛讘讬转 拽讗 住诪讻讬

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鈥檚 statement, and therefore they are entitled to the higher wages specified by the employer?

转讗 砖诪注 讛讘讗 诇讬 讙讬讟讬

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.

讜讗砖转讱 讗诪专讛 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讛讬诇讱 讻诪讛 砖讗诪专讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讙讬注 讙讟 诇讬讚讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转

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 Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: Even when the bill of divorce reaches her possession, she is not divorced.

砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讗讚讬讘讜专讗 讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 住诪讬讱 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讗讚讬讘讜专讗 讚讬讚讛 拽讗 住诪讬讱 诪讻讬 诪讟讬 讙讬讟讗 诇讬讚讛 诪讬讛讗 转讬讙专砖 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬

One can learn from this that the husband relies on the agent鈥檚 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:

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讗讬驻讻讗 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讜讗砖转讱 讗诪专讛 讛讘讗 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讛讬诇讱 讻诪讜 砖讗诪专讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪砖讬讙讬注 讙讟 诇讬讚讜 诪讙讜专砖转 讗诇诪讗 讚讗讚讬讘讜专讗 讚讬讚讛 拽讗 住诪讬讱

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 Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: From when the bill of divorce reaches the agent鈥檚 possession, she is divorced, it would be understandable. Apparently, the husband relies upon her statement that the agent is an agent of receipt.

讗讬 谞诪讬 诪砖讛讙讬注 讙讟 诇讬讚讛 诪讙讜专砖转 讗诇诪讗 讚讗讚讬讘讜专讗 讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 住诪讬讱 讗诇讗 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚注拽专 砖诇讬讞 诇砖诇讬讞讜转讬讛 诇讙诪专讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诇讬讞 诇拽讘诇讛 讛讜讬谞讗 诇讛讜诇讻讛 诇讗 讛讜讬谞讗

Alternatively, had Rav Na岣an ruled: From when the bill of divorce reaches her possession, she is divorced, one could conclude that evidently, the husband relies on the agent鈥檚 statement, and based on that statement, the agent is designated as an agent for delivery. But there, in the case cited, where Rav Na岣an 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.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讞讝专讜 谞诪讬 讛讟注讜 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛讗讜诪谞讬谉 讜讛讟注讜 讗转 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗讜 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讛讟注讛 讗讜转谉 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讝讛 注诇 讝讛 讗诇讗 转专注讜诪转

搂 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.

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖诇讗 讛诇讻讜 讗讘诇 讛诇讻讜 讞诪专讬诐 讜诇讗 诪爪讗讜 转讘讜讗讛 驻讜注诇讬谉 讜诪爪讗讜 砖讚讛 讻砖讛讬讗 诇讞讛 谞讜转谉 诇讛谉 砖讻专谉 诪砖诇诐 讗讘诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 讛讘讗 讟注讜谉 诇讘讗 专讬拽谉 注讜砖讛 诪诇讗讻讛 诇讬讜砖讘 讜讘讟诇

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鈥 wages, paying them the amount they are willing to receive given that they do not actually have to perform the work.

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖诇讗 讛转讞讬诇讜 讘诪诇讗讻讛 讗讘诇 讛转讞讬诇讜 讘诪诇讗讻讛 砖诪讬谉 诇讛谉 诪讛 砖注砖讜 讻讬爪讚 拽讘诇讜 拽诪讛 诇拽爪讜专 讘砖谞讬 住诇注讬诐 拽爪专讜 讞爪讬讛 讜讛谞讬讞讜 讞爪讬讛 讘讙讚 诇讗专讜讙 讘砖谞讬 住诇注讬诐 讗专讙讜 讞爪讬讜 讜讛谞讬讞讜 讞爪讬讜 砖诪讬谉 诇讛谉 讗转 诪讛 砖注砖讜

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.

讛讬讛 讬驻讛 砖砖讛 讚讬谞专讬诐 谞讜转谉 诇讛谉 住诇注 讗讜 讬讙诪专讜 诪诇讗讻转谉 讜讬讟诇讜 砖谞讬 住诇注讬诐 讜讗诐 住诇注 谞讜转谉 诇讛诐 住诇注

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.

专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗讜诪专 砖诪讬谉 诇讛谉 诪讛 砖注转讬讚 诇讛注砖讜转 讛讬讛 讬驻讛 砖砖讛 讚讬谞专讬诐 谞讜转谉 诇讛诐 砖拽诇 讗讜 讬讙诪专讜 诪诇讗讻转谉 讜讬讟诇讜 砖谞讬 住诇注讬诐 讜讗诐 住诇注 谞讜转谉 诇讛诐 住诇注

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.

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讗讘讜讚 讗讘诇 讘讚讘专 讛讗讘讜讚 砖讜讻专 注诇讬讛谉 讗讜 诪讟注谉 讻讬爪讚 诪讟注谉 讗讜诪专 诇讛谉 住诇注 拽爪爪转讬 诇讻诐 讘讗讜 讜讟诇讜 砖转讬诐 讜注讚 讻诪讛 砖讜讻专 注诇讬讛谉 注讚 讗专讘注讬诐 讜讞诪砖讬诐 讝讜讝

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鈥 wages to ensure that the work is completed.

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 砖诐 驻讜注诇讬诐 诇砖讻讜专 讗讘诇 讬砖 砖诐 驻讜注诇讬诐 诇砖讻讜专 讜讗诪专 爪讗 讜砖讻讜专 诪讗诇讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇讬讛谉 讗诇讗 转专注讜诪转

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.

转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讜转谉 诇讛诐 砖讻专谉 诪砖诇诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讘讬讘讬 讗诪专 讗讬诇讜 讗谞讗 讛讜讗讬 诇讗 讛讜讛 讬讛讬讘谞讗 诇讛谉 讗诇讗 讻驻讜注诇 讘讟诇 讜讗转 讗诪专转 谞讜转谉 诇讛诐 砖讻专谉 诪砖诇诐 讜讛讗 注诇讛 拽转谞讬 讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 讛讘讗 讟注讜谉 诇讛讘讗 专讬拽谉 注讜砖讛 诪诇讗讻讛 诇讬讜砖讘 讜讘讟诇 诇讗 住讬讬诪讜讛 拽诪讬讛

A tanna taught that baraita before Rav: The employer must give them their full wages. Rav said to him: My uncle [岣vivi], Rabbi 岣yya, 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.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 住讬讬诪讜讛 拽诪讬讛 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讞讘讬讘讬 讗诪专 讗讬 讛讜讗讬 讗谞讗 诇讗 讛讜讛 讬讛讬讘谞讗 诇讬讛 讻诇诇 讜讗转 讗诪专转 讻驻讜注诇 讘讟诇 讗诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讱

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鈥檚 uncle, Rabbi 岣yya?

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚住讬讬专讗 诇讗专注讬讛 诪讚讗讜专转讗 讛讗 讚诇讗 住讬讬专讗 诇讗专注讬讛 诪讗讜专转讗

The Gemara responds: It is not difficult, as this case, where Rabbi 岣yya 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.

讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讗讙专 讗讙讬专讬 诇专驻拽讗 讜讗转讗 诪讟专讗 讜诪诇讬讬讛 诪讬讗 讗讬 住讬讬专讗 诇讗专注讬讛 诪讗讜专转讗

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,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 76

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 76

讗诐 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讞讜讝专 讘讜 讬讚讜 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讻诇 讛诪砖谞讛 讬讚讜 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讜讻诇 讛讞讜讝专 讘讜 讬讚讜 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛

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.

讙诪壮 讞讝专讜 讝讛 讘讝讛 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讛讟注讜 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讚讗讟注讜 驻讜注诇讬诐 讗讛讚讚讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讝讬诇 讗讜讙专 诇讬 驻讜注诇讬诐 讜讗讝诇 讗讬讛讜 讜讗讟注讬谞讛讜

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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讘讗专讘注讛 讜讗讝讬诇 讗讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘转诇转讗 转专注讜诪转 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讛 住讘讜专 讜拽讘讬诇 讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讘转诇转讗 讜讗讝讬诇 讗讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘讗专讘注讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖讻专讻诐 注诇讬 谞转讬讘 诇讛讜 诪讚讬讚讬讛

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.

讚转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛驻讜注诇 诇注砖讜转 讘砖诇讜 讜讛专讗讛讜 讘砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 谞讜转谉 诇讜 砖讻专讜 诪砖诇诐 讜讞讜讝专 讜谞讜讟诇 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪讛 砖讛讛谞讛讜

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.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖讻专讻诐 注诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转

The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to state this halakha where the middleman said to them: The obligation to pay your wages is incumbent upon the employer, 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.

讜诇讞讝讬 驻讜注诇讬诐 讛讬讻讬 诪讬转讙专讬 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讚诪讙专 讘讗专讘注讛 讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪转讙专 讘转诇转讗 讚讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专转 诇谉 讘讗专讘注讛 讟专讞讬谞谉 讜诪转讙专讬谞谉 讘讗专讘注讛

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.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讻讗 讘讘注诇 讛讘讬转 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专转 诇谉 讘讗专讘注讛 讛讜讛 讝讬诇讗 讘谉 诪讬诇转讗 诇讗转讙讜专讬

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.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘驻讜注诇讬诐 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专转 诇谉 讘讗专讘注讛 讟专讞讬谞谉 讜注讘讚讬谞谉 诇讱 注讘讬讚转讗 砖驻讬专转讗 讜诇讞讝讬 注讘讬讚转讬讬讛讜 讘专讬驻拽讗 专讬驻拽讗 谞诪讬 诪讬讚注 讬讚注 讚诪诇讬 诪讬讗 讜诇讗 讬讚讬注

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鈥檛 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.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讘讗专讘注讛 讜讗讝诇 讗讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘转诇转讗 讜讚拽讗诪专转 住讘讜专 讜拽讘讬诇 讚讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诇讬转 诇讱 讗诇 转诪谞注 讟讜讘 诪讘注诇讬讜

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鈥檛 you have respect for the verse: 鈥淒o not withhold good from him to whom it is due, when it is in the power of your hand to do it鈥 (Proverbs 3:27)?

驻砖讬讟讗 讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讘转诇转讗 讜讗讝诇 讗讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘讗专讘注讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讻诪讜 砖讗诪专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讚注转讬讬讛讜 讗注讬诇讜讬讗

搂 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.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讘讗专讘注讛 讜讗讝诇 讗讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘转诇转讗 讜讗诪专讬 讻诪讛 砖讗诪专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪讗讬 讗讚讬讘讜专讗 讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 住诪讻讬 讚讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诪讛讬诪谞转 诇谉 讚讛讻讬 讗诪专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讚讬讘讜专讗 讚讘注诇 讛讘讬转 拽讗 住诪讻讬

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鈥檚 statement, and therefore they are entitled to the higher wages specified by the employer?

转讗 砖诪注 讛讘讗 诇讬 讙讬讟讬

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.

讜讗砖转讱 讗诪专讛 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讛讬诇讱 讻诪讛 砖讗诪专讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讙讬注 讙讟 诇讬讚讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转

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 Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: Even when the bill of divorce reaches her possession, she is not divorced.

砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讗讚讬讘讜专讗 讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 住诪讬讱 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讗讚讬讘讜专讗 讚讬讚讛 拽讗 住诪讬讱 诪讻讬 诪讟讬 讙讬讟讗 诇讬讚讛 诪讬讛讗 转讬讙专砖 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬

One can learn from this that the husband relies on the agent鈥檚 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:

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讗讬驻讻讗 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讜讗砖转讱 讗诪专讛 讛讘讗 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讛讬诇讱 讻诪讜 砖讗诪专讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪砖讬讙讬注 讙讟 诇讬讚讜 诪讙讜专砖转 讗诇诪讗 讚讗讚讬讘讜专讗 讚讬讚讛 拽讗 住诪讬讱

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 Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: From when the bill of divorce reaches the agent鈥檚 possession, she is divorced, it would be understandable. Apparently, the husband relies upon her statement that the agent is an agent of receipt.

讗讬 谞诪讬 诪砖讛讙讬注 讙讟 诇讬讚讛 诪讙讜专砖转 讗诇诪讗 讚讗讚讬讘讜专讗 讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 住诪讬讱 讗诇讗 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚注拽专 砖诇讬讞 诇砖诇讬讞讜转讬讛 诇讙诪专讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诇讬讞 诇拽讘诇讛 讛讜讬谞讗 诇讛讜诇讻讛 诇讗 讛讜讬谞讗

Alternatively, had Rav Na岣an ruled: From when the bill of divorce reaches her possession, she is divorced, one could conclude that evidently, the husband relies on the agent鈥檚 statement, and based on that statement, the agent is designated as an agent for delivery. But there, in the case cited, where Rav Na岣an 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.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讞讝专讜 谞诪讬 讛讟注讜 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛讗讜诪谞讬谉 讜讛讟注讜 讗转 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗讜 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讛讟注讛 讗讜转谉 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讝讛 注诇 讝讛 讗诇讗 转专注讜诪转

搂 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.

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖诇讗 讛诇讻讜 讗讘诇 讛诇讻讜 讞诪专讬诐 讜诇讗 诪爪讗讜 转讘讜讗讛 驻讜注诇讬谉 讜诪爪讗讜 砖讚讛 讻砖讛讬讗 诇讞讛 谞讜转谉 诇讛谉 砖讻专谉 诪砖诇诐 讗讘诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 讛讘讗 讟注讜谉 诇讘讗 专讬拽谉 注讜砖讛 诪诇讗讻讛 诇讬讜砖讘 讜讘讟诇

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鈥 wages, paying them the amount they are willing to receive given that they do not actually have to perform the work.

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖诇讗 讛转讞讬诇讜 讘诪诇讗讻讛 讗讘诇 讛转讞讬诇讜 讘诪诇讗讻讛 砖诪讬谉 诇讛谉 诪讛 砖注砖讜 讻讬爪讚 拽讘诇讜 拽诪讛 诇拽爪讜专 讘砖谞讬 住诇注讬诐 拽爪专讜 讞爪讬讛 讜讛谞讬讞讜 讞爪讬讛 讘讙讚 诇讗专讜讙 讘砖谞讬 住诇注讬诐 讗专讙讜 讞爪讬讜 讜讛谞讬讞讜 讞爪讬讜 砖诪讬谉 诇讛谉 讗转 诪讛 砖注砖讜

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.

讛讬讛 讬驻讛 砖砖讛 讚讬谞专讬诐 谞讜转谉 诇讛谉 住诇注 讗讜 讬讙诪专讜 诪诇讗讻转谉 讜讬讟诇讜 砖谞讬 住诇注讬诐 讜讗诐 住诇注 谞讜转谉 诇讛诐 住诇注

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.

专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗讜诪专 砖诪讬谉 诇讛谉 诪讛 砖注转讬讚 诇讛注砖讜转 讛讬讛 讬驻讛 砖砖讛 讚讬谞专讬诐 谞讜转谉 诇讛诐 砖拽诇 讗讜 讬讙诪专讜 诪诇讗讻转谉 讜讬讟诇讜 砖谞讬 住诇注讬诐 讜讗诐 住诇注 谞讜转谉 诇讛诐 住诇注

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.

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讗讘讜讚 讗讘诇 讘讚讘专 讛讗讘讜讚 砖讜讻专 注诇讬讛谉 讗讜 诪讟注谉 讻讬爪讚 诪讟注谉 讗讜诪专 诇讛谉 住诇注 拽爪爪转讬 诇讻诐 讘讗讜 讜讟诇讜 砖转讬诐 讜注讚 讻诪讛 砖讜讻专 注诇讬讛谉 注讚 讗专讘注讬诐 讜讞诪砖讬诐 讝讜讝

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鈥 wages to ensure that the work is completed.

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 砖诐 驻讜注诇讬诐 诇砖讻讜专 讗讘诇 讬砖 砖诐 驻讜注诇讬诐 诇砖讻讜专 讜讗诪专 爪讗 讜砖讻讜专 诪讗诇讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇讬讛谉 讗诇讗 转专注讜诪转

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.

转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讜转谉 诇讛诐 砖讻专谉 诪砖诇诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讘讬讘讬 讗诪专 讗讬诇讜 讗谞讗 讛讜讗讬 诇讗 讛讜讛 讬讛讬讘谞讗 诇讛谉 讗诇讗 讻驻讜注诇 讘讟诇 讜讗转 讗诪专转 谞讜转谉 诇讛诐 砖讻专谉 诪砖诇诐 讜讛讗 注诇讛 拽转谞讬 讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 讛讘讗 讟注讜谉 诇讛讘讗 专讬拽谉 注讜砖讛 诪诇讗讻讛 诇讬讜砖讘 讜讘讟诇 诇讗 住讬讬诪讜讛 拽诪讬讛

A tanna taught that baraita before Rav: The employer must give them their full wages. Rav said to him: My uncle [岣vivi], Rabbi 岣yya, 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.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 住讬讬诪讜讛 拽诪讬讛 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讞讘讬讘讬 讗诪专 讗讬 讛讜讗讬 讗谞讗 诇讗 讛讜讛 讬讛讬讘谞讗 诇讬讛 讻诇诇 讜讗转 讗诪专转 讻驻讜注诇 讘讟诇 讗诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讱

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鈥檚 uncle, Rabbi 岣yya?

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚住讬讬专讗 诇讗专注讬讛 诪讚讗讜专转讗 讛讗 讚诇讗 住讬讬专讗 诇讗专注讬讛 诪讗讜专转讗

The Gemara responds: It is not difficult, as this case, where Rabbi 岣yya 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.

讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讗讙专 讗讙讬专讬 诇专驻拽讗 讜讗转讗 诪讟专讗 讜诪诇讬讬讛 诪讬讗 讗讬 住讬讬专讗 诇讗专注讬讛 诪讗讜专转讗

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,

Scroll To Top