Bava Metzia 77

פסידא דפועלים לא סיירא לארעיה מאורתא פסידא דבעל הבית ויהיב להו כפועל בטל

this is the laborers’ loss, as it is a consequence of their misfortune. But if he did not survey his land the night before, it is the employer’s loss, and he gives them the wages of an idle laborer.

ואמר רבא האי מאן דאוגיר אגורי לדוולא ואתא מטרא פסידא דפועלים אתא נהרא פסידא דבעל הבית ויהיב להו כפועל בטל

And Rava further said: With regard to this one who hires laborers to draw water from a river or a trench to irrigate his field, and rain fell, so that he no longer needs laborers, this is the laborers’ loss. The employer does not need to pay them, as he could not have known ahead of time that this would happen. But if the river comes up and irrigates the field, this is the employer’s loss, as he should have taken this possibility into consideration. And therefore he gives them the wages of an idle laborer.

ואמר רבא האי מאן דאוגיר אגורי לדוולא ופסק נהרא בפלגא דיומא אי לא עביד דפסיק פסידא דפועלים עביד דפסיק אי בני מתא פסידא דפועלים לאו בני מתא פסידא דבעל הבית

And Rava says: With regard to this one who hires laborers to draw water from a river or a trench to irrigate his field, and the flow of the part of the river used to irrigate the field stopped midday, the halakha depends on the circumstance. If it is not prone to stopping, this is the laborers’ loss, a consequence of their misfortune. If it is prone to stopping, then one acts in accordance with this consideration: If the workers are residents of that city and know that this might happen, it is the laborers’ loss; if the laborers are not residents of that city and are not aware that this is a likely occurrence, it is the employer’s loss.

ואמר רבא האי מאן דאגר אגורי לעבידתא ושלים עבידתא בפלגא דיומא אי אית ליה עבידתא דניחא מינה יהיב להו אי נמי דכותה מפקד להו דקשה מינה לא מפקד להו ונותן להם שכרן משלם

And Rava says: With regard to this one who hires laborers to perform a specific task and the task is completed by midday, if he has another task that is easier than the first one, he may give it to them. Alternatively, if he has other work that is similar to the first one in difficulty, he may assign it to them. But if he has other work that is more difficult than it, he may not assign it to them, and he gives them their full wages.

אמאי וליתיב להו כפועל בטל כי קאמר רבא באכלושי דמחוזא דאי לא עבדי חלשי

The Gemara asks: Why must he pay them their full wages? Let him pay them for the additional time at most as an idle laborer. The Gemara answers: When Rava said his ruling in this case, he was referring to workers [be’akhlushei] of Meḥoza, who become weak if they do not work. These laborers were accustomed to steady, strenuous work, and therefore sitting idle was difficult, not enjoyable, for them.

אמר מר שמין להם את מה שעשו כיצד היה יפה ששה דינרים נותן להם סלע קא סברי רבנן יד פועל על העליונה

§ The Master said in the baraita: The court appraises for them that which they have done. How so? If the current wage for the part of the task they have done was now worth six dinars, a sela and a half, as the price for this assignment increased, there are two possibilities: One is that he gives them a sela, as originally agreed upon, since they do not forfeit their stipulated wages. The Gemara explains: The Rabbis hold that the laborer is at an advantage, and therefore even if the laborer reneges on the assignment, he does not lose everything.

או יגמרו מלאכתן ויטלו שני סלעים פשיטא לא צריכא דאייקר עבידתא ואימרו פועלים ואזל בעל הבית ופייסינהו מהו דתימא מצו אמרי ליה כי מפייסינן אדעתא דטפת לן אאגרא קא משמע לן דאמר להו אדעתא דטרחנא לכו באכילה ושתיה

The baraita states the second possibility: Or they finish their work and take two sela. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that this is the case? That is the sum they agreed on at the outset. The Gemara responds: No, it is necessary to state this halakha in a case where the price of labor increased during the day and the laborers rebelled and did not want to work anymore, and the employer went and appeased them and they agreed to finish their task. Lest you say that they can say to him: When we were appeased, it was with the intent that you would increase our wage, the baraita teaches us that the employer can say to them: I appeased you with the intent that I would trouble myself for you by providing you with superior food and drink, not that I would increase your wages.

סלע נותן להם סלע פשיטא לא צריכא דזל עבידתא מעיקרא ואגרינהו בטפי זוזא ולסוף אייקר עבידתא וקם בטפי זוזא

The baraita further teaches that if they performed work worth a sela, he gives them a sela. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary in a case where the price of labor was inexpensive at the outset and he hired them for one dinar more than accepted, and ultimately the price of labor increased and the going wage now stands at that rate of one more dinar.

מהו דתימא אמרי ליה טפי זוזא אמרת לן טפי זוזא הב לן קא משמע לן דאמר להו כי אמרי לכו טפי זוזא דלא הוה קים לכו השתא קים לכו

The Gemara elaborates: Lest you say that they can say to him: You offered us a dinar above the going rate, so now too, give us one more dinar than the current rate, to counter this, the baraita teaches us that he can say to them: When I said to you that I would add one more dinar, the reason was that it was not clear with regard to you that you would be willing to work for the lower wage, so I increased it. Now it is clear with regard to you, i.e., you agreed to a wage that was acceptable to you, and I do not intend to increase it further.

רבי דוסא אומר שמין להן את מה שעתיד להיעשות היה יפה ששה דינרים נותן להם שקל קסבר יד פועל על התחתונה

The baraita further teaches that 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 find laborers who will complete it only for six dinars, which is equivalent to one and a half sela, there are two possibilities: One is that he gives the first laborers a shekel, which is equivalent to half a sela. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Dosa holds that the laborer is at a disadvantage, in accordance with the principle that whoever reneges is at a disadvantage.

או יגמרו מלאכתן ויטלו שני סלעים פשיטא לא צריכא דזל עבידתא ואימר בעל הבית ואזול פועלים ופייסוהו מהו דתימא מצי אמר להו אדעתא דבצריתו לי מאגריי קא משמע לן דאמרי ליה אדעתא דעבדינן לך עבידתא שפירתא

§ The baraita states the second possibility: Or they finish their work and take two sela. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary in a case where the price of labor decreased midday and the employer rebelled, seeking to cancel the agreement, and the laborers went and appeased him so that he would let them continue their work. Lest you say that the employer can say to them: When I was appeased, that was with the intent that you would decrease your wages for me, therefore, the baraita teaches us that the laborers can say to him: When we spoke it was with the intent that we will do improved work for you.

סלע נותן להם סלע פשיטא אמר רב הונא בריה דרב נתן לא צריכא דאוזילו אינהו גביה זוזא מעיקרא ולסוף זל עבידתא

The baraita further teaches that Rabbi Dosa said: And if the current wage for the part of the task they had not done was worth a sela, he gives them a sela. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said: No, it is necessary in a case where they reduced for him the accepted price by a dinar at the outset, and ultimately the price of labor decreased, so that the standard wage became equal to the price they had agreed on.

מהו דתימא בציר זוזא אמריתו לי בציר זוזא יהיבנא לכו קא משמע לן דאמרי ליה כי אמרנא לך בבציר זוזא דלא הוה קים לך השתא קים לך

Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, elaborates: Lest you say that the employer can say to them: You said to me that you would accept wages of a dinar less than the market value, and therefore a dinar less that the standard wage is what I will give you. Consequently, Rabbi Dosa teaches us that the laborers can say to him: When we said to you that we would agree to a dinar less, that was when it was not clear that you would be willing to pay the higher wage, but now it is clear that you will agree, and therefore you cannot reduce our wages.

אמר רב הלכה כרבי דוסא ומי אמר רב הכי והאמר רב פועל יכול לחזור בו אפילו בחצי היום וכי תימא שאני ליה לרבי דוסא בין שכירות לקבלנות ומי שאני ליה והתניא השוכר את הפועל ולחצי היום שמע שמת לו מת או שאחזתו חמה אם שכיר הוא

With regard to that same dispute in the baraita, Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Dosa. The Gemara asks: And did Rav really say that? But doesn’t Rav say that a laborer can renege from his commitment even at midday? And if you would say that there is a difference for Rabbi Dosa between hired work and contracted work, as a hired laborer can renege but a contracted laborer cannot, is there really a difference for him? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to one who hires a laborer, and at midday the laborer heard that a relative of his died and he has to tend to the burial, or if the laborer was gripped with fever and could not continue to work, if he is a hired laborer,

נותן לו שכרו אם קבלן הוא נותן לו קבלנותו

he gives him his wage; if he is a contractor, he gives him his contracted payment?

מני אילימא רבנן מאי איריא שמע שמת לו מת או שאחזתו חמה דאניס כי לא אניס נמי הא אמרו רבנן יד פועל על העליונה אלא לאו רבי דוסא היא ושמע מינה לא שאני ליה לרבי דוסא בין שכירות לקבלנות

The Gemara explains: Whose opinion does this baraita follow? If we say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, why does the baraita rule that he receives his full payment specifically in a case when the laborer heard that a relative of his died, or if he was gripped with fever, where he was unable to work due to circumstances beyond his control? When he is not compelled by circumstances beyond his control to stop working, this should also be the halakha. After all, the Rabbis said that the laborer is at an advantage. Rather, is it not correct to say that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Dosa? And one can learn from it that Rabbi Dosa does not differentiate between hired work and contracted work in this regard.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק בדבר האבוד ודברי הכל

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The ruling of this baraita is stated with regard to a matter that involves financial loss if the work is not completed. Consequently, the employer is at an advantage, unless the laborer is compelled to stop working due to circumstances beyond his control, in which case everyone agrees that he receives his full wages.

תנן כל המשנה ידו על התחתונה וכל החוזר בו ידו על התחתונה בשלמא כל המשנה ידו על התחתונה דסתם לן תנא כרבי יהודה אלא כל החוזר בו ידו על התחתונה לאתויי מאי לאו לאתויי פועל וכרבי דוסא

We learned in the mishna: Whoever changes the terms accepted by both parties is at a disadvantage, and whoever reneges on an agreement is at a disadvantage. The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to the statement: Whoever changes is at a disadvantage, one can understand this, as the tanna taught us an unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, indicating that this is the halakha. But concerning the clause: Whoever reneges is at a disadvantage, what does it serve to add? Does it not serve to add the halakha of a laborer, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Dosa, who holds that workers may not renege?

אלא רבי דוסא תרתי קאמר ורב סבר לה כוותיה בחדא ופליג עליה בחדא

Evidently, Rav’s ruling does not accord with the opinion of Rabbi Dosa. Rather, Rabbi Dosa is saying two halakhot, and Rav holds in accordance with his opinion in one matter and disagrees with his opinion in one matter. Rav does not agree with Rabbi Dosa’s ruling that laborers are at a disadvantage, but he does agree with him with regard to the manner of calculating wages.

איבעית אימא כל החוזר בו ידו על התחתונה לכדתניא כל החוזר בו כיצד הרי שמכר שדה לחבירו באלף זוז ונתן לו מעות מהן מאתים זוז בזמן שהמוכר חוזר בו יד לוקח על העליונה

If you wish, say a different interpretation of the mishna. The phrase: Whoever reneges is at a disadvantage, is not discussing employment arrangements, but is referring to that which is taught in a baraita: Whoever reneges is at a disadvantage; how so? If one sold a field to another for one thousand dinars, and the buyer gave him two hundred dinars as a down payment, and then one of them reneged, when the seller reneges on his commitment, the buyer is at an advantage.

רצה אומר לו תן לי מעותי או תן לי קרקע כנגד מעותי מהיכן מגביהו מן העידית ובזמן שלוקח חוזר בו יד מוכר על העליונה רצה אומר לו הילך מעותיך רצה אומר הילך קרקע כנגד מעותיך מהיכן מגביהו מן הזיבורית

Consequently, if the buyer desires, he may say to him: Give me back my money that I gave you as a down payment, or give me land corresponding to the value of my money. If you will not give me all the land as per our agreement, I should at least receive land in proportion to the money I already paid you. From which type of land does the seller give the buyer? From superior-quality land. And when the buyer reneges, the seller is at an advantage: If he desires, the seller says to him: Take your money, and if he desires, he says to him: Take land corresponding to the value of your money that you already paid. From which type of land does the seller give the buyer? Even from inferior-quality land.

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר מלמדין אותן שלא יחזרו כיצד כותב לו אני פלוני בן פלוני מכרתי שדה פלונית לפלוני באלף זוז ונתן לי מהם מאתים זוז והריני נושה בו שמונה מאות זוז קנה ומחזיר לו את השאר אפילו לאחר כמה שנים

The baraita continues: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: We teach them from the outset not to renege, so that the agreement will not be canceled and end in conflict. How so? The seller writes for him a bill of sale that states: I, so-and-so, son of so-and-so, sold such and such a field to so-and-so for one thousand dinars, and of them he gave me two hundred dinars. And therefore, now he owes me eight hundred dinars. In this manner, the buyer acquires the entire field, and the buyer returns the remaining eight hundred dinars to the seller even after several years. The remainder of the payment for the field has been transformed into a standard written loan.

אמר מר מהיכן מגביהו מן העידית קא סלקא דעתך מעידית דנכסיו ולא יהא אלא בעל חוב ותנן בעל חוב דינו בבינונית ועוד הא ארעא דיהיב זוזי

The Master said in the baraita: From which type of land does the seller give the buyer? From superior-quality land. It may enter your mind to say that this means from the most superior-quality land of all of the seller’s property. The Gemara asks: But even if the buyer is considered to be like only a regular creditor, we learned in a mishna (Gittin 48b) that a creditor has the right only to intermediate-quality land, not superior-quality land. And furthermore, there is this specific plot of land, for which the buyer paid money. Why should he receive superior-quality land?

אמר רבי נחמן בר יצחק מעידית שבה ומזיבורית שבה

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: When the baraita refers to the type of land that may be claimed after the buyer or seller reneges, it means from the most superior-quality land that is in the agreed-upon plot of land, or from the most inferior-quality land that is in it.

רב אחא בריה דרב איקא אמר אפילו תימא מעידית דנכסיו סתם מאן דזבין ארעא באלפא זוזי אוזולי מוזיל ומזבין נכסיו והוה ליה כניזק ותנן הניזקין שמין להן בעידית

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said: You may even say that the baraita means from the most superior-quality land of all of the seller’s property, as there is a specific reason why that should be the case here: Ordinarily, one who buys land for one thousand dinars will not have such a large sum on hand to carry out the transaction. Rather, he will significantly reduce the price of his possessions and sell them at a loss, so as to obtain the money. If the seller reneges and the buyer does not acquire this large plot of land, he will have suffered a significant loss, and he will be like an injured party, and we learned the same mishna: The court appraises superior-quality land for payment to injured parties. Therefore, in this case too, the seller must provide land of the highest quality.

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר מלמדין אותן שלא יחזרו כיצד כותב לו אני פלוני בן פלוני כו׳ טעמא דכתב ליה הכי הא לא כתב הכי לא קני

§ It is further stated in the baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: We teach them not to renege. How so? He writes for him: I, so-and-so, son of so-and-so, sold such and such a field to so-and-so for one thousand dinars, and of them he gave me two hundred dinars. And therefore, now he owes me eight hundred dinars. This effects acquisition of the field for the buyer immediately. The Gemara asks: The reason they cannot renege is that the seller wrote this for the buyer in the contract. Evidently, if not for this being specified in a document the buyer does not acquire the field immediately.

והתניא הנותן ערבון לחבירו ואמר לו אם אני חוזר בי ערבוני מחול לך והלה אומר אם אני חוזר בי אכפול לך ערבונך נתקיימו התנאין דברי רבי יוסי

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to one who gives a down payment to another, and says to him: If I renege, my down payment is forfeited to you, and the other person says to him: If I renege, I will double your down payment for you, the conditions are in effect; i.e., the court will enforce the conditions stipulated between them in this contract. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei.

רבי יוסי לטעמיה דאמר אסמכתא קניא

The Gemara comments: Rabbi Yosei conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says: A transaction with inconclusive consent [asmakhta] effects acquisition. Even though it is a commitment that he undertook based on his certainty that he would never be forced to fulfill the condition, it is considered a full-fledged commitment.

רבי יהודה אומר דיו שיקנה כנגד ערבונו אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל במה דברים אמורים בזמן שאמר לו ערבוני יקון אבל מכר לו שדה באלף זוז ונתן לו מהם חמש מאות זוז קנה ומחזיר לו את השאר אפילו לאחר כמה שנים

The Gemara continues its discussion of the baraita. Rabbi Yehuda says: It is sufficient that the down payment effects acquisition of merchandise commensurate with the amount of his down payment. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case is this statement said? It is when the buyer said to the seller: My down payment will effect acquisition of the merchandise. But if one sold another a field for one thousand dinars, and the buyer paid him five hundred dinars of that sum, he has acquired the entire field, and he returns the rest of the money to the seller even after several years have passed. Evidently, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains that even if they do not have an explicit contract, the buyer’s first payment finalizes the sale, rendering the remaining payment a standard loan. If so, why does the previous baraita state that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that this contract must be in writing?

לא קשיא הא דקא עייל ונפיק אזוזי הא דלא קא עייל ונפיק אזוזי

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. This ruling, that the down payment serves to effect acquisition only if they specified in writing that the remaining payment would be considered a loan, is stated with regard to a case where the seller goes in and goes out for money, i.e., demonstrates that he is in need of cash. Therefore, unless the acquisition was stated in writing, the buyer acquires the entire field only when he pays the entire sum. That ruling, that the down payment effects full acquisition regardless of whether or not it is written in a contract, is stated with regard to a case where he does not go in and go out for money.

דאמר רבא האי מאן דזבין מידי לחבריה וקא עייל ונפיק אזוזי לא קני לא קא עייל ונפיק אזוזי קני

This is as Rava says: With regard to one who sells an item to another and then goes in and goes out for money, the buyer has not acquired it, as it is clear that the seller sold it only because he needed the money immediately. Since the seller did not receive the money he wanted right away, the transaction is null. If he does not go in and go out for money, the buyer has acquired it, and the rest of the payment is considered like a loan that must be repaid in the future.

ואמר רבא האי מאן דאוזפיה מאה זוזי לחבריה ופרעיה זוזא זוזא פרעון הוי אלא דאית ליה תרעומת גביה דאמר ליה אפסדתינהו מינאי

And Rava says: With regard to one who lent one hundred dinars to another and the borrower paid it back one dinar at a time, this is a valid repayment. But the lender has grounds for a grievance against him for repaying him in this manner, as he can say to him: You have caused me to lose out, as it is easier to use a lump sum than a few coins at a time.

ההוא גברא דזבין ליה חמרא לחבריה ופש ליה חד זוזא וקא עייל ונפיק אזוזא יתיב רב אשי וקא מעיין בה כי האי גוונא מאי קני או לא קני אמר ליה רב מרדכי לרב אשי הכי אמר אבימי מהגרוניא משמיה דרבא זוזא כזוזי דמי ולא קני

§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who sold his donkey to another, and one dinar was still owed to him, and the seller went in and went out for his dinar. Rav Ashi sat and examined this situation, asking: In a case like this, what is the halakha? Has he acquired the donkey or has he not acquired it? Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: This is what Avimi of Hagronya said in the name of Rava: One dinar is considered to be like multiple dinars, and therefore he has not acquired it.

אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרב יוסף לרב אשי והא אמרינן משמיה דרבא קני אמר ליה תתרגם שמעתיך במוכר שדהו

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Yosef, said to Rav Ashi: But we say in the name of Rava that in this case he has acquired it. Rav Ashi said to him, in resolution of the apparent contradiction between these two versions of Rava’s ruling: Interpret your halakha with regard to one who sells his field