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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 12, 2016 | 讬状讘 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 77

Various dealings in employer/ worker relations are brought where a worker can’t do the job and depending on the circumstances (could he have anticipated from the beginning that may be the case?) it is assessed who should bear the responsibility. 聽RAbbi Dosa and the rabbis disagree abotu whether a worker who reneges on an agreement in the middle should always get paid for all the work he did or does he need to compensate the emplioyer in a case where the employer will now need to pay more to get workers to finish the second part. 聽Rav holds like Rabbi Dosa; however this seems to contradict a different statement that Rav said elsewhere. 聽Several answers are brought. 聽in that context, a braita is mentioned about a seller or buyer reneging after the buyer paid part of the money. 聽This case is also then discussed in the gemara.


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

驻住讬讚讗 讚驻讜注诇讬诐 诇讗 住讬讬专讗 诇讗专注讬讛 诪讗讜专转讗 驻住讬讚讗 讚讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜讬讛讬讘 诇讛讜 讻驻讜注诇 讘讟诇

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

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讗讜讙讬专 讗讙讜专讬 诇讚讜讜诇讗 讜讗转讗 诪讟专讗 驻住讬讚讗 讚驻讜注诇讬诐 讗转讗 谞讛专讗 驻住讬讚讗 讚讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜讬讛讬讘 诇讛讜 讻驻讜注诇 讘讟诇

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鈥 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鈥檚 loss, as he should have taken this possibility into consideration. And therefore he gives them the wages of an idle laborer.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讗讜讙讬专 讗讙讜专讬 诇讚讜讜诇讗 讜驻住拽 谞讛专讗 讘驻诇讙讗 讚讬讜诪讗 讗讬 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讚驻住讬拽 驻住讬讚讗 讚驻讜注诇讬诐 注讘讬讚 讚驻住讬拽 讗讬 讘谞讬 诪转讗 驻住讬讚讗 讚驻讜注诇讬诐 诇讗讜 讘谞讬 诪转讗 驻住讬讚讗 讚讘注诇 讛讘讬转

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鈥 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鈥 loss; if the laborers are not residents of that city and are not aware that this is a likely occurrence, it is the employer鈥檚 loss.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讗讙专 讗讙讜专讬 诇注讘讬讚转讗 讜砖诇讬诐 注讘讬讚转讗 讘驻诇讙讗 讚讬讜诪讗 讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 注讘讬讚转讗 讚谞讬讞讗 诪讬谞讛 讬讛讬讘 诇讛讜 讗讬 谞诪讬 讚讻讜转讛 诪驻拽讚 诇讛讜 讚拽砖讛 诪讬谞讛 诇讗 诪驻拽讚 诇讛讜 讜谞讜转谉 诇讛诐 砖讻专谉 诪砖诇诐

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.

讗诪讗讬 讜诇讬转讬讘 诇讛讜 讻驻讜注诇 讘讟诇 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讗讻诇讜砖讬 讚诪讞讜讝讗 讚讗讬 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讞诇砖讬

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鈥檃khlushei] of Me岣za, 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.

讗诪专 诪专 砖诪讬谉 诇讛诐 讗转 诪讛 砖注砖讜 讻讬爪讚 讛讬讛 讬驻讛 砖砖讛 讚讬谞专讬诐 谞讜转谉 诇讛诐 住诇注 拽讗 住讘专讬 专讘谞谉 讬讚 驻讜注诇 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛

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.

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 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬讬拽专 注讘讬讚转讗 讜讗讬诪专讜 驻讜注诇讬诐 讜讗讝诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜驻讬讬住讬谞讛讜 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪爪讜 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讻讬 诪驻讬讬住讬谞谉 讗讚注转讗 讚讟驻转 诇谉 讗讗讙专讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讚注转讗 讚讟专讞谞讗 诇讻讜 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜砖转讬讛

The baraita states the second possibility: Or they finish their work and take two sela. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 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.

住诇注 谞讜转谉 诇讛诐 住诇注 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讝诇 注讘讬讚转讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讜讗讙专讬谞讛讜 讘讟驻讬 讝讜讝讗 讜诇住讜祝 讗讬讬拽专 注讘讬讚转讗 讜拽诐 讘讟驻讬 讝讜讝讗

The baraita further teaches that if they performed work worth a sela, he gives them a sela. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 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.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讟驻讬 讝讜讝讗 讗诪专转 诇谉 讟驻讬 讝讜讝讗 讛讘 诇谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻讬 讗诪专讬 诇讻讜 讟驻讬 讝讜讝讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 拽讬诐 诇讻讜 讛砖转讗 拽讬诐 诇讻讜

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.

专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗讜诪专 砖诪讬谉 诇讛谉 讗转 诪讛 砖注转讬讚 诇讛讬注砖讜转 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 拽住讘专 讬讚 驻讜注诇 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛

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.

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 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讝诇 注讘讬讚转讗 讜讗讬诪专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜讗讝讜诇 驻讜注诇讬诐 讜驻讬讬住讜讛讜 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讚注转讗 讚讘爪专讬转讜 诇讬 诪讗讙专讬讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讗讚注转讗 讚注讘讚讬谞谉 诇讱 注讘讬讚转讗 砖驻讬专转讗

搂 The baraita states the second possibility: Or they finish their work and take two sela. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 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.

住诇注 谞讜转谉 诇讛诐 住诇注 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞转谉 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讜讝讬诇讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讙讘讬讛 讝讜讝讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讜诇住讜祝 讝诇 注讘讬讚转讗

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鈥檛 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.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讘爪讬专 讝讜讝讗 讗诪专讬转讜 诇讬 讘爪讬专 讝讜讝讗 讬讛讬讘谞讗 诇讻讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讻讬 讗诪专谞讗 诇讱 讘讘爪讬专 讝讜讝讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 拽讬诐 诇讱 讛砖转讗 拽讬诐 诇讱

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 驻讜注诇 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞爪讬 讛讬讜诐 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 砖讗谞讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讘讬谉 砖讻讬专讜转 诇拽讘诇谞讜转 讜诪讬 砖讗谞讬 诇讬讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛驻讜注诇 讜诇讞爪讬 讛讬讜诐 砖诪注 砖诪转 诇讜 诪转 讗讜 砖讗讞讝转讜 讞诪讛 讗诐 砖讻讬专 讛讜讗

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鈥檛 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鈥檛 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,

谞讜转谉 诇讜 砖讻专讜 讗诐 拽讘诇谉 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 诇讜 拽讘诇谞讜转讜

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

诪谞讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 砖诪注 砖诪转 诇讜 诪转 讗讜 砖讗讞讝转讜 讞诪讛 讚讗谞讬住 讻讬 诇讗 讗谞讬住 谞诪讬 讛讗 讗诪专讜 专讘谞谉 讬讚 驻讜注诇 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讛讬讗 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗 砖讗谞讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讘讬谉 砖讻讬专讜转 诇拽讘诇谞讜转

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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讘讚讘专 讛讗讘讜讚 讜讚讘专讬 讛讻诇

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

转谞谉 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 讘砖诇诪讗 讻诇 讛诪砖谞讛 讬讚讜 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讚住转诐 诇谉 转谞讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讗 讻诇 讛讞讜讝专 讘讜 讬讚讜 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗转讜讬讬 驻讜注诇 讜讻专讘讬 讚讜住讗

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?

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 转专转讬 拽讗诪专 讜专讘 住讘专 诇讛 讻讜讜转讬讛 讘讞讚讗 讜驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讘讞讚讗

Evidently, Rav鈥檚 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鈥檚 ruling that laborers are at a disadvantage, but he does agree with him with regard to the manner of calculating wages.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻诇 讛讞讜讝专 讘讜 讬讚讜 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讻诇 讛讞讜讝专 讘讜 讻讬爪讚 讛专讬 砖诪讻专 砖讚讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 讘讗诇祝 讝讜讝 讜谞转谉 诇讜 诪注讜转 诪讛谉 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 讘讝诪谉 砖讛诪讜讻专 讞讜讝专 讘讜 讬讚 诇讜拽讞 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛

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.

专爪讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜 转谉 诇讬 诪注讜转讬 讗讜 转谉 诇讬 拽专拽注 讻谞讙讚 诪注讜转讬 诪讛讬讻谉 诪讙讘讬讛讜 诪谉 讛注讬讚讬转 讜讘讝诪谉 砖诇讜拽讞 讞讜讝专 讘讜 讬讚 诪讜讻专 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 专爪讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛讬诇讱 诪注讜转讬讱 专爪讛 讗讜诪专 讛讬诇讱 拽专拽注 讻谞讙讚 诪注讜转讬讱 诪讛讬讻谉 诪讙讘讬讛讜 诪谉 讛讝讬讘讜专讬转

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.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪诇诪讚讬谉 讗讜转谉 砖诇讗 讬讞讝专讜 讻讬爪讚 讻讜转讘 诇讜 讗谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讘谉 驻诇讜谞讬 诪讻专转讬 砖讚讛 驻诇讜谞讬转 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘讗诇祝 讝讜讝 讜谞转谉 诇讬 诪讛诐 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 讜讛专讬谞讬 谞讜砖讛 讘讜 砖诪讜谞讛 诪讗讜转 讝讜讝 拽谞讛 讜诪讞讝讬专 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讗专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 讻诪讛 砖谞讬诐

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.

讗诪专 诪专 诪讛讬讻谉 诪讙讘讬讛讜 诪谉 讛注讬讚讬转 拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪注讬讚讬转 讚谞讻住讬讜 讜诇讗 讬讛讗 讗诇讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜转谞谉 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讚讬谞讜 讘讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讜注讜讚 讛讗 讗专注讗 讚讬讛讬讘 讝讜讝讬

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鈥檚 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?

讗诪专 专讘讬 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪注讬讚讬转 砖讘讛 讜诪讝讬讘讜专讬转 砖讘讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 诪注讬讚讬转 讚谞讻住讬讜 住转诐 诪讗谉 讚讝讘讬谉 讗专注讗 讘讗诇驻讗 讝讜讝讬 讗讜讝讜诇讬 诪讜讝讬诇 讜诪讝讘讬谉 谞讻住讬讜 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻谞讬讝拽 讜转谞谉 讛谞讬讝拽讬谉 砖诪讬谉 诇讛谉 讘注讬讚讬转

Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, said: You may even say that the baraita means from the most superior-quality land of all of the seller鈥檚 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.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪诇诪讚讬谉 讗讜转谉 砖诇讗 讬讞讝专讜 讻讬爪讚 讻讜转讘 诇讜 讗谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讘谉 驻诇讜谞讬 讻讜壮 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讛讗 诇讗 讻转讘 讛讻讬 诇讗 拽谞讬

搂 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.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讛谞讜转谉 注专讘讜谉 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讗诐 讗谞讬 讞讜讝专 讘讬 注专讘讜谞讬 诪讞讜诇 诇讱 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讗谞讬 讞讜讝专 讘讬 讗讻驻讜诇 诇讱 注专讘讜谞讱 谞转拽讬讬诪讜 讛转谞讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 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.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗住诪讻转讗 拽谞讬讗

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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讚讬讜 砖讬拽谞讛 讻谞讙讚 注专讘讜谞讜 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 诇讜 注专讘讜谞讬 讬拽讜谉 讗讘诇 诪讻专 诇讜 砖讚讛 讘讗诇祝 讝讜讝 讜谞转谉 诇讜 诪讛诐 讞诪砖 诪讗讜转 讝讜讝 拽谞讛 讜诪讞讝讬专 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讗专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 讻诪讛 砖谞讬诐

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鈥檚 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?

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚拽讗 注讬讬诇 讜谞驻讬拽 讗讝讜讝讬 讛讗 讚诇讗 拽讗 注讬讬诇 讜谞驻讬拽 讗讝讜讝讬

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.

讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讝讘讬谉 诪讬讚讬 诇讞讘专讬讛 讜拽讗 注讬讬诇 讜谞驻讬拽 讗讝讜讝讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 诇讗 拽讗 注讬讬诇 讜谞驻讬拽 讗讝讜讝讬 拽谞讬

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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讗讜讝驻讬讛 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 诇讞讘专讬讛 讜驻专注讬讛 讝讜讝讗 讝讜讝讗 驻专注讜谉 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 转专注讜诪转 讙讘讬讛 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗驻住讚转讬谞讛讜 诪讬谞讗讬

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.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 讞诪专讗 诇讞讘专讬讛 讜驻砖 诇讬讛 讞讚 讝讜讝讗 讜拽讗 注讬讬诇 讜谞驻讬拽 讗讝讜讝讗 讬转讬讘 专讘 讗砖讬 讜拽讗 诪注讬讬谉 讘讛 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讗讬 拽谞讬 讗讜 诇讗 拽谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诪专讚讻讬 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬诪讬 诪讛讙专讜谞讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讝讜讝讗 讻讝讜讝讬 讚诪讬 讜诇讗 拽谞讬

搂 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 拽谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转转专讙诐 砖诪注转讬讱 讘诪讜讻专 砖讚讛讜

Rav A岣, 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鈥檚 ruling: Interpret your halakha with regard to one who sells his field

  • 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 77

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 77

驻住讬讚讗 讚驻讜注诇讬诐 诇讗 住讬讬专讗 诇讗专注讬讛 诪讗讜专转讗 驻住讬讚讗 讚讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜讬讛讬讘 诇讛讜 讻驻讜注诇 讘讟诇

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

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讗讜讙讬专 讗讙讜专讬 诇讚讜讜诇讗 讜讗转讗 诪讟专讗 驻住讬讚讗 讚驻讜注诇讬诐 讗转讗 谞讛专讗 驻住讬讚讗 讚讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜讬讛讬讘 诇讛讜 讻驻讜注诇 讘讟诇

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鈥 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鈥檚 loss, as he should have taken this possibility into consideration. And therefore he gives them the wages of an idle laborer.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讗讜讙讬专 讗讙讜专讬 诇讚讜讜诇讗 讜驻住拽 谞讛专讗 讘驻诇讙讗 讚讬讜诪讗 讗讬 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讚驻住讬拽 驻住讬讚讗 讚驻讜注诇讬诐 注讘讬讚 讚驻住讬拽 讗讬 讘谞讬 诪转讗 驻住讬讚讗 讚驻讜注诇讬诐 诇讗讜 讘谞讬 诪转讗 驻住讬讚讗 讚讘注诇 讛讘讬转

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鈥 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鈥 loss; if the laborers are not residents of that city and are not aware that this is a likely occurrence, it is the employer鈥檚 loss.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讗讙专 讗讙讜专讬 诇注讘讬讚转讗 讜砖诇讬诐 注讘讬讚转讗 讘驻诇讙讗 讚讬讜诪讗 讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 注讘讬讚转讗 讚谞讬讞讗 诪讬谞讛 讬讛讬讘 诇讛讜 讗讬 谞诪讬 讚讻讜转讛 诪驻拽讚 诇讛讜 讚拽砖讛 诪讬谞讛 诇讗 诪驻拽讚 诇讛讜 讜谞讜转谉 诇讛诐 砖讻专谉 诪砖诇诐

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.

讗诪讗讬 讜诇讬转讬讘 诇讛讜 讻驻讜注诇 讘讟诇 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讗讻诇讜砖讬 讚诪讞讜讝讗 讚讗讬 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讞诇砖讬

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鈥檃khlushei] of Me岣za, 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.

讗诪专 诪专 砖诪讬谉 诇讛诐 讗转 诪讛 砖注砖讜 讻讬爪讚 讛讬讛 讬驻讛 砖砖讛 讚讬谞专讬诐 谞讜转谉 诇讛诐 住诇注 拽讗 住讘专讬 专讘谞谉 讬讚 驻讜注诇 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛

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.

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 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬讬拽专 注讘讬讚转讗 讜讗讬诪专讜 驻讜注诇讬诐 讜讗讝诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜驻讬讬住讬谞讛讜 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪爪讜 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讻讬 诪驻讬讬住讬谞谉 讗讚注转讗 讚讟驻转 诇谉 讗讗讙专讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讚注转讗 讚讟专讞谞讗 诇讻讜 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜砖转讬讛

The baraita states the second possibility: Or they finish their work and take two sela. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 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.

住诇注 谞讜转谉 诇讛诐 住诇注 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讝诇 注讘讬讚转讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讜讗讙专讬谞讛讜 讘讟驻讬 讝讜讝讗 讜诇住讜祝 讗讬讬拽专 注讘讬讚转讗 讜拽诐 讘讟驻讬 讝讜讝讗

The baraita further teaches that if they performed work worth a sela, he gives them a sela. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 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.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讟驻讬 讝讜讝讗 讗诪专转 诇谉 讟驻讬 讝讜讝讗 讛讘 诇谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻讬 讗诪专讬 诇讻讜 讟驻讬 讝讜讝讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 拽讬诐 诇讻讜 讛砖转讗 拽讬诐 诇讻讜

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.

专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗讜诪专 砖诪讬谉 诇讛谉 讗转 诪讛 砖注转讬讚 诇讛讬注砖讜转 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 拽住讘专 讬讚 驻讜注诇 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛

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.

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 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讝诇 注讘讬讚转讗 讜讗讬诪专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜讗讝讜诇 驻讜注诇讬诐 讜驻讬讬住讜讛讜 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讚注转讗 讚讘爪专讬转讜 诇讬 诪讗讙专讬讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讗讚注转讗 讚注讘讚讬谞谉 诇讱 注讘讬讚转讗 砖驻讬专转讗

搂 The baraita states the second possibility: Or they finish their work and take two sela. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 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.

住诇注 谞讜转谉 诇讛诐 住诇注 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞转谉 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讜讝讬诇讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讙讘讬讛 讝讜讝讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讜诇住讜祝 讝诇 注讘讬讚转讗

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鈥檛 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.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讘爪讬专 讝讜讝讗 讗诪专讬转讜 诇讬 讘爪讬专 讝讜讝讗 讬讛讬讘谞讗 诇讻讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讻讬 讗诪专谞讗 诇讱 讘讘爪讬专 讝讜讝讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 拽讬诐 诇讱 讛砖转讗 拽讬诐 诇讱

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 驻讜注诇 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞爪讬 讛讬讜诐 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 砖讗谞讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讘讬谉 砖讻讬专讜转 诇拽讘诇谞讜转 讜诪讬 砖讗谞讬 诇讬讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛驻讜注诇 讜诇讞爪讬 讛讬讜诐 砖诪注 砖诪转 诇讜 诪转 讗讜 砖讗讞讝转讜 讞诪讛 讗诐 砖讻讬专 讛讜讗

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鈥檛 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鈥檛 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,

谞讜转谉 诇讜 砖讻专讜 讗诐 拽讘诇谉 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 诇讜 拽讘诇谞讜转讜

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

诪谞讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 砖诪注 砖诪转 诇讜 诪转 讗讜 砖讗讞讝转讜 讞诪讛 讚讗谞讬住 讻讬 诇讗 讗谞讬住 谞诪讬 讛讗 讗诪专讜 专讘谞谉 讬讚 驻讜注诇 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讛讬讗 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗 砖讗谞讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讘讬谉 砖讻讬专讜转 诇拽讘诇谞讜转

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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讘讚讘专 讛讗讘讜讚 讜讚讘专讬 讛讻诇

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

转谞谉 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 讘砖诇诪讗 讻诇 讛诪砖谞讛 讬讚讜 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讚住转诐 诇谉 转谞讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讗 讻诇 讛讞讜讝专 讘讜 讬讚讜 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗转讜讬讬 驻讜注诇 讜讻专讘讬 讚讜住讗

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?

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 转专转讬 拽讗诪专 讜专讘 住讘专 诇讛 讻讜讜转讬讛 讘讞讚讗 讜驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讘讞讚讗

Evidently, Rav鈥檚 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鈥檚 ruling that laborers are at a disadvantage, but he does agree with him with regard to the manner of calculating wages.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻诇 讛讞讜讝专 讘讜 讬讚讜 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讻诇 讛讞讜讝专 讘讜 讻讬爪讚 讛专讬 砖诪讻专 砖讚讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 讘讗诇祝 讝讜讝 讜谞转谉 诇讜 诪注讜转 诪讛谉 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 讘讝诪谉 砖讛诪讜讻专 讞讜讝专 讘讜 讬讚 诇讜拽讞 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛

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.

专爪讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜 转谉 诇讬 诪注讜转讬 讗讜 转谉 诇讬 拽专拽注 讻谞讙讚 诪注讜转讬 诪讛讬讻谉 诪讙讘讬讛讜 诪谉 讛注讬讚讬转 讜讘讝诪谉 砖诇讜拽讞 讞讜讝专 讘讜 讬讚 诪讜讻专 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 专爪讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛讬诇讱 诪注讜转讬讱 专爪讛 讗讜诪专 讛讬诇讱 拽专拽注 讻谞讙讚 诪注讜转讬讱 诪讛讬讻谉 诪讙讘讬讛讜 诪谉 讛讝讬讘讜专讬转

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.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪诇诪讚讬谉 讗讜转谉 砖诇讗 讬讞讝专讜 讻讬爪讚 讻讜转讘 诇讜 讗谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讘谉 驻诇讜谞讬 诪讻专转讬 砖讚讛 驻诇讜谞讬转 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘讗诇祝 讝讜讝 讜谞转谉 诇讬 诪讛诐 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 讜讛专讬谞讬 谞讜砖讛 讘讜 砖诪讜谞讛 诪讗讜转 讝讜讝 拽谞讛 讜诪讞讝讬专 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讗专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 讻诪讛 砖谞讬诐

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.

讗诪专 诪专 诪讛讬讻谉 诪讙讘讬讛讜 诪谉 讛注讬讚讬转 拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪注讬讚讬转 讚谞讻住讬讜 讜诇讗 讬讛讗 讗诇讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜转谞谉 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讚讬谞讜 讘讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讜注讜讚 讛讗 讗专注讗 讚讬讛讬讘 讝讜讝讬

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鈥檚 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?

讗诪专 专讘讬 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪注讬讚讬转 砖讘讛 讜诪讝讬讘讜专讬转 砖讘讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 诪注讬讚讬转 讚谞讻住讬讜 住转诐 诪讗谉 讚讝讘讬谉 讗专注讗 讘讗诇驻讗 讝讜讝讬 讗讜讝讜诇讬 诪讜讝讬诇 讜诪讝讘讬谉 谞讻住讬讜 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻谞讬讝拽 讜转谞谉 讛谞讬讝拽讬谉 砖诪讬谉 诇讛谉 讘注讬讚讬转

Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, said: You may even say that the baraita means from the most superior-quality land of all of the seller鈥檚 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.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪诇诪讚讬谉 讗讜转谉 砖诇讗 讬讞讝专讜 讻讬爪讚 讻讜转讘 诇讜 讗谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讘谉 驻诇讜谞讬 讻讜壮 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讛讗 诇讗 讻转讘 讛讻讬 诇讗 拽谞讬

搂 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.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讛谞讜转谉 注专讘讜谉 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讗诐 讗谞讬 讞讜讝专 讘讬 注专讘讜谞讬 诪讞讜诇 诇讱 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讗谞讬 讞讜讝专 讘讬 讗讻驻讜诇 诇讱 注专讘讜谞讱 谞转拽讬讬诪讜 讛转谞讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 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.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗住诪讻转讗 拽谞讬讗

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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讚讬讜 砖讬拽谞讛 讻谞讙讚 注专讘讜谞讜 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 诇讜 注专讘讜谞讬 讬拽讜谉 讗讘诇 诪讻专 诇讜 砖讚讛 讘讗诇祝 讝讜讝 讜谞转谉 诇讜 诪讛诐 讞诪砖 诪讗讜转 讝讜讝 拽谞讛 讜诪讞讝讬专 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讗专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 讻诪讛 砖谞讬诐

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鈥檚 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?

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚拽讗 注讬讬诇 讜谞驻讬拽 讗讝讜讝讬 讛讗 讚诇讗 拽讗 注讬讬诇 讜谞驻讬拽 讗讝讜讝讬

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.

讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讝讘讬谉 诪讬讚讬 诇讞讘专讬讛 讜拽讗 注讬讬诇 讜谞驻讬拽 讗讝讜讝讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 诇讗 拽讗 注讬讬诇 讜谞驻讬拽 讗讝讜讝讬 拽谞讬

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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讗讜讝驻讬讛 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 诇讞讘专讬讛 讜驻专注讬讛 讝讜讝讗 讝讜讝讗 驻专注讜谉 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 转专注讜诪转 讙讘讬讛 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗驻住讚转讬谞讛讜 诪讬谞讗讬

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.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 讞诪专讗 诇讞讘专讬讛 讜驻砖 诇讬讛 讞讚 讝讜讝讗 讜拽讗 注讬讬诇 讜谞驻讬拽 讗讝讜讝讗 讬转讬讘 专讘 讗砖讬 讜拽讗 诪注讬讬谉 讘讛 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讗讬 拽谞讬 讗讜 诇讗 拽谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诪专讚讻讬 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬诪讬 诪讛讙专讜谞讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讝讜讝讗 讻讝讜讝讬 讚诪讬 讜诇讗 拽谞讬

搂 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 拽谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转转专讙诐 砖诪注转讬讱 讘诪讜讻专 砖讚讛讜

Rav A岣, 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鈥檚 ruling: Interpret your halakha with regard to one who sells his field

Scroll To Top