Bava Metzia 110b (קי:) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Ḥanina thought to say:

Since the

land is presumed to be in the possession of the orphans

and they are therefore considered to be in possession of it,

it is incumbent upon the creditor

who comes to take it from them

to bring proof

that their father improved the field.

A certain elder said

to Rabbi Ḥanina:

This is what Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is incumbent upon the orphans to bring proof!

What is the reason?

That

land, since it stands for collection,

as it is designated for collection by the creditor,

is considered as though it

already

has been collected

by the creditor

and

he is therefore considered to be in possession of the field. Consequently,

it is incumbent upon the orphans to bring proof

that they improved it.

Abaye said: We too have learned

a matter similar to this:

A tree planted within fifty cubits of the city, whose roots damage the city’s houses: If the tree preceded the houses, it is cut down and its value is paid; and if the houses preceded the tree, it is cut down but its value is not paid.

If it is uncertain whether this one preceded or that one preceded, it is cut down and

the owner of the tree must bring proof that his tree preceded the houses; and as long as he does not bring proof,

he does not pay the money.

Apparently, since

the tree

stands to be cut down,

there is no need to refrain from cutting it until he brings proof that his tree preceded the houses, since in any event it must be cut down. Rather,

we say to him

the owner of the tree: First cut down the tree, and afterward, if you wish,

bring proof

that your tree preceded the houses,

and take

its value. And

here too,

this is the reason for Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling that the orphans must bring proof: Since

this document

of the creditor

stands for collection, it is considered as though it had been collected.

Consequently, the field is first collected together with its improvement,

and

if the orphans wish to have the improvement returned to them,

it is incumbent upon the orphans to bring proof

that they improved it.

If the creditor collected the field together with its improvement and

the orphans brought proof that they had made the improvement,

Rabbi Ḥanina thought to say: When we remove them,

when we return to them the improvement that rightfully belongs to them, since it had never been liened to the creditor,

we remove them by giving them land

and do not return to them merely money equal to the value of the improvement.

That is not so! We remove them by giving them money,

and they have no right to receive the improvement in the form of land.

And there is proof of this

from Rav Naḥman, for Rav Naḥman said

that Shmuel said:

In

three

places we find one who is entitled to a share of land but does not receive what is due to him except that

the improvement due to them is appraised

that is due to them,

and they raise

pay

them in money.

And these are they:

a. A firstborn receives a double portion of a field that fell to the orphans as an inheritance. But if the field improved after the father’s death, before the division, he does not receive a double portion of that improvement, as it is stated: “Of all that is found to him,” and the Sages expounded that he receives a double portion only of what was present at the time of death. Rather, how do they divide it? They give the firstborn a double portion of the field together with its improvement, and afterward they appraise the improvement that the

firstborn

received and he gives the value of half of it

to

his

non-firstborn brother.

And

likewise,

a creditor

who comes to collect land from the orphans of the borrower collects the land together with its improvement, and afterward gives the orphans the value of the improvement that they made to the land, which was not liened to him against his debt,

and

likewise,

a woman’s marriage contract,

when the orphans’ land was liened for payment of the marriage contract, the woman takes the land together with its improvement, and afterward the woman returns the value of the improvement

to the orphans

who made it.

And

likewise,

a creditor

who comes to collect his debt from the borrower and finds that the borrower has already sold his lands to purchasers, who improved the field: The creditor collects the land together with its improvement from the purchasers, since the land had been liened to him before the borrower sold it to them, and the creditor returns

to the purchasers

the value of the improvement that they made to the land; he does not give them the improvement itself in the form of land.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Is this to say that Shmuel holds

that

the creditor

must pay

the purchasers

the value in money of the improvement that they made to the field,

and we raised the following question:

But does a purchaser have a claim for improvement against the creditor

from the creditor?

But Shmuel said: A creditor collects

from the purchasers the land that had been liened for his debt,

and the improvement

in it, and he need not pay the purchaser anything. Rather, the borrower who sold him liened land must compensate him for his losses,

And if you would say

that

it is not difficult:

That which Shmuel said here, that the improvement collected by the creditor is appraised and its value is paid in money to the purchaser, refers

to improvement that has reached the shoulders,

which no longer requires the land and is not liened to the creditor at all; consequently, if the creditor collected it, he must pay the purchaser.

But that which Shmuel said

here,

that a creditor collects the improvement and pays the purchaser nothing, refers

to improvement that has not reached the shoulders,

which still requires the land. Consequently, we consider that improvement as though it were part of the land that was liened to the creditor, and he need not pay anything to the purchaser who made the improvement.

But it is common practice every day, and Shmuel collects

from the purchasers on behalf of creditors to whom the field was liened

even improvement that has reached the shoulders.

Apparently, even improvement that does not require the land is liened to the creditor, and he need not pay its value to the purchaser.

And we answer:

It is not difficult. That

which Shmuel said, that a creditor collects the improvement and does not pay its value to the purchaser, applies when

he had a claim against him

that is, the debt claim was

equal to

the value of the

land and its improvement,

and therefore the creditor collects the field together with its improvement.

And

that

which Shmuel said, that the improvement is appraised for the creditor and he returns its value to the purchaser, applies when

he did not have a claim against him

that was equal to the value of

the value of

the

land and its improvement,

but only against the value of the land,

and

since

when he does not have a claim equal to the value of the land and its improvement,

we say

that he gives him

the creditor

money to the purchaser

equal to the value of the improvement,

and removes him.

And we challenge this:

This works according to the one who says

that the creditor has the right to collect the land itself, and even

if he has

money

to pay the purchaser, he cannot remove the creditor with that money

and cannot say: Just as the borrower discharges his debt with money, so too I will pay money. According to that opinion,

it works well

that which we say: A creditor collects the field together with its improvement, because the entire field was liened to him, and he is not required to return the improvement in the form of land.

But according to the one who says

that when a creditor comes to collect land from a purchaser, if

the purchaser has money, he can remove the creditor

with money and need not give him the land, just as the borrower himself need not pay with land unless he does not provide money,

let him say to him,

the purchaser:

If I had money

to repay the borrower’s debt,

I would remove you from the entire field,

and you would not take any of the land, and certainly not any of its improvement. If so,

now, since I do not have money

to pay you, you have no right to take the field together with the improvement exceeding your debt and return money to me corresponding to the improvement. Rather, take land in the amount of your debt,

and give me a measure of land

a portion of the field

from my land, corresponding to my improvement.

And we conclude: That which Shmuel said, that a creditor collects the land together with the improvement exceeding his debt and returns the value of the improvement in money,

what are we dealing with here?

For example, when he designated it for him,

the borrower made the field

an apotiki, saying to him: Your repayment shall come only from

this

field.

And since the field was initially liened for repayment of the debt, the creditor has rights to the entire field; even if it improved, he collects all of it and returns the value of the improvement to the purchaser.

Mishna:

It is a positive mitzva from the Torah to pay a hired laborer’s wages on time, as it is stated: “On his day you shall give him his wages.”

One who withholds a laborer’s wages, if he intended not to pay at all, transgresses five prohibitions and one positive mitzva.

And these are the five prohibitions: a. “You shall not oppress your fellow” [Leviticus 19]. b. “You shall not rob” [ibid.]. c. “The wages of a hired laborer shall not remain with you until morning” [ibid.]. d.

“You shall not oppress a poor and needy hired laborer from among your brothers or from your convert, who is in your land, within your cities” [Deuteronomy 24]. e. “And the sun shall not set upon him” [ibid.].

He also transgresses a positive mitzva, as it is stated: “On his day you shall give him his wages” [ibid.].

But if he intended only to delay his wages, then with regard to a day laborer he transgresses “The wages of a hired laborer shall not remain,” and with regard to a night laborer he transgresses “On his day you shall give him his wages” and “The sun shall not set upon him.”

And if he denied the obligation to pay the wages and swore falsely about it, he is obligated to bring an offering and to add a fifth to the payment of the wages, as it is stated in Leviticus [chapter 5]: “If a person sins, and he shall return the property that he robbed. And he shall bring his guilt-offering to the Lord, an unblemished ram from the flock.”

a.

One who receives a field from another to

work it

for ‘one week,’

that is, seven years, in order to receive

at

the completion of his work

seven hundred zuz,

and he worked it for six years, until the Sabbatical year arrived, during which it is forbidden to work the field: The

seventh

year counts

within the tally,

as though he had worked seven years, and he receives his wages of seven hundred zuz. This is because his wages were stipulated in the expression “one week,” meaning seven consecutive years, and one of those years must necessarily be a Sabbatical year.

But if

he accepted it from him

to work it

for seven years

in order to receive

in

wages

seven hundred zuz,

and he worked six years until the Sabbatical year,

the seventh year is not included in the tally

of the seven years, because he was hired for work of seven years, and he worked only six.

b.

A hired laborer

who accepted work for a

day

and completes it at sunset

collects

his wages

the entire night.

If the night passes and the laborer has not received his wages, the employer transgresses: “The wages of a hired laborer shall not remain with you until morning.”

A hired laborer

who accepted

night

work and completes it at dawn

collects

his wages

the entire day.

If the day passes and he has not received his wages, the employer transgresses: “On his day you shall give him his wages, and the sun shall not set upon him.”

A hired laborer

who accepted work for several

hours collects throughout the entire night and day.

The Gemara explains [according to Rav] that this is taught “with regard to different sides”; that is, if he was hired for hours in the middle of the day, he collects throughout that day until sunset, and if he was hired for several hours at night, he collects until the end of the night.

A hired laborer

hired for

Shabbat,

a seven-day week,

a monthly laborer, an annual laborer, or a laborer hired for a week,

seven years: In all these cases, the law is that if he completes his work and

finishes in the

middle of the

day, he collects throughout the

entire

day

until sunset. And if he

finishes in the

middle of the

night, he collects throughout the

entire

night and the entire day

that follows.

The Gemara explains that the latter clause follows Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the day follows the night; therefore, whenever he finishes at night, his time extends until the following day’s sunset. But the tanna of our Mishna holds that if he finishes at night, he collects during the night, and if he finishes during the day, he collects throughout the day.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: From where is it derived that a day laborer collects throughout the entire night?

The verse states

[Leviticus 19]

“The wages of a hired laborer shall not remain with you until morning,”

which indicates that the time for payment extends until morning, and from that point onward the one who hired him transgresses a prohibition.

And from where is it derived that a night laborer collects throughout the entire day, as it is stated

[Deuteronomy 24]

“On his day you shall give him his wages”?

And we raise the following question:

Why not say the opposite!?

A day laborer collects throughout the entire day, as it is stated: “On his day you shall give him his wages.” And a night laborer collects throughout the entire night, as it is stated: “The wages of a hired laborer shall not remain with you until morning”!?

And we answer: It is written [Leviticus 25]: “As a hired laborer year by year.” The Sages derived from this that the rental of one year is paid at the beginning of another year, and from this

that wages become payable only at the end.

Consequently, as long as the laborer’s work has not been completed, the time for payment of his wages has not yet arrived. Necessarily, if he finishes at sunset, his payment period begins from that point and extends until dawn; and if he finishes at dawn, his payment period extends until sunset.

запрет bal talin