Bava Metzia 110b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Hanina thought to say,

since

the land stands in the presumptive possession of the orphans

it follows that they are in possession of it,

and upon the creditor

who comes to take it from them

to bring proof

that their father improved the field.

A certain elder said to him

to Rabbi Hanina,

“This is what Rabbi Yohanan said: It is upon the orphans to bring proof!”

What is the reason?

That

land, since it stands for collection,

as it is destined for collection by the lender,

is like it has

already

been collected

by the lender

and is similar,

and he is therefore like one in possession of the field. Accordingly,

it is upon the orphans to bring proof

that they improved it.

Abaye said: We too have likewise learned

this matter:

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

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

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

he does not give money.

Evidently, since

the tree

stands to be cut down,

they do not refrain from cutting it down until he brings proof that his tree preceded, because in any event it must be cut down. Rather,

we say to him

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

bring proof

that your tree preceded,

and take

its value; and

here too,

this is the reason of Rabbi Yohanan, who said that it is upon the orphans to bring proof, because

this document

of the lender,

since it stands for collection, is similar to having been collected.

Accordingly, they first collect the field together with its improvement,

and

if the orphans wish that he return the improvement to them,

it is upon the orphans to bring proof

that they improved it.

If the lender collected the field together with its improvement, and

the orphans brought proof that they themselves improved it,

Rabbi Hanina thought to say: When we remove them,

when he returns to them the improvement that legally belongs to them, since it was never encumbered to the lender,

we remove them by means of the land

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

That is not so! We remove them by means of money,

and they have no right to receive the improvement from the land.

And proof of this is

from Rav Nahman, for Rav Nahman said

that Shmuel said:

In

three

cases we find that one who is entitled to a share in land does not receive what is due to him except that

the improvement is assessed for them

that is due to them,

and they raise,

they pay

them in money.

And these are they:

a. A firstborn receives a double portion in 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, “In all that shall be found to him,” and the Sages expounded that he does not receive a double portion of what was not present at the time of death. Rather, how do they divide it? They give the firstborn a double portion in the field together with its improvement, and afterward they assess the improvement that the

firstborn

received and he gives the value of half of it

to

his

ordinary

brother.

And so too,

a creditor

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

And so too

the

marriage settlement of a woman,

where the land of the orphans was encumbered for payment of the marriage settlement: the woman takes the land together with the improvement, and afterward the woman returns the value of the improvement

to the orphans

who made it.

And so too

a

a creditor

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

to the purchasers

the value of the improvement that they made in the land, but he does not give them the improvement from the land.

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

that the

creditor

must pay

the purchasers

in money for the improvement that they made in the field?

And we raised the difficulty concerning it:

But does a purchaser have improvement from the creditor

the creditor?

But Shmuel said: A creditor collects

from the purchasers the land that was encumbered for his debt, and

the improvement

in it, and he need not pay the purchaser anything. Rather, the borrower who sold him an encumbered field must pay him his losses.

And if you would say

that

it is not difficult:

what Shmuel said here—that the improvement collected by the creditor is assessed and its value is paid in money to the purchaser—is speaking

of improvement that reaches the shoulders,

which no longer requires the land and is not encumbered to the lender at all; accordingly, if the lender collected it, he must pay the purchaser.

And that which Shmuel said

here

that a creditor collects the improvement and pays the purchaser nothing is speaking

of improvement that does not reach the shoulders,

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

But it is the practice every day, and Shmuel causes collection

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

even of improvement that reaches the shoulders.

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

And we answer:

It is not difficult. This

which Shmuel said—that a creditor collects the improvement and does not pay its value to the purchaser—is in a case

where he collects from him

where the claim of the debt was

to the extent of

the value of the

land and improvement,

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

And

this

which Shmuel said—that the improvement is assessed for the creditor and he returns its value to the purchaser—is in a case

where he does not collect from him,

where the claim of the debt was not equal to

the extent of

the

land and improvement,

but only against the value of the land,

and

since

when he does not collect the extent of the land and 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 works according to the one who says

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

if he has

money

for the purchaser, he cannot remove the creditor

with that money, and he cannot say, “Just as the borrower removes his debt with money, so too I will pay money”—this comes out

well:

that which we say, that a creditor collects the field together with the improvement, since the entire field became encumbered to him, and he is not required to return the improvement in 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 is not required to give the land, just as the borrower himself is not required to pay with land unless he does not give 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 land,

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

now, when I do not have money

to pay you, you have no right to take the field with the improvement exceeding your debt and return money to me against the improvement; rather, take land in the measure of your debt, and

give me a measure of land

a share in the field

in my land, the measure of 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—

in what case are we dealing?

For example, where he made it for him,

the borrower made the field

an apotiki, saying to him, “You shall have no repayment except from

this

field.”

And since the field was initially encumbered for repayment of the debt, the lender has a right 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 commandment from the Torah to pay a hired worker’s wage at its time, as it is stated: “On his day you shall give his wage.”

One who withholds his wage, if he intended not to pay at all, transgresses five prohibitions and one positive commandment.

And these are the five prohibitions: a. “You shall not oppress your fellow” [Leviticus 19]. b. “You shall not rob” [there]. c. “You shall not leave the wage of a hired worker with you until morning” [there]. d.

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

And he also transgresses a positive commandment, as it is stated: “On his day you shall give his wage” [there].

But if he intended only to delay his wage, then in the case of a day-worker he transgresses “You shall not leave it overnight,” and in the case of a night-worker he transgresses “On his day you shall give his wage” and “The sun shall not set over him.”

And if he denied the obligation of the wage and swore falsely concerning it, he is obligated to bring an offering and to add a fifth to the payment of the wage. As it is stated in Leviticus [chapter 5]: “If a soul sins, he shall return the robbery 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 his fellow to

work it

“one week,”

seven years, on condition of receiving

at

the completion of his work

seven hundred dinars,

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

seventh

counts for him

as part of the count,

as though he had worked seven years, and he receives his wage of seven hundred dinars. For his wage was stipulated in the language “one week,” meaning seven consecutive years, and necessarily one of the years is a Sabbatical year.

But if he

received it from him

to work it

for seven years

on condition of taking

as

his wage

seven hundred dinars,

and he worked six years until the Sabbatical year,

the seventh year is not part of the count

of the seven years, since his wage was for work of seven years, and he worked only six.

b.

A hired worker

who accepted work for a

day,

and completes it at sunset,

collects

his wage

the entire night.

And if the night passes and the hired worker has not received his wage, the employer transgresses: “You shall not leave the wage of a hired worker with you until morning.”

A hired worker

who accepted work for a

night,

and completes it at daybreak,

collects

his wage

the entire day.

And if the day passes and he has not received his wage, the employer transgresses: “On his day you shall give his wage, and the sun shall not set over him.”

A hired worker

who accepted work for several

hours collects throughout the entire night and the entire day.

And the Gemara explains [according to Rav’s words] that “it is taught with regard to different sides.” That is, if they hired him for hours in the middle of the day, he collects throughout that day until sunset; and if they hired him for several hours at night, he collects until the end of the night.

A hired worker

who is hired for

Shabbat,

a week of days,

a monthly hired worker, a yearly hired worker, a weekly hired worker,

seven years—in all of them the law is that if he completes his work and

leaves in

the middle of the

day, he collects throughout the

that

day

until sunset. And if he

leaves in

the middle of the

night, he collects throughout the

that

night and the entire day

after it.

And it is explained in the Gemara that the latter clause is according to Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the day follows the night; therefore, whenever he leaves at night, his time extends until the following day’s sunset. But the tanney of our Mishna held that if he leaves at night, he collects during the night, and if he leaves during the day, he collects throughout the entire day.

Gemara:

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

The verse says [

Leviticus 19]

“You shall not leave the wage of a hired worker with you until morning,”

and it implies that the time of payment is until morning, and from then onward the one who hired him transgresses a prohibition.

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

Deuteronomy 24]

“On his day you shall give his wage”?

And we raised the difficulty:

But say the opposite!?

A day-worker collects throughout the entire day, as it is stated, “On his day you shall give his wage.” And a night-worker collects throughout the entire night, as it is stated, “You shall not leave the wage of a hired worker with you until morning”!?

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

hiring is paid only at the end.

Accordingly, as long as the hired worker’s work has not ended, the time for payment of his wage has not yet arrived. Necessarily, if he finished at sunset, his time begins from then onward until daybreak; and if he finished at daybreak, his time extends until sunset.

The Sages taught:

It is written: “You shall not leave the wage of a hired worker with you until morning.”

And we raised it:

From the implication of what is stated, “You shall not leave the wage of a hired worker with you,”

do

I not know

from this wording itself

that

the prohibition against leaving the wage overnight is

until morning.

And if so,

what does the verse teach by stating, “until morning”?

Why was it necessary for the verse to add this

? Rather,

it teaches

that the verse says “until morning,”

that

one who withholds a hired worker’s wage

does not transgress

bal talin

except

once, when he withheld his wage throughout the entire night,

until the first morning only.

From this point onward,

if he did not pay,

what is the law?

Rav said: He transgresses on account of bal teshaheh.

Rav Yosef said: What,

what is the source of the prohibition of bal teshaheh,

read it!

As it is stated [Proverbs 3]:

“Do not say to your fellow, ‘Go and return, and tomorrow I will give,’ when you have it with you.”

The Sages taught: One who says to his fellow, “Go, hire workers for me,”

for a day’s labor—if he hired workers for him, and they worked, and the employer did not pay them their wage at its proper time,

neither of them transgresses on account of bal talin.

This one,

the employer, for whom the workers worked, does not transgress,

because he did not hire them.