Bava Metzia 111a — the Talmud in English

And this

his agent, whose hiring them does not entail transgression,

because of

as it is stated: “You shall not leave the wages of a hired worker with you,” excluding one

whose work is not with him.

And we raise this difficulty:

What are the circumstances? If

it is speaking

of his saying to them

the hirer: Come and work for so-and-so, and

your wages are upon me.

лежит на мне».

This is not possible, that the hirer does not violate the prohibition, for it is established for us that

the wages

of the worker

are upon him

of the hirer

indeed!

And if they do not receive their wages from the employer at their proper time, the hirer violates “You shall not leave.”

For it was taught in a beraita: One who hires a worker

in order

to perform

work

with his own property, and showed him

gave him to work

with another’s property,

the worker is considered the hired worker of the one who hired him to work, and the hirer

gives him his full wages.

And if he delays paying the hired worker’s wages at their proper time, he violates the prohibition concerning him.

And the hirer, after paying the worker from his own pocket,

returns and takes from the employer

the value of

that by which he benefited him,

by showing the worker to work for him.

And it is proven that one who takes upon himself the workers’ wages is the one who violates the prohibition of delaying wages, even if they did not work for him. And if so, it is not possible to say that the agent who hired workers does not violate the prohibition of delaying wages because their work is not with him.

Rather,

it is necessary [to say] that he said to them

the agent: Work for so-and-so, and

your wages are upon the employer.

And in such a case we say: If the employer did not pay them their wages at their proper time, the employer does not violate the prohibition, because he did not hire them; whereas the agent does not violate it, because from the outset he did not take upon himself to pay them, and their work is not with him either.

The Gemara now brings that there were amoraim who would customarily hire workers through an agent, so that they would not stumble into the prohibition of delaying a hired worker’s wages.

Yehuda bar Marimar said to his attendant,

his servant:

Go, hire for me

hire on my behalf

workers, and say to them,

I hereby hire you, and

your wages are upon the employer.

And he did this so that if he forgot and delayed their wages, neither he nor his agent would violate a prohibition.

And likewise

Mermar and Mar Zutra

would

hire

workers

for one another,

each as the other’s agent, so that they would not come to stumble into the prohibition of delaying a hired worker’s wages.

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: These

merchants in

the market of Sura,

who hire workers and do not pay them their wages until the hirers profit from money on market day,

do not violate the prohibition of “do not leave,”

because from the outset the workers

know, that

the merchants

rely on market day,

when they will have money, and then they will pay the workers their wages.

But

from market day onward, if they do not pay the workers their wages,

then

even though they do not violate the prohibition of leaving wages overnight, since the first night has already passed, nevertheless

because of the prohibition of delaying, they certainly violate it

.

We learned in the Mishna:

A worker hired by the hour collects throughout the entire night and the entire day:

Rav said: A worker

hired for a number of

daytime hours,

and he leaves in the middle of the day,

collects throughout the entire day

until sunset.

A worker

hired for a number of

nighttime hours,

and he leaves in the middle of the night,

collects throughout the entire night

until sunrise.

And Shmuel said: A worker hired by the daytime hour

who leaves in the middle of the day

collects throughout the entire day

until sunset, in accordance with Rav’s view.

And a worker hired by the nighttime hour

who leaves in the middle of the night

collects throughout the entire night and the entire day

following it, because the day follows the night, and he violates the prohibition only from sunset.

And the Gemara raises an objection to Rav from our Mishna, for

we learned: A worker hired by the hour collects throughout the entire night and the entire day.

Granted, according to Shmuel, who holds that a worker hired by the hour who completes his work in the middle of the night collects throughout the entire night and the entire day, he establishes the Mishna as referring to a worker hired for nighttime hours.

But according to Rav, who says that a worker hired for nighttime hours collects at night, and one hired for daytime hours collects on that same day, how does our Mishna teach: A worker hired by the hour collects throughout the entire night and the entire day?

A refutation of Rav!

Rav could say to you:

Our Mishna

teaches it with regard to two cases,

it speaks of two different cases, and this is what it says:

A worker hired by the hour

sometimes collects during the day and sometimes collects at night. If he is a worker hired for

daytime hours, he collects throughout the entire day.

And if he is

a worker hired for nighttime hours, he collects throughout the entire night.

And the Gemara again raises an objection to Rav from our Mishna, for

we learned:

A worker who

was a weekly worker,

seven days, or

a monthly worker

or

a yearly worker

or

a septennial worker,

for seven years—in all of them, if he completed his work and

leaves in the

middle of the

day, he collects the entire

same

day,

and if he

leaves in the

middle of the

night, he collects the entire night and the entire day.

And this is difficult for Rav, who says that a worker hired for nighttime hours collects throughout that entire night.

Rav could say to you: It is a dispute between tannaim!

The law of a worker hired for nighttime hours is a dispute between tannaim.

For it was taught in a beraita: A worker hired for daytime hours collects throughout the entire day; a worker hired for nighttime hours collects throughout the entire night—these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda. [

And Rav holds in accordance with him.]

Rabbi Shimon says: A worker hired for daytime hours collects throughout the entire day; a worker hired for nighttime hours collects throughout the entire night and the entire day. [

And Shmuel holds in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.]

From here they said:

Anyone who withholds the wages of a hired worker,

who does not pay his wages at their proper time,

violates five names

of prohibitions

and one positive commandment:

Because of [

Leviticus 19]

“Do not oppress your fellow, and do not rob,” and because of “Do not oppress a poor and needy hired worker,”

and because of “Do not leave the wages,” and because of “On his day you shall give him his wages,” and because of “The sun shall not enter upon him.”

And we raise this difficulty:

These

prohibitions

that exist in

a worker

hired by day, “

You shall not leave the work of a hired worker,”

do not exist in

a worker

hired by night.

Likewise,

those prohibitions

that exist in

a worker

hired by night, “

The sun shall not enter upon him,”

do not exist in

a worker hired by

day, and how is it possible for a person to violate five prohibitions!?

Rav Hisda said: Indeed, it is not possible for him to violate all five prohibitions through one withholding of wages, but

в

in one hiring in general,

we find that five prohibitions were stated concerning it.

The Gemara now discusses the explanation of the prohibitions stated concerning this matter:

It is stated [Leviticus 19]: “Do not oppress your fellow, and do not rob,” and the prohibition is repeated [Deuteronomy 24]: “Do not oppress a poor and needy hired worker.” And the punishment of one who oppresses, who denies his obligation under oath, is stated [Leviticus 5]: “And he denies his fellow concerning a deposit or concerning robbery, or he oppressed his fellow; he shall bring his guilt-offering to the Lord.”

Which is

one who withholds a hired worker’s wages who violates because of

oppression,

and which is

one who withholds a hired worker’s wages who violates because of

robbery?

Rav Hisda said:

One who says to his worker [Proverbs 3]

“Go and return, go and return,”

who does not intend to refrain from paying, but merely postpones payment of his debt from one time to another,

this is oppression.

But if he says to the worker: Indeed,

you have

the right to receive money

in my possession, and

however, I

am not giving it to you; this is robbery.

Rav Sheshet challenged

Rav Hisda’s words from the words of Scripture concerning one who denied his obligation and swore falsely concerning it:

For

what is the oppression for which the Torah obligates a sacrifice

a guilt-offering, as it is written: “And he denies his fellow concerning a deposit or concerning robbery, or he oppressed his fellow; he shall bring his guilt-offering to the Lord”?

From the fact that Scripture juxtaposed oppression to one who denies a deposit, it necessarily follows that he is called an oppressor only if he denies his debt,

analogous to a deposit, for he denied to him

the guardian

the money,

saying to the depositor: I owe you nothing.

And if so, one who oppresses by withholding a hired worker’s wages does not violate the prohibition of oppression until he says, “I do not owe you,” which is a denial of money.

But if the employer says to the worker, “Go and return,” and postpones the time of his payments but does not deny his debt, he does not violate “do not oppress.”

Rather, Rav Sheshet said:

An employer who says to his worker

“I gave it to you,”

which is a denial of his debt,

this is oppression.

But if he says to the worker:

You have [money] in my possession,

which I owe you,

and

in any event

I am not giving it to you; this is robbery.

And this law is in accordance with Rav Hisda , for concerning robbery Rav Sheshet does not disagree with Rav Hisda.

Abaye challenged

Rav Sheshet’s words from that same verse from which he rejected Rav Hisda’s words:

For

what is the robbery for which the Torah obligates a sacrifice,

as it is written: “And he denies his fellow concerning a deposit or concerning robbery, or he oppressed his fellow; he shall bring his guilt-offering to the Lord”?

From the fact that Scripture juxtaposed robbery to one who denies a deposit, it necessarily follows that he is not called a robber until he denies his debt, because

we require it to be analogous to a deposit, for he denied to him

the guardian

the money,

saying to the depositor: I do not owe you; and here too, with robbery involving a hired worker’s wages, he does not violate until he says, “I do not owe you.” But if the employer says, “I owe you, but I am not giving it to you,” this is not considered robbery.

Rather, Abaye said:

If the employer says to the worker

“I never hired you,” this is oppression,

for he denied the money to him.

But if he says

“I gave it to you; this is robbery,

because through this too he denies the money.

But now the Gemara asks:

And according to Rav Sheshet,

who says, “I gave it to you” is oppression, because he denied the money, analogous to a deposit, while robbery is when he says, “You have [money] in my possession, but I am not giving it to you,”

what is different about oppression, which is difficult for him,

because oppression was juxtaposed to a deposit and he had to explain that oppression means specifically when he denied the money,

and what is different about robbery, which is not difficult for him,

and he did not juxtapose it to a deposit, so that even if he did not deny his debt but said, “You have [money] in my possession, but I am not giving it to you,” he is called a robber?

He could say to you

Rav Sheshet: Indeed, robbery too was compared to a deposit, and he must deny his debt, such as by saying, “I gave it to you,” in order to obligate him in a guilt-offering. But nevertheless, he must also say to him, “You have [money] in my possession, but I am not giving it to you,” in order to call him a robber. And what are the circumstances of one who delays a hired worker’s wages, who violates because of

robbery

and swears concerning it?

That

when he demanded it of him outside the court,

he robbed him,

and said to him: You have [money] in my possession, but I do not owe you

! And

afterward, when he demanded it of him in court,

he again denied it,

and said: I gave it to you.

And we object:

If so, oppression also

should be said to apply: Even when he dismisses him with “go and return,” he violates because of oppression; and the case taught, in which he is liable for a guilt-offering, refers to his oppressing him with “go and return” outside the court,

and then,

when he demanded it of him in court,

he denied it,

and said, “I gave it to you.” Why, then, did Rav Sheshet say that he does not violate because of oppression until he says, “I gave it to you”?

And we answer:

Is that comparable!?

What is the comparison!?

Granted

with robbery, Rav Sheshet said that it refers to when he robbed him outside the court and said, “You have [money] in my possession, but I am not giving it to you,” for

there it is written [

Leviticus 5]

“or concerning robbery,” which implies that initially he admitted to him

that he owed him, such as when he said outside the court, “I owe you, but I am not paying,” and now he robs him and says, “I gave it to you.”

But concerning oppression, is “or concerning oppression” written [

Leviticus 5],

which would imply that previously he admitted to him and now he oppresses him?

For it is written, “or he oppressed,”

whose meaning is

that he had already oppressed him.

That is, from the outset he said to him, “I gave it to you,” and through this he oppressed him.

Rava said:

whether he said, “I never hired you,” or whether he said, “I gave it to you,”

this is oppression, this is robbery,

and anyone who oppressed his hired worker transgresses both,

and why did Scripture divide them?

In order to

transgress two negative commandments.

Mishna:

One

who withholds

the wage

of a

person

who does not pay him at its proper time,

and one

who withholds the

wage

for the work of a

beast,

who does not pay its owners on time,

and one

who withholds the

wage

for the use of

utensils, there is in it

a violation of nullifying a mitzva,

because of

[Deuteronomy 24]

“On his day you shall give his wage,” and there is in it

a violation of a negative commandment,

because of “You shall not let the wage of a hired worker remain with you until morning.”

When

is it forbidden to withhold the wage of a hired worker? —

At the time

that he demands it.

But if

he did not demand it, he does not transgress concerning it.

If

he transferred him,

giving the hired worker the possibility of collecting the payment of his wage

from a shopkeeper or from a moneychanger,

and the shopkeeper or the moneychanger did not pay his wage at its proper time, the employer

does not transgress concerning it .

A hired worker

who demands his wage, while the employer claims that he already paid him, the Sages instituted that

within

his

time [

[for a day-worker, his time is the entire night, and for a night-worker, the entire day] ],

the hired worker swears

that he did not receive his wage

and collects

the wage without needing to bring proof for his claim that he did not receive his wage. But if

his time has passed, he does not swear and collect.

And

if there are witnesses that

he had already

demanded it [

at its time ],

, he swears and collects,

even after his time has passed.

A ger toshav,

there is [the obligation] of “On his day you shall give his wage

and the sun shall not set over him,”

but there is not [the prohibition] of “You shall not let the wage of a hired worker remain with you until morning.”

Gemara:

It is explained in the Mishna that one who withholds the wage of a beast or utensils transgresses because of “You shall not let remain,” and because of “On his day you shall give his wage,” like one who withholds the wage of a person. But one who withholds the wage of a ger toshav transgresses only because of “On his day you shall give his wage, and the sun shall not set over him,” but he does not transgress because of “You shall not let remain.”

And we raised it as a difficulty:

whose is the Mishna,

according to whose method is it stated?

For we find a beraita in which the First Tanna and Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda dispute, as the Gemara will immediately bring, whereas our Mishna does not follow

the

method of

the First Tanna

of the beraita,

for

he excludes from the verse “You shall not oppress a poor and destitute hired worker

from your brother,”

which implies: you shall not oppress only one who is “from your brother”; but with regard to a ger toshav whose wage he withheld, the employer transgresses all of them.

And it does not follow the method of

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda,

who exempts one who withholds the wage of a beast or utensils from “You shall not let remain” and from “the sun shall not set over him.”

And the Gemara explains:

what is it?

Which beraita is it?

For it was taught:

It is written [Deuteronomy 24] “

“You shall not oppress a poor and destitute hired worker from your brother, or from your stranger who is in your land, within your gates””.