Bava Metzia 111b — the Talmud in English

“From your brother” —

excluding

one who withholds the wages of

others,

gentiles, for which he does not transgress a prohibition.

“Your stranger” —

this is a righteous convert,

whose wages it is forbidden to withhold, just as [the wages of] an Israelite.

“Within your gates” —

this is

a resident alien,

who eats carrion,

whose wages it is forbidden to withhold.

I have only

to learn from this verse

but

only concerning one who withholds

a person’s wages.

From where [is it derived] to include

that it is forbidden to withhold the wages of

an animal and utensils? The verse states: “In your land,”

and we expound:

everything that is in your land.

And all of them,

a righteous convert, a resident alien, an animal, and utensils, if he withheld their wages,

transgress all these designations.

From here they said: whether the wages of a person, whether the wages of an animal, or whether the wages of utensils, there is in them [the prohibition of] “On his day you shall give him his wages,” and there is in them [the prohibition of] [Leviticus 19]

[Leviticus 19]

“You shall not keep overnight the work of a hired worker.”

Thus, apparently, the First Tanna holds that there is no distinction between a resident alien and every Israelite, and one who withholds his wages transgresses all the prohibitions, as in the case of an Israelite; whereas in our Mishna we learned that a resident alien is subject to “On his day you shall give him his wages,” but does not transgress because of “You shall not keep overnight the work of a hired worker.”

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Judah says:

one who withholds the wages of

a resident alien is subject to “On his day you shall give him his wages

and the sun shall not set over it” [Deuteronomy 24],

but is not subject to

“You shall not wrongfully withhold,” “You shall not rob,” and

“You shall not keep overnight”

[Leviticus 19].

And one who withholds payment for the work of

an animal and utensils

from their owners

is subject only to “You shall not wrongfully withhold”

which is stated there,

alone.

But because of “You shall not wrongfully withhold,” “You shall not rob,” “You shall not keep overnight,” or “the sun shall not set over it,” he does not transgress.

And now, our Mishna

according to whom is it? If it is according to the First Tanna, who

excludes

“from your brother”

the wrongful withholding of the wages of gentiles, which is permitted,

it is difficult concerning a resident alien,

for according to his words, one who wrongfully withholds from a resident alien transgresses all of them, whereas in our Mishna we learned that he does not transgress because of “You shall not keep overnight.”

And

if it is Rabbi Yosei, it is difficult concerning an animal and utensils.

For according to his words, one transgresses concerning them only because of “You shall not wrongfully withhold,” whereas in our Mishna we learned: whether the wages of a person or the wages of an animal and utensils, there is in them [the prohibitions of] “You shall not keep overnight” and “the sun shall not set over it.”

Rava said: This tanna

of our Mishna

is the tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael.

For the tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael [teaches]: whether the wages of a person, whether the wages of an animal, or whether the wages of utensils, there is in them [the prohibitions of] “On his day you shall give him his wages” and “You shall not keep overnight.”

A resident alien is subject to “On his day you shall give him his wages,” but is not subject to “You shall not keep overnight.”

And now he explains their dispute.

What is the reason of the First Tanna, who

excludes, as it is written, “You shall not wrongfully withhold

from your brother,”

that one who wrongfully withholds from a gentile is exempt, but one who wrongfully withholds from a resident alien or withholds the wages of an animal and utensils transgresses all of them?

For in Deuteronomy [chapter 24] it is stated: “You shall not wrongfully withhold the wages of a hired worker, from your brother, or from your stranger who is in your land, within your gates.” And in Leviticus [chapter 19] it is stated: “You shall not keep overnight the work of a hired worker.”

Therefore,

he derives “hired worker, hired worker”

by a gezerah shavah: just as the hired worker mentioned in Deuteronomy applies also to a resident alien and an animal and utensils, for we expound from “within your gates,” this is a righteous convert, and from “in your land,” this is an animal and utensils; so too, the hired worker mentioned in Leviticus applies also to a resident alien, an animal, and utensils. Therefore, the First Tanna holds that one who withholds the wages of a resident alien, an animal, or utensils transgresses all of them.

But Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Judah did not derive “hired worker, hired worker,”

therefore we expound from what is stated, “You shall not wrongfully withhold the wages of a hired worker, from your brother who is in your land, within your gates,” that it is forbidden to withhold the wages of a resident alien, an animal, or utensils. But “You shall not wrongfully withhold,” “You shall not rob,” and “You shall not keep overnight,” which are written in Leviticus 19, do not apply to an animal and utensils.

And therefore, concerning an animal and utensils, he transgresses only the “You shall not wrongfully withhold” stated in Deuteronomy, while concerning the wrongful withholding of the wages of a resident alien, the positive commandment “On his day you shall give him his wages” is additionally involved.

And we challenge this:

Granted that

Rabbi Yosei son of Judah

did not derive “hired worker, hired worker”

by a gezerah shavah, and therefore the one who withholds the wages of a resident alien, an animal, or utensils is not subject to “You shall not wrongfully withhold,” “You shall not rob,” and “You shall not keep overnight,” which are stated in Leviticus; nevertheless, one who withholds the wages of

an animal and utensils should also be liable because of “On his day you shall give him his wages,”

for he did not pay them at their proper time.

And we answer:

Rabbi Hanania taught: The verse says [Deuteronomy 24], “On his day you shall give him his wages,

and

the sun shall not set over it, for he is poor.”

And we expound from the fact that the verse added the reason “for he is poor”: this implies that the verse was stated only concerning

those who can come into poverty and wealth; animals and utensils are excluded, for they cannot come into poverty and wealth. Therefore, if he wrongfully withholds their wages, he does not transgress because of “On his day you shall give him his wages,” but only because of “You shall not wrongfully withhold.”

Therefore, if one withholds their wages, he does not violate “You shall give him his wages on his day”; he violates only “You shall not oppress” .

And

we challenge the

First Tanna: This

which the verse concludes,

“for

he is poor”—what does he do with it?

And we answer:

That is needed

to say that if he hired two people, one wealthy and one poor, and he has enough to pay only one of them, he must

give precedence to

the

poor over the wealthy.

But Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Judah

held that

that

the law of giving precedence to the poor over the wealthy [Deuteronomy 24]

is derived from “You shall not wrongfully withhold the wages of a poor and needy hired worker,”

for it implies that the employer must give precedence to the wages of the poor person before those of the needy person, and all the more so he must give him precedence over the wealthy person.

And consequently, the verse “for he is poor” remains for him to expound that one transgresses “You shall not keep overnight” only concerning those who can come into poverty and wealth.

And we challenge:

And the First Tanna,

why did he need to expound from the conclusion of the verse, “for he is poor,” that precedence is given to the poor over the wealthy? We have already learned it from “You shall not wrongfully withhold the wages of a poor and needy hired worker.”

And we answer: one verse

one

is expounded

to give precedence

to the wages of a

poor person over

the wages of a

wealthy person, and

one verse

one

is expounded

to give precedence

to the wages of a

poor person,

who is embarrassed to demand what is owed to him,

over

the wages of a

needy person,

who is not embarrassed by this.

And it is necessary

to have both verses:

if it had taught us

that the wages of the poor person are to be given precedence over those of the

needy person,

I might have said that specifically the needy person does not come before the poor person

because he is not embarrassed,

he is not embarrassed

to demand it

from the employer,

but concerning a wealthy person, who is embarrassed to demand it, I might say

that if a poor person and a wealthy person come together to demand their wages from the employer, and he has enough to pay only one of them,

it is not

stated that the poor person has precedence over the wealthy person. Therefore the verse had to state, “for he is poor,” to say that the poor person is to be given precedence over the wealthy person.

And if it had taught us

only the law that the poor person is to be given precedence over the

wealthy person,

I might have said that the wealthy person does not come before the poor person

because he does not need it

for the money; therefore the poor person, who needs it, comes first.

But a needy person,

who came together with the poor person to demand his wages,

who

also

needs it

for the money just as the poor person does,

I might say not

to give him precedence over the poor person. Therefore

it is necessary

for the verse to say, “You shall not wrongfully withhold the wages of a poor and needy hired worker,” to say that the poor person comes before even the needy person.

And

we challenge:

our tanna,

who says that one who wrongfully withholds the wages of an animal and utensils transgresses all of them, but one who withholds the wages of a resident alien is subject to “On his day you shall give him his wages” but does not transgress because of “You shall not keep overnight”—this is difficult, for:

Whatever way you look at it, if he derives “hired worker, hired worker”

by a gezerah shavah, and just as the verse “You shall not wrongfully withhold the wages of a poor and needy hired worker in your land” applies to an animal, utensils, and a resident alien, so too the verse “You shall not keep overnight” applies to all of them, then

even

one who wrongfully withholds the wages of

a resident alien, too,

transgresses “You shall not keep overnight,” for he too is included in the gezerah shavah.

And

if he does not derive “hired worker, hired worker”

by a gezerah shavah, but holds that only the verse “You shall not wrongfully withhold in your land” applies to an animal, utensils, and a resident alien, whereas “You shall not keep overnight” applies only to the wages of a person, then, concerning one who wrongfully withholds the wages of

an animal and utensils, from where does he derive

that he transgresses all of them, including “You shall not keep overnight”!?

And we answer:

In truth,

the tanna of our Mishna

does not derive “hired worker, hired worker”

by a gezerah shavah. And as for what is difficult for you—“from where do we know that if he wrongfully withholds the wages of an animal and utensils he transgresses all of them?”—

the answer is:

There it is different, for the verse says, “You shall not keep overnight the work of a hired worker with you until morning,”

which implies:

everything whose work is with you,

do not keep its wages overnight; and consequently, since an animal and utensils perform their work with you, if he wrongfully withholds their wages he also transgresses “You shall not keep overnight.”

And we challenge:

If so,

since we expound from the verse that everything whose work is with you is subject to “You shall not keep overnight,”

even

one who wrongfully withholds the wages of

a resident alien too

should transgress “You shall not keep overnight,” for his work too is with you. Why, then, does the tanna of our Mishna hold that one who withholds the wages of a hired worker transgresses only “On his day you shall give him his wages”?

And we answer:

The verse says,

“Do not wrongfully withhold

your fellow”

and “You shall not keep overnight the work of a hired worker”; and from the fact that it writes

“your fellow,”

we learn that one who wrongfully withholds from one called “your fellow”—that is, only one who wrongfully withholds from an Israelite—transgresses “You shall not keep overnight,”

but not

one who wrongfully withholds the wages of

a resident alien.

And we challenge:

If so,

since “your fellow” excludes one who wrongfully withholds the wages of a resident alien, then

even

one who wrongfully withholds the wages of

an animal and utensils too

should be exempt, for an animal and utensils are not included in “your fellow.”

And we answer:

This

that we include the prohibition against wrongfully withholding the wages of an animal and utensils is derived from what is

written: “You shall not keep overnight the work of a hired worker

with you,”

which implies that concerning everything whose work is with you, it is forbidden to keep its wages overnight.

And we wonder:

What have you seen to include an animal and utensils

because “with you” is written, and you expound that everything whose work is with you is included,

and to exclude a resident alien,

excluding him because “Do not wrongfully withhold your fellow” and “You shall not keep overnight” are written, implying that everything that is your fellow is included, but “You shall not keep overnight” concerning his wages excludes a resident alien?

Why did you not expound the reverse: since “Do not wrongfully withhold your fellow” and “You shall not keep overnight” are written, to exclude an animal and utensils, which are not your fellow, so that if he wrongfully withholds their wages he does not transgress; but one who wrongfully withholds the wages of a hired worker is liable, since “You shall not keep overnight ... with you” is written, implying everything whose work is with you, to include a resident alien?

And we conclude:

It is logical that an animal and utensils should be included,

for one transgresses concerning them “You shall not wrongfully withhold” and “You shall not keep overnight,”

since they are included within the property of your fellow ;

therefore we do not exclude an animal and utensils from the verse “your fellow.” On the other hand, the verse “with you” implies that one transgresses concerning them. Therefore the tanna of our Mishna holds that one who wrongfully withholds the wages of an animal and utensils transgresses all of them.

However,

But

a resident alien is not included within the property of your fellow;

therefore it is logical to say that the verse “your fellow” comes to exclude one who wrongfully withholds the wages of a resident alien, concerning which he does not transgress.

And we challenge:

And the First Tanna, who

excludes from the verse “You shall not wrongfully withhold the wages of a poor and needy hired worker”

“from your brother”

or “from your stranger” that if he wrongfully withholds the wages of a gentile he is exempt, but if he wrongfully withholds the wages of an animal and utensils, and likewise if he wrongfully withholds the wages of a resident alien, he transgresses all of them—

this

verse, which says, “Do not wrongfully withhold

your fellow”—what does he do with it!?

For according to him, it is impossible to exclude a resident alien, since he was included by the verse “your stranger.”

And we answer:

That is needed for what was taught in a beraita:

it is stated, “Do not wrongfully withhold

your fellow”—you may not wrongfully withhold from your fellow,

but not from an Amalekite;

rather, you are permitted to wrongfully withhold from him.

rather, you may oppress that non-Jew.

And we raise an objection: Is this not so that the fact that it is permitted to withhold from an Amalekite

is derived from “from your brother,”

which implies: one who is included among “your brother”—do not withhold from him, but not a gentile!?

And we answer: The two verses are necessary, one

to permit

the one who

withholds from him, and

one

to permit

the one who

robs him .

And they are necessary, for if it were taught to us

that it is permitted to

r

ob him

,

I would have said that the reason for this is

because he did not trouble himself on its account. But

if he wishes to

withhold from him, since he troubled himself on its account,

for the gentile troubled himself and worked in order to receive his wage,

I would say: no,

and it is forbidden. The verse teaches us: “You shall not withhold from your fellow,” but a gentile—you may withhold from him.

And if it were taught to us

that it is forbidden to

withhold from him,

I would have said that the reason for this is

because

the wage still

has not come

to his possession

,

and there is here only prevention of payment,

but

to

r

ob him

, since

the money has already

come

into his possession

, I would say: no,

and it is forbidden. The verse teaches us: “You shall not withhold from your brother”; and from the superfluity of the word “your brother”—for it is already written, “You shall not withhold from your fellow”—we learn that it is permitted to rob him. For this reason,

it is necessary

to have both verses.

And we challenge:

And Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda,

who says that one who withholds the wage of an animal or utensils violates only “You shall not withhold,”

this

that is written:

“Do not

let the wage of a hired laborer remain with you until morning”—what does he do with it?

For since it is written “with you,” it can be learned that anyone whose work is with you, one violates [the prohibition] concerning him, including withholding the wage of an animal or utensils, as the tanai of our Mishna expounds .

And we answer:

He needs it for that which Rav Asi [teaches], for Rav Asi said: Even if he hired him only to harvest one cluster of grapes ,

if he delayed his wage,

he violates the prohibition of “Do not let [it remain].”

And we expound it from the word “with you,” which implies: anyone who worked with you, even a little, one violates [the prohibition] concerning him.

Rashi and Tosafot explained that Rav Asi innovates that one violates [the prohibition] not only with respect to a day laborer, but even with respect to an hourly laborer. The Raavad wondered about this: Is this not obvious, and has it not already been explained in the Mishna that an hourly laborer is like every laborer? Tosafot further explained that it teaches us that even if he harvested one cluster and ate it [for it is permitted for him to eat at the time of his work, as above, 92a], he likewise violates [the prohibition] concerning him. The Raavad explained that even if the cluster was worth less than a pruta, he violates [the prohibition] concerning him. The Mishnat Yaavetz explained that according to the Raavad, the householder’s obligation to pay does not result from the fact that the worker worked for him and is subjugated to him; rather, the Torah imposed upon him the obligation to pay the worker at his proper time, and this Torah obligation was not stated specifically concerning something worth a pruta. And the other one—

the tanai of our Mishna, who learns from the word “with you” to include animals and utensils—where does he learn that if he hired him to harvest one cluster, he violates the prohibition of “Do not let [it remain]”?

From that which is written [Deuteronomy 24 "

You shall give his wage on his day, and the sun shall not set upon it, for he is poor,

and he lifts up his soul toward it,” is derived,

which implies: every

thing,

an act concerning which it is possible to say that the hired laborer

places his soul upon it,

it is forbidden to withhold his wage.