Bava Metzia 111b (קיא:) — the Talmud in English

“from your brother” —

excluding

one who withholds the wages of

others,

non-Jews, for whom he does not transgress a prohibition.

“your stranger” —

this is a righteous convert,

whose wages one is forbidden to withhold, as one is forbidden to withhold the wages of an Israelite.

“within your gates” —

this is

a resident alien,

who eats unslaughtered carcasses,

whose wages one is forbidden to withhold.

I have no

basis for learning from this verse

except

only with regard to one who withholds

the wages of a person.

From where is it derived to include

that it is forbidden to withhold the wages of

an animal or 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 one withheld their wages,

one transgresses 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 each case the prohibition of “On his day you shall give him his wage,” and there is in each case the prohibition of [Leviticus 19]

“

You shall not keep overnight the wage of a hired laborer.”

Thus, evidently, the first tanna holds that there is no distinction between a resident alien and any Israelite, and one who withholds his wages transgresses all the prohibitions, as in the case of an Israelite. Yet in our Mishna we learned: With regard to a resident alien, one transgresses the prohibition of “On his day you shall give him his wage,” but one does not transgress the prohibition of “You shall not keep overnight.”

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says:

One who withholds the wages of

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

and “the sun shall not set upon him” [Deuteronomy 24],

but is not subject to

“You shall not oppress,” “You shall not rob,” or

“You shall not keep overnight”

[Leviticus 19].

And one who withholds payment for the work of

an animal or utensils

from their owners

is subject only to “You shall not oppress”

stated there,

alone.

But for “You shall not oppress,” “You shall not rob,” “You shall not keep overnight,” or “the sun shall not set upon him,” he does not transgress.

And now, our Mishna

in accordance with whose opinion is it? If it is the first tanna, who

excludes

“from your brother”

the withholding of the wages of non-Jews, permitting it,

the case of a resident alien is difficult,

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

And

if it is Rabbi Yosei, the case of animals and utensils is difficult.

For according to his words, one transgresses with regard to them only the prohibition of “You shall not oppress,” whereas in our Mishna we learned: Whether the wages of a person or the wages of an animal and utensils, there is in each case the prohibition of “You shall not keep overnight” and “the sun shall not set upon him.”

Rava said: This tanna

of our Mishna

is the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael.

As the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Whether the wages of a person, whether the wages of an animal, or whether the wages of utensils, there is in each case the prohibition of “On his day you shall give him his wage” and the prohibition of “You shall not keep overnight.”

With regard to a resident alien, there is the prohibition of “On his day you shall give him his wage,” but there is not the prohibition of “You shall not keep overnight.”

And now it explains their dispute.

What is the reason of the first tanna, who

excludes, as it is written: “You shall not oppress

from your brother,”

meaning that one who oppresses a non-Jew is exempt, but one who oppresses a resident alien, or withholds the wages of an animal or utensils, transgresses all of them?

For in Deuteronomy [chapter 24] it is stated: “You shall not oppress a hired laborer, 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 wage of a hired laborer.”

Therefore,

he derives “hired laborer” from “hired laborer”

by means of a gezera shava: Just as the hired laborer mentioned in Deuteronomy applies also to a resident alien, an animal, and utensils, as we expound “within your gates” to refer to a righteous convert, and “in your land” to refer to an animal and utensils, so too the hired laborer 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 Yehuda, does not derive “hired laborer” from “hired laborer”;

therefore, we expound from what is stated: “You shall not oppress a hired laborer, 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 oppress,” “You shall not rob,” and “You shall not keep overnight,” which are written in Leviticus 19, were not stated with regard to an animal or utensils.

Therefore, with regard to an animal and utensils, one transgresses only “You shall not oppress,” which is stated in Deuteronomy; and with regard to withholding the wages of a resident alien, the positive mitzva “On his day you shall give him his wage” is also added.

And we challenge this:

Granted that

Rabbi Yosei, son of Yehuda,

does not derive “hired laborer” from “hired laborer”

by means of a gezera shava, and therefore withholding the wages of a resident alien, an animal, or utensils does not entail “You shall not oppress,” “You shall not rob,” or “You shall not keep overnight,” which are stated in Leviticus; nevertheless, one who withholds the wages of

an animal or utensils should also be liable by virtue of “On his day you shall give him his wage,”

since he did not pay at the proper time.

And we answer:

Rabbi Hananya taught: The verse states [Deuteronomy 24]: “On his day you shall give him his wage,

and

the sun shall not set upon him, for he is poor.”

And we derive from the fact that the verse added the reason “for he is poor” that the verse was stated only with regard to

those who can experience poverty and wealth; animals and utensils, which cannot experience poverty and wealth, are excluded.

Therefore, if one oppresses them by withholding their wages, he does not transgress “On his day you shall give him his wage,” but only “You shall not oppress” .

And

we challenge the

first tanna: What does he

do with the fact that the verse concludes

“for

he is poor”?

And we answer:

That phrase is needed

to teach that if one 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 person over the wealthy person.

But Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda,

held that

that phrase,

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

is derived from “You shall not oppress a poor and needy hired laborer,”

which implies that the employer must give precedence to the poor person’s wages over those of the needy person; all the more so must he give precedence to him over a wealthy person.

Consequently, the phrase “for he is poor” remains available for him to expound as teaching that one transgresses “You shall not keep overnight” only with regard to those who can experience poverty and wealth.

And we challenge:

And the first tanna,

why did he need to derive from the conclusion of the verse, “for he is poor,” that precedence must be given to the poor person over the wealthy person? We already learn this from “You shall not oppress a poor and needy hired laborer.”

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

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 to do so .

And it is necessary

to have both verses.

For had it taught us

that the wages of a poor person take precedence over those of a

needy person,

I would have said that specifically a needy person does not take precedence over a poor person

because he is not embarrassed

to demand them

from the employer;

but a wealthy person, who is embarrassed to demand them,

I would have said

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 would not

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

And had it taught us

only the law that the poor person takes precedence over a

wealthy person,

I would have said that the wealthy person does not take precedence over the poor person

because he does not need it,

the money; therefore, the poor person, who needs it, takes precedence.

But a needy person,

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

who

also

needs

the money like the poor person,

I would have said: no,

we should not give him precedence over the poor person. Therefore,

it is necessary

for the verse to state, “You shall not oppress a poor and needy hired laborer,” teaching that the poor person takes precedence even over the needy person.

And

we challenge:

Our tanna,

who says that one who withholds the wages of an animal or utensils transgresses all the prohibitions, but one who withholds the wages of a resident alien transgresses “On his day you shall give him his wage” but does not transgress “You shall not keep overnight,” is difficult. For:

Either, if he derives “hired laborer” from “hired laborer”

by means of a gezera shava, and just as the verse “You shall not oppress a poor and needy hired laborer 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 withholds the wages of

a

a resident alien, too,

transgresses “You shall not keep overnight,” since he too is included in the gezera shava.

And

if he does not derive “hired laborer” from “hired laborer”

by means of a gezera shava, but holds that only the verse “You shall not oppress 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, with regard to one who withholds the wages of

an animal or 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 laborer” from “hired laborer”

by means of a gezera shava. And as for what is difficult for you—“From where do we know that if one withholds the wages of an animal or utensils he transgresses all of them?”—

the answer is:

There it is different, as the verse states: “You shall not keep overnight the wage of a hired laborer with you until morning,”

which implies:

anything whose work is with you,

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

And we challenge:

If so,

if we expound from the verse that anything whose work is with you entails the prohibition of “You shall not keep overnight,”

even one who withholds the wages of

a

a resident alien, too,

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

And we answer:

The verse states:

“Do not oppress

your fellow”

and “You shall not keep overnight the wage of a hired laborer”; and since

“your fellow”

is written, we learn that one who oppresses the one called “your fellow,” meaning only one who oppresses an Israelite, transgresses “You shall not keep overnight,”

but not one who withholds the wages of

a

a resident alien.

And we challenge:

If so,

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

even one who withholds the wages of

an

an animal and utensils, too,

should be exempt, since animals and utensils are not included in the category of “your fellow.”

And we answer:

This

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

written:

“You shall not keep overnight the wage of a hired laborer

with you,”

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

And we ask:

What have you seen that led you to include an animal and utensils

because “with you” is written, and you expound that this refers to anything whose work is with you,

and to exclude a resident alien,

excluding him because “Do not oppress your fellow” and “You shall not keep overnight” are written, implying that one who is your fellow you shall not oppress, and you shall not keep his wages overnight, to the exclusion of a resident alien?

Why did you not expound the opposite: Since “Do not oppress your fellow” and “You shall not keep overnight” are written, to exclude an animal and utensils, which are not your fellow, so that if one withholds their wages he does not transgress; but one who withholds the wages of a hired laborer is liable, since “with you” is written in “You shall not keep overnight,” implying that anything whose work is with you is included, including a resident alien?

And we conclude:

It is more reasonable that an animal and utensils should be included

as subject to “You shall not oppress” 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 phrase “your fellow.” Conversely, the phrase “with you” implies that one transgresses with regard to them. Therefore, the tanna of our Mishna holds that one who withholds the wages of an animal and utensils transgresses all the prohibitions.

But

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

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

And we challenge:

And the first tanna, who

excludes from the verse “You shall not oppress a poor and needy hired laborer”

“from your brother”

or “from your stranger,” teaching that if one withholds the wages of a non-Jew he is exempt, but if he withholds the wages of an animal or utensils, or if he withholds the wages of a resident alien, he transgresses all the prohibitions—

this

verse, which states: “Do not oppress

your fellow”—what does he do with it?

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

And we answer:

That phrase is needed for that which was taught in a beraita:

It is stated: “Do not oppress

your fellow”;

you may not oppress your fellow,

but not an Amalekite;

rather, it is permitted for you to oppress that non-Jew.

And we challenge this:

the permission to withhold the wages of an Amalekite is derived from “your brother,”

which implies: one who is included among “your brothers” you may not defraud, but not a gentile!?

And we answer: Both verses are necessary: one

to permit—

to permit

withholding his wages, and

one

to permit—

to permit

robbing him.

And both are necessary, for had it taught us

that it is permitted to

r

ob a gentile,

we would have said

that the reason is

that he did not labor for him. But

if one wishes to

withhold his wages, since he labored for him,

for the gentile labored and worked in order to receive his wages,

I would say no,

and it is forbidden. Therefore, the verse teaches us: “You shall not defraud your fellow”; but a gentile, you may defraud.

And had it taught us

that it is forbidden to

withhold his wages,

we would have said that the reason is

that

the wages

have not yet reached

him

personally,

and here there is only a failure to make payment;

but

to

r

ob him,

since

the money has already

reached

him

personally, I would say no,

and it is forbidden. Therefore, the verse teaches us: “You shall not defraud your brother”; and from the superfluous word “brother”—for it is already written, “You shall not defraud your fellow”—we learn that it is permitted to rob him. Consequently,

both are necessary,

the two verses.

And we ask:

And according to Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda,

who says that one who withholds the wages of an animal or utensils violates only the prohibition “You shall not defraud,”

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,” one can learn that anyone whose work is “with you” is subject to this violation, including one who withholds the wages of an animal or utensils, as the tanna of our Mishna expounds.

And we answer:

He needs it for the teaching of Rav Asi, for Rav Asi said: Even if he hired him only to cut one cluster of grapes for him,

if he delayed paying his wages,

he violates the prohibition of delaying a wage.

We derive this from the word “with you,” which implies that anyone who worked for you, even for a small amount, is subject to this violation.

Rashi and Tosafot explained that Rav Asi teaches that the prohibition applies not only to a day laborer but also to a laborer hired by the hour. Raavad challenged this, saying that this is obvious, since the Mishna already explains that a laborer hired by the hour is included in the same law as any hired laborer. Tosafot further explained that the teaching is that even if he cut one cluster and ate it—for he is permitted to eat while working, as stated above, on page 92a—he nevertheless violates the prohibition. Raavad explained that the teaching is that even if the cluster was worth less than a peruta, he violates the prohibition. Mishnat Yaavetz explained that according to Raavad, the employer’s obligation to pay does not result from the fact that the laborer worked for him and is bound to him; rather, the Torah imposed upon him the obligation to pay the laborer at the proper time, and this Torah obligation applies even when the payment is worth less than a peruta. But the other one—

the tanna of our Mishna, who learns from the wording “with you” to include animals and utensils—where does he learn that if he hired him to cut one cluster, he violates the prohibition of delaying a wage?

From that which is written [Deuteronomy 24: "

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

and he sets his soul upon it" is derived,

which implies that every

matter,

every task concerning which it can be said that the hired laborer

devotes his life to it,

it is forbidden to withhold his wages.