Bava Metzia 112a (קיב.) — the Talmud in English

And the other tanna:

"?”?

:

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

it is stated [Deuteronomy 24]:

“And to him he lifts up his soul.”

Why did this one

the laborer

climb up a ramp and hang from a tree

for the sake of his work,

the danger of

death?

Did he

not do so for

you to give him his

wage!?

Alternatively,

the fact that it is written

“And to him he lifts up his soul,”

comes to say:

Anyone who withholds a hired laborer’s wage is considered as though he takes his soul from him.

And

Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda disagree about the interpretation of the beraita.

One said:

one who withholds a laborer’s wage causes

the soul of

the robber

himself to be taken.

And one said:

by withholding his laborer’s wage, he is considered as though he has taken

the soul of the robbed laborer.

The one who says

that withholding the wage causes the robber’s soul to be taken

derives it from

that which is written [Proverbs 22]:

“Do not rob the poor because he is poor, and do not crush the impoverished at the gate,” and it is written

there:

“For the Lord will plead their cause and rob the robbers of their soul,”

which indicates that the soul of one who withholds from and robs the poor will be taken.

And the one who says

that withholding the wage causes the robbed person’s soul to be taken,

derives it from

that which is written [Proverbs 1]:

“Such are the ways of everyone who takes unjust gain; it takes the soul of its owners,”

which indicates that the one who takes unjust gain takes the soul of the owner of the money.

We challenge this:

And according to the other opinion as well,

the one who says that withholding the wage takes the soul of the withholder himself,

it is written: “It takes the soul of its owners,”

which indicates that he takes the soul of the robbed person!?

And we answer: Interpret it as follows: The one who takes unjust gain, taking money that is not his, will take the soul of its present owner,

that is, the robber himself.

And we challenge:

And according to the other opinion as well,

the one who holds that withholding the wage takes the soul of the robbed person,

it is written: “And rob the robbers of their soul,”

which indicates that the one who withholds from the poor will be punished.

The Gemara explains:

It is stating the reason: For what reason will He rob the robbers of their soul

and take the robber’s soul?

Because they took a soul,

but in fact, by withholding the wage, he causes the soul of the robbed person to be taken.

We learned in the Mishna:

When is this so? When he demanded it. If he did not demand it, he does not transgress concerning it:

The Sages taught:

It is stated:

“You shall not allow the wage of a hired laborer to remain with you overnight.” One might have thought that even

if

the laborer did not demand it

from the employer, he transgresses concerning it.

The verse states: “with you,”

to teach that he transgresses only if he withheld the wage from him

knowingly,

that is, the laborer demanded his wage and he did not pay.

But if the laborer did not demand his wage, or if he did not return the garment, the delay in payment was caused by him and was according to his wishes. Therefore, the employer does not transgress concerning it.

One might have thought

that the employer transgresses

even

if

he does not have

the means to pay the laborer’s wage.

The verse states: “with you,”

which indicates

that you have

money with you but do not give it. But if the employer does not have money, he does not transgress concerning it.

And when he has money at a later time, he must pay him his wage.

One might have thought that even if he transferred him,

the employer gave him the right to collect

from a shopkeeper or a moneychanger

and they did not pay the laborer on time, the employer would transgress “You shall not allow it to remain overnight.”

The verse states: “with you”—but not when he transferred him to a shopkeeper or a moneychanger .

We learned in the Mishna:

If he transferred him to a shopkeeper or a moneychanger, he does not transgress:

They raised a dilemma before them:

A laborer whom the employer authorized to collect from the shopkeeper or moneychanger, but they did not pay him: Does

the laborer return

and sue the employer,

or does he not return?

Rav Sheshet said: He does not return; and Rabba said: He returns.

Rabba said: From where do I derive

that he returns and sues the employer?

From that which it teaches

in the Mishna: If he transferred him to a shopkeeper or a moneychanger,

he does not transgress concerning him.

Rabba infers:

It is only that he does not transgress

the employer who withheld the wage,

but

if the laborer wishes to return

and sue the employer, he can return.

And Rav Sheshet said: What is the meaning of “he does not transgress”

that the Mishna teaches?

He is not subject to transgression;

even if the laborer returns to him, he is exempt from paying him.

They asked Rav Sheshet:

A laborer who accepted a contracted job—

when he completes his work, he receives payment for his labor, and he is not paid according to the number of days or hours he works—if the one who hired him did not pay him when he completed his work, does he

transgress the prohibition of “You shall not allow it to remain overnight,” or does he not transgress

the prohibition of “You shall not allow it to remain overnight”?

The sides of the dilemma are:

Is it the case that an

artisan

who received an article to repair

acquires the enhancement

of the article,

so that he is the owner of the enhancement until he returns it to the one who gave it to him to enhance?

And since the enhancement of the article belongs to the artisan, when he returns it to its owner he is like one who sells it to the owner. The employer must pay for the enhancement, just as one who purchases an article from its owner pays for it. If he does not pay his wage, this is not considered delaying a hired laborer’s wage, but rather like a buyer who did not pay for his purchase; and it is

,

And one who owes another a monetary debt does not transgress “You shall not allow it to remain overnight” if he does not pay him when the due date arrives.

Or

perhaps

an artisan does not acquire the enhancement

that he made in the article,

but the article together with its enhancement remains acquired by the owners. It follows that the laborer worked with the owner’s article,

and this is a rental arrangement

with regard to the fact that if the employer does not pay his contracted wage upon completion of the work, he transgresses “You shall not allow it to remain overnight.”

Rav Sheshet said to them:

An artisan does not acquire the enhancement he made in an article; therefore, if the employer delayed his wage, he

transgresses “You shall not allow it to remain overnight.”

We challenge this:

But it was taught in a beraita:

A laborer who accepts work on a contract, if the one who hired him does not pay him on time,

he does not transgress

the prohibition of “You shall not allow it to remain overnight”!?

We answer:

There,

the beraita that teaches that he does not transgress is speaking of a contractor

to whom he transferred payment,

meaning that the hirer gave him the option of collecting his wage

from a shopkeeper or a moneychanger,

and it is with regard to this that it was stated that if the contractor is not paid on time, the employer does not transgress concerning him.

The Gemara discusses this:

Let us say that this supports

Rav Sheshet, who said that an artisan does not acquire the enhancement of an article, from what we learned [Bava Kamma 99a]:

One who gives his garment

to an artisan

to prepare it for wearing, and agreed with him that he would receive payment for the repair, rather than according to the number of hours or days he would invest in it.

Now, if

he completed it,

the artisan, who completed his work,

and notified him

the employer that he should come to take it and pay for the work,

even if ten days pass from now, he does not transgress “You shall not allow it to remain overnight,”

because the employer has not yet received his garment.

But if

he gave him

the garment—the artisan gave it to the employer

at midday,

and the employer did not pay him his labor fee,

once the sun sets, he transgresses “You shall not allow it to remain overnight.”

And this is as we learned in our Mishna: A laborer hired by the hour who completes his work in the middle of the day transgresses concerning him once the sun sets.

And now,

if you say that an artisan acquires the enhancement of an article,

then the employer’s obligation to pay is not like that of an employer paying his laborer, but like that of a buyer obligated to pay for his purchase. If so, even if the artisan gave the garment to the employer and he received it,

why does he transgress?

For a buyer who does not pay for his purchase on time does not transgress “You shall not allow it to remain overnight.”

It is therefore proven that the beraita holds that an artisan does not acquire the enhancement of the article, in accordance with Rav Sheshet.

Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, said:

Do not support Rav Sheshet from here. Rather, an artisan does acquire the enhancement of an article, and the beraita is speaking

of one who gives an artisan

a “gardaa de-sarvala,”

a garment that does not need enhancement; on the contrary, its owner prefers it in its present state, because it lasts longer that way. Since it was not enhanced, the artisan did not acquire the garment, and it remains the owner’s property. Therefore, the employer transgresses “You shall not allow it to remain overnight.”

We question this: If there is nothing to enhance in the garment, then

for what purpose

did he give it to him

to the artisan!? Rather, inevitably, the employer wants him

to soften it,

to soften the garment so that it will provide more warmth and be more attractive. If so, softening the garment

is its enhancement,

and the artisan acquired the garment by enhancing it through softening it.

We answer:

It is necessary only in a case where he hired him,

where he hired the laborer

to beat it,

to kick and strike it in order to soften it, and agreed with the laborer that his work would be paid by the rental arrangement according to

each beating, one ma’a—

that is, he would receive a ma’a for each blow. Since the laborer works for him as a hired laborer and not as a contractor, he does not acquire the enhancement of the article, and it remains in the owner’s possession. Therefore, if he delays the artisan’s wage, he transgresses concerning him “You shall not allow it to remain overnight.”