Bava Metzia 112a — the Talmud in English

And the other one,

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda, who expounds from “with you” that even if he hired him only to harvest one cluster, he transgresses on his account—why was the verse needed to say, “and to it he lifts his soul”?

And we answer:

That one is needed for what was taught in a beraita: [

Deuteronomy 24] it is stated:

“And to it he lifts his soul.”

Why did this one ascend

the worker

onto the ramp and hang from the tree

for the purpose of his work,

and deliver himself to

the danger of

death?

Is it

not for

you to give him

his wage!?

Alternatively,

that which is written

“and to it he lifts his soul”

comes to say:

Whoever withholds the wage of a hired worker is as though he takes his soul from him.

And Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda disagreed

over the interpretation of the beraita.

One said:

One who robs a hired worker of his wage causes

the soul of

the

robber

himself to be taken.

And one said:

By robbing his hired worker, it is as though he took

the soul of

the hired worker,

the robbed one.

The one who says

that the withholding causes

the soul of the robber

to be taken expounds

from what is written: [

Proverbs 22]

“Do not rob the poor, for he is poor, and do not crush the afflicted in the gate,” and it is written

there:

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

for it implies that the soul of the one who withholds from and robs the poor will be taken.

And the one who says

that the withholding causes

the soul of the robbed one

to be taken

expounds from what is written: [

Proverbs 1]

“So are the ways of everyone who gains unjust gain: it takes the soul of its owner,”

for it implies that the one who gains unjust gain takes the soul of the owner of the money.

And we raise an objection:

And the other one also,

the one who says that the withholding takes his own soul,

is it not written, “it takes the soul of its owner,”

which implies that he takes the soul of the robbed one!? And we answer: This is how you should interpret it: the way of the one who gains unjust gain, who takes money that is not his, is that the soul of

his present owner,

the robber, he will take.

And

we challenge:

And the other one also,

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

is it not written, “and rob the robbers of their soul,”

which implies that the one who withholds will be punished through the poor man?

And the Gemara explains:

He states the reason: For what reason does it say, “rob the robbers of their soul,”

and the soul of the robber is taken,

because they took a soul,

but in truth, through the fact that he robbed him, he causes the soul of the robbed one 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 on his account:

The Sages taught:

It is stated:

“You shall not keep overnight the wage of a hired worker,” one might have thought even

if

he did not demand it,

the hired worker, from the employer, he transgresses on his account;

the verse says, “with you,”

to say that he transgresses only if he withheld it from him

knowingly,

that he demanded his wage and he did not pay.

But if the worker did not demand his wage, or if he did not return the cloak, the withholding of the payment was done by him and knowingly on his part; therefore, the employer does not transgress on its account.

One might have thought

the employer transgresses

even

if

he does not have

the means to pay the hired worker’s wage;

the verse says, “with you,”

which implies

that you have

money and do not give it, but if the employer has no money, he does not transgress on its account.

And when he has money later, he shall pay him his wage.

One might have thought even if he assigned him,

the employer gave him the right to collect

from a shopkeeper or from a money-changer

and they did not pay the worker at his proper time, the employer would transgress the prohibition of “You shall not keep overnight”;

the verse says, “with you,” and not when he assigned him to a shopkeeper or to a money-changer.

We learned in the Mishna:

If he assigned him to a shopkeeper or to a money-changer, he does not transgress:

They raised a dilemma before them:

A hired worker to whom the employer gave the right to collect from the shopkeeper or from the money-changer, and they did not pay him—does

the worker return

and demand it from the employer,

or does he not return?

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

Rabbah said: From where do I say this

that he returns and demands it from the employer?

From that which it teaches

in the Mishna: If he assigned him to a shopkeeper or to a money-changer,

he does not transgress on its account.

And Rabbah infers:

It is transgression that he does not transgress

the employer who withheld it from him,

but

if the worker wishes to

return

and demand it from the employer, he is able to

return.

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

that the Mishna teaches?

He is not subject to transgression,

for even if he returns against him, he is exempt from paying him.

They asked Rav Sheshet:

A worker who accepted upon himself to perform work on a

contract—

when he finishes his work he will receive the wage for his labor, and he does not receive a wage according to the number of days or hours—if the one who hired him did not pay him when he completed his work, does he

transgress on its account because of “You shall not keep overnight,” or does he not transgress

because of “You shall not keep overnight”?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

Does an

artisan

who received an utensil to repair it

acquire through the improvement

of the

utensil,

so that he is its owner with regard to the improvement until he returns it to the one who gave it to him to improve?

And

since the improvement of the utensil is acquired by the artisan, when he returns it to its owner, he is like one who sells it to its owner, and the employer must pay for the improvement as one who buys an object from its owner pays. If he does not pay his wage, he is not considered one who delays the wage of a hired worker, but like a buyer who did not pay for his purchase, and

it is a loan

,

And one who owes a monetary debt to another, if he did not pay him when its time arrived, does not transgress because of “You shall not keep overnight.”

Or

perhaps

an artisan does not acquire through the improvement

that he improved in the

utensil,

but the utensil together with its improvement remains acquired by and belonging to the owners. It follows that the worker worked on the owners’ object;

and it is a hiring

with regard to this matter, so that if he does not pay the wage for his contract work upon its completion, he transgresses on its account because of “You shall not keep overnight.”

Rav Sheshet said to them:

An artisan does not acquire through the improvement that he made in the utensil; therefore, if the employer delayed his wage, he

transgresses because of “You shall not keep overnight.”

And we challenge:

But it was taught in a beraita:

A worker who accepts work on a contract—if the one who hired him did not pay him at the proper time,

he does not transgress

because of “You shall not keep overnight”!?

And we answer:

There,

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

to whom he assigned him,

for the hirer gave him the possibility of collecting his wage

from a shopkeeper or from a money-changer,

and concerning this it was said that if the contractor was not paid at his proper time, he does not transgress on its account.

The Gemara discusses:

Let us say that this supports him,

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

One who gives his cloak

to an artisan

to prepare it for wearing, and arranged with him that he would receive his wage for the work of the repair, and not according to the amount of hours or days that he would invest in it.

Indeed, if he

completed it,

the artisan, who completed his work,

and informed him

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

even from now until ten days, he does not transgress because of “You shall not keep overnight,”

because the employer has not yet received his cloak into his possession.

But if

he gave it to him,

the artisan gave the cloak to the employer

at midday,

and he did not pay him the wage for his labor,

when the sun set upon him, he transgresses because of “You shall not keep overnight.”

And

as we learned in our Mishna, that a worker paid by the hour who completes his work in the middle of the day, when the sun sets upon him, he transgresses on its account.

And

now,

if you say that an artisan acquires through the improvement of an utensil,

it follows that the employer’s obligation to pay is not like an employer paying his worker, but like a buyer obligated to pay for his purchase. If so, even when the artisan gave him the cloak and he received it,

why does he transgress?

For a buyer who did not pay for his purchase at its proper time does not transgress “You shall not keep overnight.”

And it is proven that the beraita held: An artisan does not acquire through the improvement of the utensil, in accordance with Rav Sheshet.

Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, said:

Do not support Rav Sheshet from here; rather, an artisan does acquire through the improvement of an utensil, and the beraita is speaking

of

one who gives to an artisan

a “girda de-sarbela,”

a garment that there is no need to improve; on the contrary, its owner prefers it in the condition in which it is, for in this way it endures for a longer time. Since it was not improved, the artisan did not acquire the garment through it; it remains the property of its owner, and therefore the employer transgresses “You shall not keep overnight.”

And we wonder: If there is nothing to improve in the garment, then

for

what purpose

did he give it to him

the artisan!? Rather, it must be that the employer’s wish is

to soften it,

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

is its improvement,

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

And we answer:

It is necessary, for he hired him from him

by hiring the worker

to strike it,

to kick and strike it in order to soften it, and he arranged with the worker that his work would be hired according to

each striking and striking, for one ma’a,

so that for each blow he would receive one ma’a of money. Since the worker works for him as a hired worker and not on a contract, he does not acquire through the improvement of the utensil, and it remains in the possession of its owner; therefore, if he withheld the artisan’s wage, he transgresses on its account because of “You shall not keep overnight.”