Bava Metzia 112b — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna:

“A hired worker, in his time, swears and takes, etc.”:

In tractate Shevuot [44b], it is stated: All those who swear by Torah law swear and do not collect.

That is, the defendant, who is obligated to pay, is the one who swears and is exempt.

And these are those who swear and collect by rabbinic law: the hired worker, and so forth.

What is the case of the hired worker? The hired worker said to the employer: “Give me my wage that I have with you,” and he says, “I gave it,” while the other says, “I did not take it”; this hired worker swears and takes. Rabbi Yehuda says: He does not swear until there is a partial admission there.

What is the case? The hired worker said to him: “Give me my wage of fifty dinars that I have with you,” and he says: “You received this gold dinar,” which is twenty-five silver dinars, that is, half the claim. Since the employer admitted to half, the hired worker swears and takes.

And we raised the question:

A hired worker,

who did not receive his wage,

why did the Sages institute for him that he swear and take,

and did not impose the oath upon the employer, who says that he already paid him his wage, so that he would swear and be exempt?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: “Great laws” were taught here,

because of the ordinance for the workers, as it will be explained below.

And the Gemara asks: Is it so that

these

laws are

halakha

given to Moses at Sinai,

are they,

as you said, “Great laws were taught here”!?

But

these

laws are only

ordinances

of the Sages;

are they not!?

Rather,

this is what

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: Great ordinances were taught here.

And the Gemara is again astonished: Is there “ordinances”

“great,”

so that it is implied

from

this

that there are “

ordinances

small”!?

Rather, Rav Naḥman said in the name of Shmuel: Ordinances

that are fit to be

established,

to such an extent that through them a matter of Torah law could be uprooted,

were taught here.

For by Torah law, the

oath belongs to the employer,

because all those who swear by Torah law swear and are exempt,

but the Sages uprooted the employer’s oath and cast it,

imposed it

upon the hired worker.

And the reason that they imposed it upon the hired worker is

because of the hired worker’s means of livelihood,

for he needs money more than the employer does, and therefore the Sages uprooted the Torah law for the sake of the hired worker.

And

we challenge this: Is it so that

because of the hired worker’s means of livelihood

the Sages instituted that the hired worker swear and

we cause the employer a loss,

that is, the Sages should have instituted, because of the hired worker’s means of livelihood, that the employer swear that he had already paid him his wage; and since the employer certainly would not swear falsely, if indeed he had not yet paid the hired worker, he would pay him now out of fear of the oath.

And we answer: The

employer himself is pleased

with the Sages’ ordinance, whenever a dispute arises between them as to whether the hired worker already received his wage or not,

that the hired worker swear and take, so that workers will be hired for him,

so that the workers will wish to come and work for him, knowing that if the employer says, “I already paid,” they will be able to swear and contradict him. But if the oath were imposed upon the employer who hires them, there would be workers who would refrain from going to work for the employer, out of concern that at the end of their work the employer would say, “I already paid,” and swear to this, and they would suffer a loss.

And we challenge this: But

the hired worker himself is pleased

that the Sages should institute that in every dispute between him and the employer,

the employer swear and be released,

be exempt from paying,

so that people will hire him,

so that people will wish to hire workers, knowing that they have nothing to fear if, after they pay the hired worker, he says, “I did not receive my wage,” for then the employer will swear and be exempt,

but if the oath is imposed upon the hired workers, there will be employers who refrain from hiring workers, lest after they pay their wages the workers sue them again and say, “We did not receive [the wage],” and swear falsely, and the employer who hired them will suffer a loss.

And it is again difficult: Why did the Sages impose the oath upon the hired worker, when by Torah law the employer should swear?

And we answer: The

employer

is more pleased that the hired worker should swear, because he needs them, and

against his will he hires

the workers; and if the oath is not imposed upon them, workers will refrain from being hired by employers.

And we reject this: Just as the employer needs the worker,

the hired worker too is hired against his will,

for he needs money with which to purchase his food, and he is interested in the Sages instituting an ordinance for the benefit of the employer, so that employers will not refrain from hiring workers.

And since neither the employer nor the hired worker has any interest in the oath, and, on the contrary, each one is pleased that the Sages should institute an ordinance for the benefit of the other, it is again difficult: Why did the Sages uproot the oath from the employer and impose it upon the hired worker?

And we conclude:

Rather,

the reason that they imposed the oath upon the hired worker is because

the employer is preoccupied with the workers.

It is possible that he intended to pay the worker and forgot, and would come to an oath taken falsely.

And we object:

If so,

that the employer is preoccupied with his workers, why did the Sages institute in every case that the hired worker should swear?

Let him give it to him without an oath!

For presumably the employer who contradicts him is mistaken, thinking that he gave it, whereas in truth, because of his preoccupation with the workers, he did not give it.

And we answer: Indeed, by strict law the hired worker should take without an oath, but nevertheless the Sages instituted that he swear,

in order to appease

the

mind of the employer.

And

we object: Why did the Sages institute that the hired worker take with an oath, and not say that one who hires a worker, when he comes to pay him his wage,

let him give it to him,

pay the hired worker his wage only

in the

presence of

witnesses,

and then, if the hired worker denies it and says that he has not yet received his wage, the witnesses will testify against him?

And we answer:

The matter is burdensome for them,

to seek witnesses in order to pay the workers in their presence.

And

we again challenge: Why did the Sages not say that one who hires a worker,

let him give it to him,

pay the hired worker his wage for his work

from the outset,

before his work, and consequently, if after his work he says that he did not receive the wage, he would no longer be believed, since if he had not received his wage from the outset, he certainly would not have worked.

And we answer:

Both of them,

the employer and the hired worker,

want

the payment to be

on credit,

after the completion of the work: the employer, because sometimes he does not yet have the money; and the worker, because he fears that it will fall from him during the work. Therefore, the Sages had no alternative but to institute that the hired worker swear, in order to appease the mind of the employer.

And we challenge: According to what we conclude, that the employer cannot swear because he is preoccupied with his workers,

if so, even

when there is a dispute between the hired worker and the one who hired him as to how much he

fixed

for him from the outset for his work,

also

let us say that the hired worker is believed, since the employer is preoccupied with his workers and perhaps he exchanges what he agreed with him for what he agreed with another worker.

We learn in a beraita:

One who gives his cloak to a craftsman,

the craftsman says, “Two”

coins

you fixed for me

as my wage,

while the other,

the employer,

says, “I fixed only one for you,”

the law is that

the one who takes something from his fellow must bring proof.

The hired worker must bring proof if he claims that the employer fixed a higher wage for his work than what he has now paid him; and if he finds no proof, he is not believed even with an oath.

And if we say that the employer is preoccupied with his workers, why do we not believe the hired worker with an oath as to how much the employer originally became obligated to him!?

And we answer:

As for the wage that was fixed, people certainly remember precisely

how much they fixed. Therefore, if the employer says, “I fixed such-and-such for him,” and the hired worker says, “He fixed more than that for me,” the hired worker is called “the one who takes something from his fellow”; therefore, he must bring proof for his words.

And we again object: According to what we say, that the employer is preoccupied with his workers,

if so,

he should never be believed if he paid the hired worker, and

even if

he

passed

his time

to pay the hired worker,

also

he should not be believed to say, “I paid,” since he is preoccupied with his workers,

we learn:

An employed worker, in his time, swears and takes. But if

his time passed, he does not swear and take,

because

there is a presumption that the employer does not transgress “You shall not delay,”

and he certainly already paid the hired worker his wage,

but you said that the employer is preoccupied with his workers,

and he thinks that he gave it to the worker but did not give it; and if so, even after his time passed, it is impossible to believe him, for perhaps he still maintains his mistaken belief that he gave it, whereas in truth he did not give it.

And we answer: When we say that the employer is preoccupied with his workers,

that statement applies before the time of his obligation arrives,

before his time to pay arrives.