Bava Metzia 112b (קיב:) — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna:

“A hired laborer, in his time, swears and collects, etc.”:

In tractate Shevuot [44b], it is taught: All those who take oaths mandated by the Torah swear and do not collect.

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

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

What are the circumstances of the hired laborer? The hired laborer says to the employer: “Give me the wages that I have with you,” and the employer says: “I gave them to you,” while the other says: “I did not receive them.” In this case, the hired laborer swears and collects. Rabbi Yehuda says: He does not swear unless there is a partial admission.

What are the circumstances? The hired laborer says to him: “Give me my wages—fifty dinars—that I have with you,” and the employer says: “You received a gold dinar,” which is twenty-five silver dinars, that is, half the claim. Since the employer admitted to half, the hired laborer swears and collects.

And we raised the following difficulty:

“A hired laborer,”

who did not receive his wages,

“why did the Sages institute for him that he should swear and collect,”

rather than imposing the oath upon the employer, who says that he already paid him his wages, so that he should swear and be exempt?

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: “Great halakhot are taught here,”

because of the ordinance enacted for the benefit of laborers, as will be explained below.

And the Gemara asks: Are

these

halakhot

halakha

given to Moses at Sinai,

as

you said: “Great halakhot are taught here”?!

After all,

these

halakhot are merely

ordinances

of the Sages;

they are!

Rather,

this is what

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Great ordinances are taught here.

And the Gemara is again astonished: Are there “ordinances” that are

“great,”

so that it can be inferred

from

this

that there are

“small ordinances”

as well?!

Rather, Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: Ordinances

that are worthy of being

established,

to the extent that through them a matter of Torah law may be uprooted,

are taught here.

For according to 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

—they imposed it—

upon the hired laborer.

And the reason they imposed it upon the hired laborer is

for the sake of the hired laborer’s livelihood,

as he needs money more than the employer does. For this reason, the Sages uprooted the Torah law for the sake of the hired laborer.

And

we challenge this: Did the Sages,

for the sake of the hired laborer’s livelihood,

institute that the hired laborer should swear and

cause the employer a loss?

That is, the Sages should have instituted, for the sake of the hired laborer’s livelihood, that the employer should swear that he had already paid him his wages. Since the employer certainly would not swear falsely, if he had in fact not yet paid the hired laborer, 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 laborer has already received his wages,

that the hired laborer swear and collect, so that laborers will hire themselves out to him,

so that laborers will be willing to come and work for him, knowing that if the employer says, “I already paid you,” they can swear and contradict him. But if the oath were imposed upon the employer who hires them, there would be laborers who would refrain from going to work for an employer, out of concern that at the end of their work the employer would say, “I already paid you,” and swear to that effect, causing them to lose their wages.

And we challenge this: After all,

the hired laborer himself is pleased

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

that the employer swear and be released,

that is, be exempt from paying,

so that people will hire him,

as people would be willing to hire laborers, knowing that they need have no concern if, after paying the hired laborer, he says, “I did not receive my wages,” because then the employer would swear and be exempt.

But if the oath is imposed upon the hired laborers, there will be employers who refrain from hiring laborers, lest after they pay their wages the laborers sue them again and say, “We did not receive them,” and swear falsely, causing the employer who hired them to lose money.

And the difficulty remains: Why did the Sages impose the oath upon the hired laborer, when according to Torah law the employer should swear?

And we answer:

The employer

is more pleased that the hired laborer should swear, because he needs the laborers, and

he hires them against his will;

if the oath were not imposed upon them, laborers would refrain from hiring themselves out to employers.

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

the hired laborer too hires himself out against his will,

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

And since neither the employer nor the hired laborer has an interest in the oath—and, on the contrary, each would prefer that the Sages institute an ordinance for the benefit of the other—the difficulty returns: Why did the Sages uproot the oath from the employer and impose it upon the hired laborer?

And we conclude:

Rather,

the reason they imposed the oath upon the hired laborer is that

the employer is preoccupied with his laborers.

It is possible that he intended to pay the laborer but forgot, and would thereby come to take a false oath.

And we ask:

If so,

since the employer is preoccupied with his laborers, why did the Sages institute in every case that the hired laborer should swear?

Let him collect without an oath!

After all, presumably the employer who contradicts him is mistaken: He thinks that he paid him, but in fact, because of his preoccupation with the laborers, he did not pay him.

And we answer: Indeed, as a matter of law, the hired laborer should collect without an oath; nevertheless, the Sages instituted that he should swear

in order to appease

the

mind of the employer.

And

we ask: Why did the Sages institute that the hired laborer collect by means of an oath, rather than say that when one hires a laborer, at the time he comes to pay him his wages,

let him give it to him,

that is, let him pay the hired laborer his wages only

in the

presence of

witnesses,

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

And we answer:

It is burdensome for them,

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

And

we challenge this again: Why did the Sages not say that when one hires a laborer,

let him give it to him,

that is, let him pay the hired laborer his wages

at the outset,

before the laborer begins working? Then, if after completing his work he says that he did not receive his wages, he would no longer be believed, since if he had not received his wages at the outset, he certainly would not have worked.

And we answer:

Both of them,

the employer and the hired laborer,

want

the payment to be

on credit,

after the work is completed—the employer because at times he does not yet have the money, and the laborer because he is concerned that the money may be lost from him while he is working. Therefore, the Sages had no alternative but to institute that the hired laborer swear, in order to appease the mind of the employer.

And we challenge this: According to our conclusion that the employer cannot swear because he is preoccupied with his laborers,

if so, even

when there is a dispute between the hired laborer and the person who hired him over how much he

agreed

to pay him initially for his work,

as well

we should say that the hired laborer is believed, since the employer is preoccupied with his laborers and perhaps confuses what he agreed upon with him with what he agreed upon with another laborer.

But it is taught:

One who gives his cloak to a craftsman,

the craftsman says: “Two”

coins

“you agreed to pay me”

for my wages,

while the other,

the employer,

says: “I agreed to pay you only one,”

the law is that

the one who seeks to extract from another must bring proof.

The hired laborer must bring proof if he claims that the employer agreed to pay him more for his work than the amount he is now paying him; if he cannot produce proof, he is not believed even with an oath.

And if we say that the employer is preoccupied with his laborers, why do we not believe the hired laborer under oath concerning the amount that the employer initially obligated himself to pay him?!

And we answer:

As for the agreed wage, people certainly remember

how much they agreed upon. Therefore, if the employer says, “I agreed to pay him such and such,” and the hired laborer says, “He agreed to pay me more than that,” the hired laborer is considered “the one who seeks to extract from another,” and therefore he must bring proof of his claim.

And we ask again: According to what we said—that the employer is preoccupied with his laborers—

if so,

he should never be believed if he says that he paid the hired laborer,

even

if

the

time

for paying the hired laborer

has passed;

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

But we learned:

A hired laborer, in his time, swears and collects. But if

his time has passed, he does not swear and collect,

because

there is a presumption that the employer does not violate “You shall not leave his wage overnight,”

and he certainly already paid the hired laborer his wages.

But you said that the employer is preoccupied with his laborers,

and he thinks that he gave the payment to the laborer, but did not give it. If so, even once the time has passed, it is impossible to believe him, since perhaps he still persists in his mistaken belief that he gave it, when in fact he did not.

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

that applies only before the time for his obligation arrives,

before the time when he must pay arrives.