Bava Metzia 118a (קיח.) — the Talmud in English

And he said to him:

You have reached them;

take the stones for yourself, because I have no desire for them.

He is not heeded.

He is obligated to hire workers and remove them, since one cannot compel the neighbor to acquire something that he does not want.

And if

after he had accepted this, he said to him: Here are your expenses, and I will take mine [

that is, after the neighbor had removed the stones, the owner of the wall changed his mind and asked to pay the neighbor for the effort he had expended in removing them and then take the stones back for himself],

he is not heeded,

since the neighbor had already acquired them.

If one hires a laborer to work with him with straw and chaff, and he said to him,

the laborer,

“Give me my wages!”

And he said to him,

the employer,

“Take what you have worked with as your wages.”

He is not heeded.

Although, with regard to an ordinary debt, a borrower may give the lender an item of equivalent value instead of money, a laborer may not do so, because it is written concerning him: “You shall not let the wages of a hired laborer remain with you” [Leviticus 19:13 and this implies that he must give him what they stipulated between them—actual money.

And if

after the laborer had accepted

and

had

agreed to accept as his wages what he had gathered instead of money,

he said to him,

the employer,

“Here are your wages, and I will take mine. He is not heeded,”

since the laborer had already acquired what he had gathered.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: And likewise, if there was an olive press, with a garden above it, and it was breached,

the Gemara explains: What is the extent of the breach that enables the owner of the garden to descend and sow in the olive press?

“It was breached”—

Rav said:

Only if it was breached

for the majority

can the garden owner descend and sow in the olive press. But if it was breached to a lesser extent, the owner of the olive press gives him ground corresponding to the area that was breached, and he sows half above and half below.

And Shmuel said:

Even if it was breached

by four

handbreadths alone, he may descend and sow in the olive press, until the other repairs his roof.

The Gemara explains:

Rav said, for the majority, but

if it was breached only

by four

handbreadths, he may not descend and sow in the olive press, since it is the way of

a person

to

sow half below and half above.

Therefore, the owner of the olive press gives him ground corresponding to the area that was breached, and he sows in it.

And Shmuel said:

Even if it was breached only

by four

handbreadths, he may descend and sow below, since

it is not

the way of

a person

to

sow half below and half above.

But this is apparently difficult: Earlier, with regard to a house and an upper story, Rav and Shmuel disputed the same issue. Why was it necessary to repeat their dispute in this Mishna as well?

And

the Gemara explains:

It is necessary!

There is a novel point in each of the disputes.

For had we been taught

their dispute only with regard to

residence, [

the house and the upper story], we would have said that only

in this case did Shmuel say

that after four handbreadths he descends and lives below,

because people are not accustomed to live partly here and partly there [

people do not ordinarily live partly in one place and partly in another].

But with regard to sowing, people are accustomed to sow partly here and partly there, [

people ordinarily sow partly in one place and partly in another], and

perhaps [

perhaps in this case]

he agrees with Rav,

and only if the garden was breached for the majority may he descend and sow below.

And

the reverse is also true:

If it was stated in the other case [

if they disputed only with regard to an olive press and a garden], we would have said that only

in that case did Rav say

that the majority of the garden is required, since people ordinarily sow partly in one place and partly in another;

but in this case [

the house and the upper story]

perhaps he agrees with Shmuel,

that even after four handbreadths he may descend to live in the house, since people do not ordinarily live partly below and partly above.

Therefore,

it is necessary [

we needed to state the dispute in both Mishnayot].

It was explained in the Mishna that if

they gave him time

to cut down the tree, and it fell within that period, he is exempt.

The Gemara explains:

And how much

is the measure of

the time

that

the court

of

law

allots in cases such as these?

Rabbi Yohanan said: Thirty days.

We learned in the Mishna:

“One whose wall was

adjacent to his neighbor’s garden, and it fell, and he said to him, ‘Clear away your stones.’ And he said to him, ‘They have reached you!’ He is not heeded. And if, after he had accepted this, he said to him, ‘Here are your expenses, and I will take mine,’ he is not heeded.”

It is evident from the latter clause that if the owner of the garden accepted responsibility, he acquired the stones of the wall, and the owner of the wall can no longer take them. It must be considered: How did the garden owner acquire the stones?

And the Gemara infers:

“From the fact that the latter clause teaches, ‘Here are your expenses,’ it follows [

it is evident]

that we are dealing with a case where he removed them.”

That is, our Mishna is dealing with a case in which the garden owner had already removed the stones of the wall and incurred expenses for them.

And it is clear that

the reason

the garden owner acquired the stones in our Mishna is

that he removed them,

and incurred expenses in removing them.

But

if he had still

not removed them, he had not

acquired them.

This is difficult:

Why

did he not acquire them?

And

why did

his field not acquire for him

the stones that entered it? Their owners had abandoned them!

For

after all,

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: A person’s courtyard acquires for him without his knowledge.

If so, here too, the courtyard should acquire the stones for him!?

The Gemara answers:

This applies [

this law, that his courtyard acquires for him, applies only]

where he intends

the owner of the stones

to acquire for him

his stones.

But here,

although he said to him, “They have reached you,” he did not intend to transfer them to him; rather,

he was merely seeking to evade him.

That is, he wanted to evade him so that he would not compel him to remove them.

But if the garden owner removed the stones himself, the rationale of “seeking to evade him” no longer applies, and therefore the garden owner acquires the stones that he removed.

We learned in the Mishna:

“One who hires

a laborer

to work with him with straw

and chaff, and he said to him, ‘Give me my wages,’ and he said to him, ‘Take what you have worked with as your wages,’ he is not heeded. After he accepted it, and he said to him, ‘Here are your wages, and I will take mine,’ he is not heeded.”

And

it requires explanation: Why did the Mishna repeat this law with regard to a laborer? We already learned with regard to the garden owner that one cannot compel a person to acquire something that he does not wish to acquire, and likewise that once he has acquired it, it cannot be taken from him.

The Gemara explains:

It is necessary!

For had we been taught

only

the first case [

concerning a wall that fell into his neighbor’s garden], one might have said that only in this case do we say

that when he says to him, “They have reached you,” he is not heeded, because he has no wages with him.

That is, since the garden owner is claiming nothing from the owner of the wall, the owner of the wall cannot compel him to acquire something that he does not wish to acquire.

But here [

with regard to a laborer],

where he has wages with him,

since the laborer is demanding his wages from the employer,

perhaps [

we would say]

he is heeded.

The employer would have the right to say to him, “Take what you have worked with as your wages.”

For people say: “From the master of your authority, accept even bran as payment.” [

For people are accustomed to say: Even if your creditor gives you bran, accept it from him].

And

the reverse is also true:

If we had been taught this,

only with regard to a laborer, one might have said that specifically

here, where after he accepted it he is not heeded, because he has wages with him,

since the employer owed him money and gave him what he had worked with in place of the debt, he acquired it, and the employer cannot retract.

But here [

with regard to a wall that fell into his neighbor’s garden],

where he has no wages with him

and the owner of the wall owes him nothing,

perhaps he is heeded.

Therefore,

it is necessary [

the tanna needed to teach us both cases.

We learned in the Mishna: If he said to the laborer, “Take what you have worked with as your wages,”

he is not heeded.

He is obligated to give him money in accordance with what they stipulated between them.

And

this is difficult.

For

after all,

it is taught

in a beraita that if he said to the laborer, “Take what you have worked with as your wages,”

he is heeded?

Rav Naḥman said: It is not difficult!

Here,

in our Mishna, it is speaking of a case in which he hired him to work

with his own property.

In that case he is not permitted to say to him, “Take what you have worked with as your wages.”

And

here,

in the beraita, it is speaking of a case in which he hired him to work

with another’s property,

and in that case, if he says, “Take what you have worked with as your wages,” he is heeded.

Rabba said to Rav Naḥman: If it was his own property, what is the reason?

Why, if he hired him to work with his own property, can he not say to him, “Take what you have worked with as your wages”? It is because

he says to him, “Your wages are incumbent upon you,” [

since the laborer tells him: My wages are your responsibility, and you cannot alter what we agreed between us].

If so, even if he hired him to work

with another’s property, his wages are likewise incumbent upon him!

He is obligated to give him what they agreed upon. Why, then, does the beraita teach that he may say to him, “Take what you have worked with as your wages”?

And there is a proof for this:

As it is taught: One who hires a laborer

to work with his own property, but showed him another’s property,

that is, he misled the laborer and gave him another person’s work instead of his own work,

gives him

the employer gives the laborer

his full wages,

as they had agreed,

and then takes

the employer

from the owner what benefited him.

This is like one who enters another’s field without permission, who takes expenses to the extent of the improvement.

In any event, it is clear that even if he hired him to work with his fellow’s property, he must pay him his wages as they agreed between them, and he cannot say to him, “Take what you have made as your wages".

If so, the difficulty returns to its original place. Why does the beraita make clear that if he said, “Take what you have made as your wages,” he is heeded?

Rather, Rav Naḥman said: It is not difficult!

Here,

our Mishna is referring to a case in which he hired him to work

with his own property.

And then he is not permitted to say to him, “Take what you have made as your wages".

But

here,

the beraita is referring to a case in which he hired him to work

with ownerless property,

and then he may say to him, “Take what you have made as your wages".

Since the hirer has not yet acquired the laborer’s work, for Rav Naḥman maintains that “one who lifts a lost item for his fellow does not thereby acquire it for his fellow,” it follows that the laborer’s work does not belong to the hirer, and he can say to him: You acquire it for yourself!

This is not so when he hired him to work with his fellow’s property. Since the laborer cannot acquire what he made, as his work belongs to the employer, the hirer must pay the laborer his wages as they agreed between them.

He raised an objection

Rava

to Rav Naḥman:

Even if one who lifts a lost item for his fellow does not thereby acquire it for his fellow, nevertheless, if he hired him for this purpose, he does acquire it. If so, his work belongs to the hirer even when it involves ownerless property. Why, then, may he say to him, “Take what you have made as your wages"?

And there is proof of this, for we learned:

A laborer’s found item belongs to him. When is this so? When the employer said to him, “Pull out weeds with me today,” or, “Till the soil with me today,”

as he did not hire him for every type of work, but only for this particular work.

But if he said to him, “Perform work with me today,” the laborer’s found item belongs to the employer.

Since he hired him also for the work of lifting found items.

In any event, it is clear that if he hired him on the condition that he work with ownerless property, he acquires his work. If so, he cannot say to him, “Take what you have made as your wages"?

Rather, Rav Naḥman said: It is not difficult!

Both the Mishna and the beraita are referring to a case in which he hired him to work with ownerless property.

Rather,

here

in our Mishna, the case

is one of lifting.

And then the hirer acquires the laborer’s work and must pay him his wages. Whereas

here

in the beraita, the case

is one of watching.

That is, he hired him to watch an item of ownerless property merely by keeping watch over it. In that case, the hirer did not acquire it, and he may say to him, “Take what you have made as your wages".

Rabba said: Whether watching ownerless property

acquires it is a dispute among

the tannai

m.

For we learned:

The guardians of the sixth-year growth,

during the Sabbatical Year, whose produce is ownerless, the court would hire guards to watch, in certain places, the grain that had sprouted on its own, so that the poor would not gather it, in order to bring from it the Omer offering on Passover , and the two loaves on Shavuot, which may be brought only from the new grain and from the Land of Israel; and those guards

would take their wages from the allocation of the Chamber.

Rabbi Yosei says,

even anyone

who wishes may volunteer and be an unpaid guardian.

The Sages said to him,

if

you say so, the

Omer and the two loaves

will not come from the community’s funds.

Since the guards will have acquired them, whereas we require that they come from the community’s funds.

Is that not what they disagree about: The first tanna maintains that watching ownerless property acquires it

. And

therefore,

if they give him wages, yes; and if not, no!

If we hire the guards with communal funds to watch it, the barley will belong to the community. But if they watch it for free, the guards will acquire it through their watching.

And Rabbi Yosei maintains that watching ownerless property does not acquire it! And

therefore,

when the community comes and takes it, only then does it acquire it.

When the community comes and takes the barley, it will acquire it, and it will thereby turn out that it came from the community’s funds.

And

if you say that, then

what

did the Sages say to him in the wording

“You say,”

which implies that they challenged Rabbi Yosei’s approach, when according to his approach there is no difficulty at all?

This is what they were saying to him: From your words

there is a difficulty

with our words,

since according to our approach, if they watch it for free,

the Omer and the two loaves will not come from the community’s funds.

In any event, it is clear that whether watching ownerless property acquires it or not depends on the dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the first tanna.

Rava said: No!

Everyone

maintains that

watching ownerless property acquires it,

and according to everyone, if one watches it for free, he acquires the barley.

And here,

the dispute

is concerning whether “we are concerned that perhaps they will not transfer it properly.”

For the Sages maintain: We give him wages,

we pay them to guard it,

and if not, we are concerned that perhaps they will not transfer it properly.

We are concerned that they will not acquire the barley for the community wholeheartedly, since they would prefer that the offering be from their own property.

And

Rabbi Yosei maintains that we are not concerned that perhaps they will not transfer it properly.

And

if you say that, then

what

did the Sages say to him in the wording

“You say,”

which implies that they challenged Rabbi Yosei’s approach, when according to his approach there is no difficulty at all?

This is what they were saying to him: From your words

there is a difficulty

with our words,

since according to our approach

that we are concerned that perhaps they will not transfer it properly,

if they watch it for free,

the Omer and the two loaves will not come from the community’s funds.

There are those who say

that Rava said the opposite:

Rava said: Everyone maintains that watching ownerless property does not acquire it!

And according to everyone, even if they watch it for free, they will not acquire the barley.

And here—

they disagree concerning “we are concerned about strong-armed people,”

this being the point of their dispute.

For the first tanna maintains that the Sages enacted that we give him four dinars, so that the strong-armed people will hear of it and withdraw from it.

That is, they enacted that the guards be paid, so that it would become known that they were guarding it for the Temple treasury, and strong-armed people would not come and forcibly seize the barley from them.

And Rabbi Yosei maintains that they did not enact this.

Therefore, he may guard it for free.