Bava Metzia 118a — the Talmud in English

And he said to him, ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

you have reached them,

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

He is not heeded.

And he is obligated to hire workers and remove them, since it is impossible to compel the neighbor to acquire something that he does not desire.

And if

after he had accepted this upon himself he said to him, “Here are your expenses, and I shall take mine,”

[that is, after the neighbor 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 to return to take the stones for himself]

he is not heeded,

since the neighbor had already acquired them.

One who hires a laborer to work with him in straw and stubble, and he said to him,

the laborer,

“Give me my wages!”

And he said to him,

the owner of the house,

“Take what you have made as your wages.”

He is not heeded.

And although with every ordinary debt the debtor may give the creditor something of equal value in place of money, a laborer may not do so, because it is written concerning him, “You shall not leave the wages of a hired laborer overnight” [Leviticus 19:13] and it implies that he must give him what they stipulated between themselves: actual money.

And if

after he had accepted this upon himself

the laborer,

and

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

he said to him,

the owner of the house,

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

since the laborer had already acquired what he had gathered.

Gemara:

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

And the Gemara explains: What is the measure 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

in most of it

may the owner of the garden descend and sow in the olive press. But with less than this, the owner of the olive press gives him land corresponding to what was breached, and he sows half above and half below.

And Shmuel said:

Even if it was breached

four

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

The Gemara explains:

Rav said “in most of it,” 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 be

sowing half below and half above.

Therefore, the owner of the olive press gives him land corresponding to what 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 be

sowing half below and half above.

And it appears difficult: Above, concerning a house and an upper story, Rav and Shmuel disagreed in this same dispute; why did they need to repeat their dispute in this Mishna as well?

And

the Gemara explains:

It is necessary!

There is a novelty in each one of the disputes.

For had it informed us

of their dispute only concerning

a dwelling,

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

in this Shmuel said

that already at four handbreadths he descends and dwells below,

because people are not accustomed to dwelling partly here and partly here

[it is not the way of people to dwell partly in one place and partly in another].

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

[it is the way of people to sow partly in one place and partly in another], and

say

[perhaps in this case]

he agrees with Rav,

and only if the garden was breached in most of it may he descend and sow below.

And

likewise in the reverse:

If it was stated in that case

[if they had disagreed only concerning an olive press and a garden], we would have said that only

in that case Rav said

that most of the garden is required, since it is the way of people to sow partly in one place and partly in another,

but in this case

[a house and an upper story]

say that he agrees with Shmuel,

that even at four handbreadths he may descend to dwell in the house, since it is not the way of people to dwell partly below and partly above.

Therefore

it is necessary

[that 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 the time, he is exempt.

The Gemara explains:

And how much

is the measure of the

time

that they allot

in

the

court

for cases such as these?

Rabbi Yohanan said: Thirty days.

We learned in the Mishna:

One whose wall

was adjacent to his fellow’s garden and fell, and he said to him, “Remove your stones.” And he said to him, “They have reached you!” He is not heeded. And if, after he accepted this upon himself, he said to him, “Here are your expenses, and I shall take mine,” he is not heeded.

It is explained in the latter clause that if the owner of the garden accepted this upon himself, he acquired the stones of the wall, and the owner of the wall can no longer take them. But it is necessary to consider: How did the owner of the garden acquire the stones?

And the Gemara infers:

Now, since the latter clause teaches, “Here are your expenses,” it follows

[it is proven]

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

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

And it is explained:

The reason

of our Mishna, that the owner of the garden acquired the stones, is because

he removed them,

and incurred expenses in removing them.

But

if he had still

not removed them, he did not

acquire them.

And it is difficult:

Why

did he not acquire them?

And

why did

his field not acquire for him

the stones that entered it? Their owner abandoned them, after all!

For

after all,

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

And 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, 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, but only

he was evading him.

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

But if the owner of the garden himself removed the stones, the reasoning of “he was evading him” no longer applies; therefore, the owner of the garden acquires the stones that he removed.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who hires

a laborer

to work with him in straw

and stubble, and he said to him, “Give me my wages,” and he said to him, “Take what you have made as your wages,” he is not heeded. After he accepted this upon himself, and he said to him, “Here are your wages, and I shall take mine,” he is not heeded.

And

it requires explanation: Why did the Mishna repeat this law concerning a laborer, when it was already explained to us concerning the owner of the garden that a person cannot be compelled to acquire something that he does not desire to acquire, and likewise, that if he has already acquired it, it may not be taken from him?

And the Gemara explains:

It is necessary!

For had it informed us

only

of the first one

[concerning a wall that fell into his fellow’s garden], it would have been possible to say 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 owner of the garden is not claiming anything from the owner of the wall, the owner of the wall cannot compel him to acquire something that he does not desire to acquire.

But here

[concerning a laborer],

where he has wages with him,

since the laborer is claiming his wages from the owner of the house,

say

[let us say]

he is heeded.

The owner of the house has the right to say to him, “Take what you have made as your wages.”

For people say, “From the master of your authority, take bran as repayment.”

[For it is the way of people to say: Even if your creditor gives you bran, accept it from him].

And

likewise in the reverse,

if it informed us here,

only concerning a laborer, it would have been possible to say that specifically

here, where after he accepted this upon himself he is not heeded, because he has wages with him,

since the owner of the house owes him money and gave him what he made in place of the debt, he acquired it, and the owner of the house cannot retract.

But here

[concerning a wall that fell into his fellow’s garden],

where he has no wages with him

and the owner of the wall owes him nothing,

say that he is heeded.

Therefore

it is necessary

[the tanna needed to inform us of both cases].

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

he is not heeded.

And he is obligated to give him money as they stipulated between themselves.

And

it is difficult:

For

it is

taught

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

he is heeded?

Rav Nahman said: It is not difficult!

Here,

in our Mishna, it is speaking of a case where 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.”

And

here,

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

with the property of another,

and then, if he says, “Take what you have made as your wages,” he is heeded.

Rabba said to Rav Nahman: If it is with 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 made as your wages”? Because

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

[since the laborer says to him: My wages are imposed upon you, and you cannot change what was agreed between us].

If so, even if he hired him to work

with the property of another, his wages are likewise upon him!

And he is obligated to give him according to what they agreed, so why did we learn in the beraita that he may say to him, “Take what you have made as your wages”?

And there is proof for this:

For it is taught: One who hires a laborer

to work with his own property, and showed him the property of another,

that is, he misled the laborer and gave him the work of another in place of his own work,

gives him

the hirer gives the laborer

his full wages,

as they agreed between themselves,

and goes back and takes

the hirer

from the owner of the house what benefited him.

This is the law of one who enters his fellow’s field without permission: he takes expenses according to the amount of the improvement.

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

And if so, the difficulty returns to its place. Why is it explained in the beraita that if he said, “Take what you made as your wage,” they heed him?

Rather, Rav Naḥman said: It is not difficult!

Here,

our Mishna is speaking when he hired him to work

with his own property.

And then he is not permitted to say to him, “Take what you made as your wage”.

And

here,

the beraita is speaking when he hired him to work

with ownerless property,

and then he can say to him, “Take what you made as your wage”.

Since the hirer has still not acquired the labor of the worker, for Rav Naḥman holds: “One who lifts a found object for his fellow has not acquired it for his fellow,” and if so, the worker’s labor is not the property of the hirer, and he can say to him: Acquire it yourself!

This is not so when he hired him to work with his fellow’s property, since the worker cannot acquire what he made, for his labor belongs to the owner of the house; therefore, the hirer is obligated to pay the worker his wage, as was agreed between them.

He raised an objection

[he challenged]

Rava to Rav Naḥman:

Behold, even if one who lifts a found object for his fellow has not acquired it for his fellow, nevertheless, if he hired him for this purpose, he acquires it. And if so, his labor is his responsibility even with ownerless property. And why can he say to him, “Take what you made as your wage”?

And proof of this is that we learned:

A worker’s found object belongs to himself. When is this so? When the owner of the house said to him, “Weed with me today,” or “Hoe with me today,”

for he did not hire him for every kind of labor, but only for this particular labor.

But if he said to him, “Do labor with me today,” his found object belongs to the owner of the house.

Since he hired him also for the labor of lifting found objects.

In any event, it is explained that if he hired him on the condition that he would work with ownerless property, he acquired his labor. And if so, he cannot say to him, “Take what you made as your wage”?

Rather, Rav Naḥman said: It is not difficult!

Both in the Mishna and in the beraita, they are speaking when he hired him to work with ownerless property.

Rather,

here

[in our Mishna] it is speaking

of lifting.

And then the hirer acquires the worker’s labor, and he must pay him his wage. Whereas

here

[in the beraita] it is speaking

of watching.

That is, he hired him to watch, by watching, over ownerless property. And then the hirer did not acquire it, and he can say to him, “Take what you made as your wage”.

Rabba said: Watching over ownerless property,

if it acquires, is a dispute among

the tannaitic

s

it is!

As we learned: The guards of the seventh-year growth,

during the sabbatical year, whose produce was ownerless, the court would hire guards in certain places to guard the growth of grain that had risen by itself, so that the poor would not gather it, in order to bring from it the omer on Passover , and the two loaves on Shavuot, which come only from the new grain and from the Land of Israel; and those guards

take their wages from the appropriation of the chamber.

Rabbi Yose says,

even anyone

who wishes volunteers and serves as an unpaid guard.

The Sages said to him,

if

you say so, the

omer and the two loaves

do not come from the public.

Since the guards acquired them. And we require that they come from the public.

Is it not that they disagree in this: The first tanna holds that watching over ownerless property acquires it

. And

therefore,

if they give him a wage, yes; but if not, no!

If we hire the guards with public funds so that they will guard, the barley will belong to the public. And if they guard for free, the guards will acquire it through their watching .

And Rabbi Yose holds that watching over ownerless property does not acquire! And

therefore,

when the public comes and brings it, it is then that it acquires it.

When the public comes and takes the barley, they will then acquire it, and it follows that it came from the public.

And

if you say: If so,

what

did the Sages say to him in the wording

“you say,”

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

This is what they said to him: From your words

there is a difficulty

for our words,

since according to our method, if they guard for free,

the omer and the two loaves do not come from the public.

In any event, it is explained that the question of whether watching over ownerless property acquires or does not acquire depends on the dispute between Rabbi Yose and the first tanna.

Rava said: No!

Everyone

holds

that watching over ownerless property acquires,

and according to everyone, if he guards for free, he acquires the barley.

And here,

they disagree

over “we are concerned lest he not transfer it properly and completely.”

For the Sages hold: We give him a wage,

we give them a wage to guard,

but if not, we are concerned lest he not transfer it properly and completely.

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

And

Rabbi Yose holds that we are not concerned lest he not transfer it properly and completely.

And

if you say: If so,

what

did the Sages say to him in the wording

“you say,”

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

This is what they said to him: From your words

there is a difficulty

for our words,

since according to our method

that we are concerned lest he not transfer it properly and completely,

if they guard for free,

the omer and the two loaves do not come from the public.

There are those who say:

[there are those who transmitted in Rava’s name the opposite]:

Rava said: Everyone holds that watching over ownerless property does not acquire!

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

And here—

they disagree over “we are concerned about men of power.”

They disagree.

For the first tanna holds that the Sages instituted giving him four zuz, so that the men of power would hear and withdraw from them.

That is, they instituted paying the guards, so that it would become publicized that they were guarding for consecrated property, and men of power would not come to seize the barley from them by force.

And Rabbi Yose holds: They did not institute it.

And therefore he can guard for free.