Bava Metzia 76a (עו.) — the Talmud in English

But

if the employer

is the one who

withdraws, his hand

the employer’s hand is

on the lower side.

He must pay them their wages in proportion to what they did.

But if the workers’ wages have fallen and he can now hire workers to complete the second half of the work for thirty zuz, he must pay the first workers seventy zuz, even though they performed only half the work!

In tractate Bava Kamma, the law of “one who enters his fellow’s field without permission” is explained. If a person plants trees in another’s field without the owner’s permission, the intruder’s hand is on the lower side. That is, one assesses how much the land improved as a result of his work. If the improvement exceeds his expenses, the intruder receives from the owner only the amount of his expenses and has no entitlement at all to the improvement. If the intruder’s expenses exceed the improvement, he receives from the owner only the value of the improvement, since the owner is not obligated to pay him expenses exceeding the amount by which the land improved.

Our Mishna also explains one application of this law:

Any

artisan

who changes

from the instructions given by the employer concerning how to perform his work,

for example, the employer gave wool to an artisan and instructed him to dye it red, but the artisan deviated and dyed it black,

his hand

the artisan’s hand is

on the lower side.

The employer does not pay him his wage for the work; he pays only the following amount:

If the improvement is less than his expenses, he pays him only the value of the improvement.

If the improvement exceeds the expenses, he pays him only his expenses for the dye, but does not pay him the appropriate wage for his work.

This is so even though he originally hired him and stipulated a full payment for his work. Since he did not hire him to perform the work in this manner, his status is like that of a worker who acts without the employer’s authorization, whose hand is on the lower side.

And

likewise,

anyone who withdraws

from the hiring of a worker, whether the employer withdraws or the worker withdraws—

his hand

the hand of the one who withdraws is

on the lower side.

This law will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses and explains what we learned at the beginning of the Mishna: “One who hires artisans and they deceived one another.”

The Gemara infers: “

They withdrew from one another

the workers or the employer from their hiring,”

it does not teach

in the Mishna.

Rather,

the tanna used the expression

“they deceived one another.”

That is,

the workers deceived one another,

the workers deceived one another.

The Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances?

He said to him,

the employer said to one of his workers:

“Go, hire workers for me,”

go and hire workers for me, and he stipulated a particular sum for their wages.

And he went,

the worker-agent,

and deceived them,

deceiving them by promising them a different wage from the one the employer had told him.

The Gemara raises the matter:

What are the circumstances?

How did he deceive them?

If the employer said to him

his worker-agent, “Go and hire workers for me

for four

zuz,” and

he went

the agent

and said to them

the workers that their wage would be

three,

only three zuz, if so, it is puzzling why they should have a grievance against him.

“A grievance”—

what is he doing with it!?

What grievance could they have against the agent?

They

thought

about the reduced sum that he specified as their wage,

and accepted,

agreeing to perform his work even for three zuz.

And

if the employer said to the agent

“Hire workers for me

for three, and he went and said to them

the workers

four,

then the matter depends on how the agent stipulated with them, as will be explained.

What are the circumstances? If he said to them

the agent

“Your wages are upon me,”

I myself am obligated to pay you your wages, then

he should give them from his own funds,

the agent should give them from his own money the additional dinar that he added on his own initiative, beyond what the employer agreed to pay, as this law is explained in a beraita.

As it was taught: One who hires a worker

in order

to perform

work

in

a field

belonging to him,

and he showed him

the worker that he should perform the work

in another’s field,

that is, he instructed him to perform his work in another’s field but showed him as though it were his own field,

he gives him

the worker

his full wages,

the wage of a worker in the market, since he was the one who hired him for the work.

And he returns

the employer,

and takes from the employer the amount by which he benefited him,

the amount of the wage due for such work.

If so, in our case as well, since the agent agreed with them on a wage higher than what the employer had told him, the agent should pay the difference from his own funds, since he was the one who hired them, and they have claims only against him, not against the employer.

However, if the field improved by an amount equal to what he spent, the agent returns and takes from the employer the wage due for such work, as explained above.

If so, it is difficult: why do they have only a grievance against him? He is, after all, obligated to pay them this dinar from his own funds.

The Gemara explains:

It is necessary

indeed, this is a case in which he did not say, “Your wages are upon me.” Rather,

he said to them, “Your wages are upon the employer.”

Therefore, the agent is not obligated to add anything from his own funds, since he is merely the employer’s agent, and the employer agreed to hire them only for three zuz.

Therefore, they have only a grievance against the agent, because he deceived them by falsely telling them that the employer had agreed to pay them four zuz.

The Gemara challenges:

“Let us see for what wage workers

are hired!?”

Let us see the wage for which workers are hired for work of this kind. For if a worker’s wage is fixed at four zuz, then even though they did not agree with him that he would pay four, he should nevertheless pay them according to the law governing one who works in the owner’s field without the owner’s authorization, who is paid his wage [provided it does not exceed the improvement produced by his work, as explained above].

And if the customary wage for hiring a worker is three, then they would not even have a grievance against him, since he caused them no loss.

The Gemara resolves this question in four ways:

The first approach:

No, it is necessary to state that there is one who hires himself out for four,

the employer himself

and there is one who hires himself out for three,

and the price is not fixed in the market.

For the laborers said to him,

the employer:

Had you not told us that he had agreed to four, we would have exerted ourselves and hired ourselves out for four

to someone else. And if so, you caused us a loss by telling us that the employer would agree to four, and we have a grievance against you.

The Gemara explains another approach:

If you wish, say instead: Here we are dealing with a laborer who is

himself

a landowner.

This laborer is a person of greater standing than other laborers, since he has fields of his own, and he does not hire himself out for work in another’s field unless he receives a high wage.

For such laborers said to the person who hired them to work for him:

laborers of this kind said to the one hiring them:

Had you not told us that he had agreed to four, it would have been beneath our dignity to hire ourselves out.

People of distinction such as ourselves do not hire themselves out like ordinary laborers, but only for a substantial wage.

And the third approach:

And if you wish, say instead: We are indeed dealing with

ordinary

laborers,

and not with a laborer who is a landowner,

for they said to him: Since you told us that he had agreed to four, we exerted ourselves and performed superior work for you

work of a higher quality than the customary work of ordinary laborers, who earn less.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Then let us examine their work,

to see whether they truly exerted themselves more than other laborers. For if they actually improved his land more than was customary, the employer must add to their wages, as in the case of one who improves another’s field, who receives payment from him for the benefit he provided him.

And we answer: This is referring to a case in which the matter is not discernible in the field, such as

a ditch,

where they dug a trench around the field.

The Gemara objects:

A ditch, too, is readily discernible

if they dug a superior trench, better than those dug by other laborers!

And we answer: Here we are dealing with a case such as

one that filled,

the trench became filled

with water, and he did not know.

And therefore they have only a grievance against him.

d.

And if you wish, say instead: It is indeed

the case

where the employer told him to pay four, and he went

the hirer

and told them

the laborers

three.

And

as for

what you said, “They saw and accepted,”

and they have not even a grievance against the hirer, since they agreed to perform their work for three, they nevertheless have grounds for complaint against him, because

they said to him

the hirer: Why

do you not have

do you not think that one must act in accordance with what is written in Proverbs [3:27]:

“Do not withhold good from its rightful owner”?

And if so, you should at least have given us the wage that the employer had stated.

The Gemara now discusses the case in which the laborers replied to the agent’s words at the time he hired them, saying that they would accept the amount stated by the employer. What was their intention?

It is obvious: If the employer said

to the agent

three, and he went and told them four, and they said to him

the laborers said to the agent, our desire is

“as the employer said,”

then certainly

their intention is directed toward the higher amount.

And their intention is to say: You are trustworthy to us that the employer wishes to add to our wages beyond those of other laborers.

Rather, if the employer said to them, “Four,”

and he went and told them, “Three,” and they said,

and they replied that they were prepared to hire themselves out

“as the employer said,”

the question is

what is the ruling?

Is it that

they rely on his statement,

on the agent’s words,

and they rely

on them; that is, they did not intend to stipulate with him that he may not reduce the amount stated by the employer, but rather intended to say that they accept that this is indeed the price stated by the employer, and they hire themselves out on that basis,

for they said to him

the laborers said to the agent:

“You are trustworthy to us that this is what the employer said.”

However, even if the employer had not said this, they agreed to perform their work for three.

Or perhaps they rely on the employer’s statement,

and they do not believe his words, and they agreed only to what the employer said; therefore, he is obligated to pay them four dinars.

The Gemara now brings proof concerning this matter from an agent for divorce. The Torah states in the passage concerning divorce: “And he shall write for her a scroll of severance and place it in her hand.” The Sages expounded in tractate Gittin that a woman is divorced only when the get is given directly from his hand into her hand.

Indeed, if the husband appointed an agent to deliver the get, the agent’s hand is considered like his hand, and the woman is divorced when the get is given from the agent’s hand into her hand.

Likewise, if the woman appointed an agent to receive the get on her behalf, the agent takes her place, and she is divorced when the husband or his agent gives the get to her agent. This agent is called an “agent for receipt.”

Come and hear:

A woman who says to her agent:

“Bring me my get,”

meaning: Tell my husband to send me my get through you, and you will become the husband’s agent to divorce me by giving the get into my hand.

The agent came to the husband and said to him:

“Your wife”

appointed me as an agent for receipt, and this is what she

said: “Receive my get for me.”

And he,

the husband,

says

to the agent:

“Here, take”

the get

“as she said”

the woman!

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said that Rav said: Even if the get reached her hand,

through the agent, she

is not divorced.

For the husband did not appoint him as an agent for delivery, nor did the woman appoint him as her agent for receipt. Therefore, she is not divorced by this get, since it was not delivered to her directly by the husband.

Nevertheless,

derive from this

from Rav’s words, that

he relies on his statement,

that the husband believes the words of the woman’s agent. By saying that he gives the get as she said, he bases his statement on the agent’s words, and did not intend to say that he was doing so according to his own wishes; therefore, he did not make him an agent for delivery.

[And since the woman did not make him an agent for receipt, she cannot be divorced through him.]

For if it should enter your mind that he relies on her statement, then once the get reaches her hand, she should at least be divorced,

since the husband did not believe his words, and sent the get through him only in accordance with the woman’s wishes. If so, he is an agent for delivery, and she is divorced once the get reaches her hand, since the woman’s wish is that the husband make him his agent.

Accordingly, the same applies in the case of the laborers: They do not believe the agent’s words, and therefore stipulated that their hiring should be according to what the employer said.

Rav Ashi said: