Bava Metzia 76a — the Talmud in English

But

if the householder

is the one who

retracts, his hand

that of the householder is

on the lower side.

And he is obligated to pay them their wages, proportionate 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 is obligated to pay the first ones seventy zuz, even though they did 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 planted saplings in his fellow’s field without the permission of the owner of the field, the one who entered has his hand on the lower side. That is, one assesses how much the land was improved because of his work; if the improvement is greater than his expenses, the one who entered receives from the householder only the amount of his expenses and is not entitled at all to the improvement. And if the expenses of the one who entered were greater than the improvement, he receives from the householder only the amount of the improvement, for the householder is not obligated to pay him for his expenses more than the amount by which they improved the property.

One of the forms of this law is also explained in our Mishna:

Every

craftsman

who changes

from the work instructions given to him by the householder as to how to perform his work,

such as a householder who gave wool to a craftsman and instructed him to dye it red, while the craftsman changed and dyed it black,

his hand

that of the craftsman is

on the lower side.

The householder does not pay him his wages for his work, but only the following amount:

If the improvement was less than his expenses, he pays him only the amount of the improvement.

And if the improvement was greater than the expenditure, he pays him only his expenses for the dye, but does not pay him the proper wages due to him according to his work.

And this is so even though he initially hired him and fixed full payment as his wages. Since he did not hire him for work in this manner, his law is like that of a worker who works without the householder’s authorization, whose hand is on the lower side.

And

likewise,

anyone who retracts

from the hiring of a worker, whether the householder retracts or the worker retracts—

his hand

that of the one who retracts 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 craftsmen and they misled one another.”

The Gemara infers: “They retracted from one another,”

the workers or the householder

from their hiring—

it did not teach

in the Mishna.

Rather,

the tanna used the wording

“they misled one another.”

That is,

that the workers misled one another,

that the workers misled one another.

The Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances?

For he said to him

the householder to one of his workers:

“Go, hire workers for me,”

go and hire workers for me, and he fixed for him a certain sum for their wages.

And he went,

the worker who was the agent,

and misled them,

and misled them by promising them as their wages a different sum from what the householder had told him.

We raised this matter:

What are the circumstances?

How did he mislead them?

If the householder said to him

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

for four

zuz,”

and he went

the agent

and said to them

to the workers that their wages would be

three,

only three zuz, if so, it is difficult: why should they have a grievance against him?

“A grievance”—

what business does it have!?

What grievance could they have against the agent?

For they

thought—

they considered the reduced sum that he stated to them as their wages,

and accepted,

they agreed to perform his work even for three zuz.

And

if the householder said to him

to the agent, “Hire workers for me

for three, and he went and said to them

to the workers

four,

if so, 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, if so,

let him give them from his own,

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

For it was taught: One who hires the worker

in order

to perform

work

in

a field

of his,

and showed him

the hirer showed the worker that he should perform the work

in another’s,

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

he gives him

the hirer gives the worker his

full wages,

as the wages of a worker in the market, since he is the one who hired him for the work.

And he returns

the hirer,

and takes from the householder what benefited him,

the amount of the wages due for work of this kind.

If so, also in our case, since the agent agreed with them on wages higher than what the householder told him, the agent should pay this from his own, for he is the one who hired them, and they have no claim or dealings with the householder, but only with him.

Indeed, if the field improved by the amount of what he expended, the agent returns and takes from the householder the wages due for such work, as explained above.

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

The Gemara explains:

It is necessary—

indeed, it speaks of a case in which he did not say, “Your wages are upon me.” Rather,

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

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

Therefore, they have only a grievance against the agent, because he deceived them and falsely told them that the householder had agreed to pay them four zuz.

The Gemara asks:

“And let us see for what wages the workers

are hired!?”

Let us see what the wage is for which workers are hired for such work. For if a worker’s wage is a fixed wage of four zuz, then even though he did not agree with them that he would pay four, nevertheless he should pay them according to the law of one who works in the householder’s field without the householder’s authorization, who pays him his wages [if it is not greater than the improvement produced by his work, as explained above].

And if it is customary to hire a worker for three, then they do not even have a grievance against him, since he caused them no loss.

The Gemara resolves this question in four ways:

The first way:

It is necessary [to say] that there is one who hires [workers] for four, and there is one who hires himself out for three

the employer himself

and the price is not fixed in the market

.

For they said to him

the workers to the hirer:

Had you not told us [that it was] four, we would have exerted ourselves and hired ourselves out for four

to another person. And if so, you harmed us by saying that the master of the house would agree to four, and we have a grievance against you.

The Gemara explains another manner:

If you wish, say: here we are dealing with a hirer

a worker who is himself

a master of the house.

For this worker is an important person, more than the other workers, since he has fields of his own, and he does not hire himself out for work in the field of others unless he receives high wages.

For they said to him

workers of this kind to the hirer who hired them to work for him:

Had you not told us [that it was] four, it would have been degrading for us to hire ourselves out.

A person as distinguished as we are does not hire himself out as an ordinary worker, but only for abundant wages.

And a third manner:

And if you wish, say: we are always dealing with workers

ordinary ones

we are dealing,

and not with a worker who is a master of the house,

for they said to him: Since you told us [that it was] four, we exerted ourselves and did fine work for you

more excellent and of higher quality than the custom of ordinary workers who earn less.

And we raise an objection against it:

Then let us see their work,

whether indeed they exerted themselves over it more than other workers. For if they indeed improved his land more than what is customary, the master of the house must add to their wages, according to the law concerning one who improves his fellow’s field, who takes from him payment for what he benefited him.

And we answer: it is speaking of a case where the matter is not recognizable in the field, such as

in a trench,

where they dug a ditch around the field.

And the Gemara objects:

A trench also—the matter is known,

if they dug a trench more excellently than other workers!

And we answer: here it is speaking of a case

where it filled,

the trench became filled

with water, and it was not known.

And because of this, they have only a grievance against him.

d.

And if you wish, say: indeed

it is speaking

of a case where the master of the house said [to him] four, and he went

the hirer

and said to them

to the workers

three.

And

what

you said, “He saw and accepted,”

and they have not even a grievance against the hirer, since they agreed to do their work for three, nevertheless they have cause to complain against him, because

they said to him

to the hirer: Why,

do you not have

you do not think that one must act according to the words written in Proverbs [3:27]:

“Do not withhold good from its owners”?

And if so, at the very least, you should not have withheld from us the wage that the master of the house said.

And the Gemara discusses: if the workers replied to the agent’s words at the time he hired them, “We accept according to what the master of the house said,” what is their intention?

It is obvious: if the master of the house said to him

to the agent

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

the workers to the agent, “Our desire is

as the master of the house said,”

certainly

their mind is directed toward the higher [amount].

And their intention is to say: You are trustworthy to us that the master of the house’s desire is to add to our wages more than those of other workers.

Rather, if the master of the house said to them four,

and he went and said to them three, and they said,

and they answered him that they were prepared to hire themselves out

“as the master of the house said,”

there is a doubt:

what [is the law]?

Do

they rely on his speech,

on the words of the agent,

[or] do they rely,

that is, they did not intend to stipulate with him that he should not reduce the words of the master of the house; rather, their intention was to say that they accept that this indeed is the price the master of the house said, and on this understanding they hire themselves out,

for they said to him

the workers to the agent:

You are trustworthy to us that this is what the master of the house said.

However, even if the master of the house did not say this, they agreed to do their work even for three.

Or perhaps, they rely on the speech of the master of the house,

and they do not believe his words, and they agreed only to what the master of the house said; and he is obligated to pay them four zuz.

The Gemara now brings a proof for this matter from an agent of divorce. For it is stated in the Torah, in the passage concerning divorce: “And he shall write for her a scroll of severance, and give it into her hand.” And the Sages expounded in tractate Gittin that a woman is divorced only by the giving of the bill of divorce directly from his hand to her hand.

Indeed, if the husband appointed an agent to give the bill of divorce, the agent’s hand is like his hand, and the woman is divorced by the giving of the bill of divorce from the agent’s hand to her hand.

Likewise, if the woman appointed an agent on her behalf to receive the bill of divorce, the agent stands in her place, and she is divorced when the husband or his agent gives the bill of divorce into the hand of her agent; and this agent is called an “agent of acceptance.”

Come and hear,

a woman who says to her agent:

Bring me my bill of divorce,

that is, say to my husband that he should send me my bill of divorce by your hand, and you will become the husband’s agent, to divorce me by giving the bill of divorce into my hand.

And the agent came to the husband and said to him:

Your wife

appointed me as an agent of acceptance, and thus

said, “Receive my bill of divorce for me.”

And he,

the husband,

says

to the agent:

Take

the bill of divorce

as she said

the woman!

Rav Nahman said, Ravva bar Avuha said in the name of Rav: Even if the bill of divorce reached her hand,

through the agent, she

is not divorced.

For the husband did not appoint him as an agent of conveyance, and the woman likewise did not appoint him as her agent of acceptance; and because of this she is not divorced by this bill of divorce, since it was not delivered to her directly by the husband.

Nevertheless,

you may infer from it,

from Rav’s words, that

he relies on his speech,

that the husband believes the words of the woman’s agent, and when he says that he is giving the bill of divorce as the woman said, he bases his words on the words of the agent, and did not intend to say that he is doing this according to what he himself wants; and therefore he did not make him an agent of conveyance.

And since the woman did not make him an agent of acceptance, she cannot be divorced through him.

For if it should enter your mind that he relies on her speech, then, once the bill of divorce reaches her hand, she should at least be divorced,

for the husband did not believe his words, and sent the bill of divorce by his hand only in accordance with the woman’s desire; and if so, he is an agent of conveyance, and she is divorced when the bill of divorce reaches her hand. For the woman’s desire is that the husband make him his agent.

And if so, the same is true in the case of the workers: they do not believe the agent’s words, and because of this they stipulated that their hiring should be according to what the master of the house said.

Rav Ashi said: