Bava Metzia 77b (עז:) — the Talmud in English

If he is a day laborer,

the employer gives him

his

wage

in proportion to the amount of work he performed. And his hand is not on the lower side [receiving less than the wage corresponding to what the employer would have had to add to the final laborer’s wage], because he was prevented by circumstances beyond his control, and therefore he is not penalized.

And likewise,

if he is a contractor, the employer gives him his contracting fee.

And we analyze this:

Who is the author?

In accordance with whose opinion does this beraita proceed?

If you say

that it is in accordance with the opinion of

the Sages,

this cannot be.

For

why specifically state: “If he heard that a relative of his died or that he was seized by a fever,” thereby making him subject to circumstances beyond his control,

and for that reason the employer gives him his wage?

After all,

even when he is not prevented by circumstances beyond his control, as well,

the employer should give him his wage, because

they said,

for

the Sages said: The laborer’s hand is on the upper side,

and he is permitted to withdraw from the agreement.

Rather, is it not

that this beraita is in accordance

with the opinion of Rabbi Dosa?

And learn from this that Rabbi Dosa does not distinguish between hiring and contracting.

That is, since the beraita states that payment is required because they were prevented by circumstances beyond their control, both in the case of a laborer and in the case of a contractor, it follows that if they are not prevented by circumstances beyond their control, in both the case of a laborer and in the case of a contractor, the hand of the one who withdraws is on the lower side—even in the case of a laborer.

If so, this is difficult for Rav. On the one hand, he rules in accordance with Rabbi Dosa, who holds that whether a contractor or a laborer withdraws from the agreement [for a reason other than circumstances beyond his control], his hand is on the lower side; while on the other hand, he rules that a laborer may withdraw in the middle of the day, and his hand is on the upper side!?

And we answer:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

The implication of the beraita that anyone who withdraws without circumstances beyond his control has his hand on the lower side, even a laborer,

applies to a matter involving a loss, and everyone agrees.

Whether according to the Sages or according to Rabbi Dosa, even a laborer may not withdraw, since the employer incurs a loss through the laborer’s withdrawal.

We learned in the Mishna: Anyone who alters

from the terms set by the employer who hired him,

his hand is on the lower side. And anyone who withdraws,

whether the employer or the laborer,

his hand is on the lower side.

And we analyze this:

Granted, the statement: “Anyone who alters, his hand is on the lower side,”

was necessary for the Mishna to teach, in order

that the tanna established an anonymous ruling in accordance with Rabbi Judah,

who holds this opinion [in chapter “One Who Robs Wood,” Bava Kamma 100b], and not in accordance with Rabbi Meir, who holds that he gives him the value of his wool [in the case of one who gives wool to a dyer to dye it red, but he dyes it black].

But the statement, “Anyone who withdraws, his hand is on the lower side”—what does it come to include?

Is it

not to include a laborer,

a day laborer, who likewise, if he withdraws, has his hand on the lower side, and not only a contractor, in accordance with Rabbi Dosa!?

If so, it is explicit that even when the matter does not involve a loss, if he withdraws, his hand is on the lower side.

And we explain:

Rather, Rabbi Dosa stated two rulings:

Both a laborer and a contractor who withdraw have their hands on the lower side.

And Rav agrees with him

in the opinion of Rabbi Dosa

in one matter:

a contractor who withdraws has his hand on the lower side,

but disagrees with him in one matter:

with regard to a withdrawing laborer, for according to Rav, a laborer may withdraw in the middle of the day, and his hand is on the upper side.

And therefore he ruled that a laborer may withdraw in the middle of the day.

Alternatively, the statement “Anyone who withdraws, his hand is on the lower side”

was not stated in order to include a day laborer according to Rabbi Dosa. Rather, it was stated

in accordance with that which was taught:

“Anyone who withdraws”—how so?

If one sold a field to another for one thousand dinars, and the buyer gave him

the seller

two hundred dinars of that amount,

as the beginning of payment for the price of the field,

when the seller withdraws, the buyer’s hand is on the upper side:

If he wishes, he says to him: Give me my money,

those two hundred dinars that I gave you,

or give me land corresponding to my money.

Moreover,

from where does he collect

land corresponding to his money?

From the choicest land [this will be explained below].

as will be explained below].

And when the buyer withdraws, the seller’s hand is on the upper side:

If he wishes, he says to him

the seller:

Here is your money.

If he wishes, he says to him: Here is land corresponding to your money.

And from where does he collect

the seller land corresponding to his money?

From inferior land.

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: The court instructs

those

buyers

who do not have the means to pay the entire price of the land immediately

not to withdraw,

that is, it instructs them to take an action by which the seller and the buyer will be unable to withdraw from the sale.

How so? The seller writes to him

the buyer:

“I, so-and-so son of so-and-so, sold such-and-such a field to so-and-so for one thousand dinars, and he gave me two hundred dinars of that amount.”

And I accept upon myself as though he had given me the entire sum of one thousand dinars, and he subsequently borrowed eight hundred from me. And from now on,

I am his creditor for eight hundred dinars.

Consequently, the entire field is acquired by the buyer immediately, since it is considered as though he paid him the entire sum, and the buyer repays him the remainder even after several years.

The Master said: From where does he collect

the buyer from the seller’s land if the seller withdraws from the sale?

From the choicest land,

the best quality land.

And the Gemara understood:

It might have entered your mind that this means from the choicest land among his properties.

That is, not the choicest portion of the field that was the subject of the sale, but the choicest land among all the seller’s properties.

And the Gemara raises an objection: Why is he obligated to give him land of the choicest quality?

Let him be nothing more than a creditor,

since he owes him money,

and we learned: The law for a creditor is that he collects from intermediate-quality land!?

And furthermore,

it is the land for which he gave him money;

he himself wishes to acquire this particular land, since he paid money for it, so why should the seller not give him land from that field itself corresponding to his money?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

Indeed, he does not give him the choicest land among his properties, but

from the choicest land within it,

from the choice portion of the field that he wished to purchase. And likewise, when we said that in the case of a buyer who withdraws from the sale, he receives land corresponding to his money from inferior land, the intention is

from the inferior land within it.

But

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said: You may even say that he gives him land from the choicest land among his properties

and not merely the choicest portion of that field; nevertheless, one cannot object, “Let him be nothing more than a creditor, and let him take from intermediate-quality land.”

For

ordinarily, one who purchases

who buys

land for one thousand dinars

cannot pay for it without selling some of his properties and receiving money in exchange for them. And in order to sell them quickly,

he lowers the price,

he reduces their value,

and sells

his

properties,

his properties cheaply.

Now, when the seller withdraws, he has caused him a loss, since he sold his properties cheaply and cannot repurchase them.

And he is therefore like one who suffered damage,

and

with regard to one who suffered damage,

we learned: Those who suffer damage are assessed compensation from the choicest land

[from the finest land belonging to the one who caused the damage].

We learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: The court instructs them not to withdraw. How so? He writes: “I, so-and-so son of so-and-so, and so on,”

and I accept upon myself that the matter shall be considered as though I had received the entire sum.

And we analyze this:

The reason is that he wrote this to him,

and for that reason the buyer acquires it and cannot withdraw.

But if he did not write this, he does not acquire it.

But it was taught: If one who gives a deposit

a pledge

to another says to him: “If I withdraw from the sale, my deposit is given to you,”

and you may retain it,

and the other says

he too:

“If I withdraw

from the sale,

I will double your deposit,”

I will return to you twice the value of the deposit,

the conditions take effect; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei.

And the one who withdraws must fulfill his undertaking.

And the Gemara explains:

Rabbi Yosei follows his own reasoning, as he says: An asmachta acquires,

and therefore, although they merely undertook to give the payment in the future, and the sale has not yet taken effect, nevertheless they are obligated to fulfill their undertaking.

Rabbi Judah says: It is sufficient that he acquire land corresponding to his deposit.

That is, the deposit serves as an acquisition through money, and the buyer acquires land equivalent to the value of the deposit.

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel said: When are these words applicable,

that he acquires only land corresponding to his deposit?

When he said to him

the buyer said to the seller:

“Let my deposit acquire!”

Let it acquire as an acquisition through money, in which case he acquires only land corresponding to his money.

But

if

he sold him a field for one thousand dinars, and the buyer gave him five hundred dinars of that amount, he acquires

the entire field, even more than the value of the money he gave him.

And he returns the remainder to him,

the remaining five hundred dinars,

even after several years.

If so, it is proven that even if the seller did not write to him that the matter should be considered as though he had already received the entire price of the land, as explained, the buyer acquires the entire field and not merely land corresponding to his money.

And we answer:

This is not difficult.

Here,

the case in which we learned that he acquires only land corresponding to his money, is one

in which he is persistently demanding the money,

where the seller repeatedly comes to the buyer’s house and demands his money, indicating that he sold his field only because he was under financial pressure and needed money.

And since he is not giving him the entire price of the field, we assess his intention: He agreed to sell it to him only on the understanding that he would receive merely part of the money immediately.

But

this

that we learned in the beraita, that he acquires the entire field and returns the remainder even after several years, refers to a case

in which he is not persistently demanding the money,

where the seller is not so dependent on receiving the money, and it is evident that he agreed to sell it to him even on the understanding that he would receive only part of the money immediately.

For Rabba said: With regard to one who sells something to another, and

the seller

is persistently demanding the money

[as explained],

he does not acquire

anything beyond the amount corresponding to his money.

If he is not persistently demanding the money, he acquires

the entire property.

And Rava said: With regard to one who lends

the borrower

one hundred dinars to another, and he repays him one dinar at a time,

that is, he repays his debt in small installments—on the first day he gives him one dinar, and the next day he gives him another dinar, and so on—

it is considered repayment,

and the lender may not demand that he pay him all at once.

Rather, the lender does have a grievance against him,

and it is as follows:

He says to him

the borrower:

“You caused me to lose them!”

If I had received the money from you all at once, it would have remained safer in my possession, and I would not have squandered it.

There was a certain man who sold

sold

a donkey

a donkey

to another, and one dinar remained outstanding,

he had not yet paid him the final dinar for the donkey,

and he was persistently demanding the money,

he was pursuing him for that final dinar.

Rav Ashi sat and examined the matter,

and was uncertain:

In such a case, what is the law?

Does he

acquire,

since in the end he had already paid him the overwhelming majority of the debt,

or does he not acquire,

since it is evident that he is under financial pressure because of that one outstanding dinar?

Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: This is what Avimi of Hagrunya said in the name of Rava: One dinar

one

is equivalent to many dinars,

it is considered like many,

and he does not acquire.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Yosef, said to Rav Ashi: But did we not say in the name of Rava

that even in such a case

he acquires?