Bava Metzia 77b — the Talmud in English

If he is a day laborer, ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

the homeowner gives him

the

wage

according to the measure of what he worked. And his hand is not on the lower side [at less than his wage according to what the homeowner will have to add to the last worker], because he is compelled, and therefore he is not to be penalized.

And likewise

if he is a contractor, he gives him his contractor’s payment.

And we raise it

who is it,

according to whose words does this beraita proceed?

If you say

according to the words of

the Rabbis,

this is not possible.

For

why particularly “he heard that a relative of his died or that a fever seized him,” and he was compelled,

and for that reason the homeowner gives him his wage?

But also

when he was not compelled, likewise

he should give him his wage, for

they said,

for the Rabbis said

a worker’s hand is on the upper side,

and he is permitted to retract.

Rather, is it not so

that this beraita is according to

the words of Rabbi Dosa.

And learn from it: Rabbi Dosa does not distinguish for him between hiring and contracting.

That is, from the fact that the beraita stated the obligation to pay because they were compelled, both with regard to a laborer and with regard to a contractor, it is proven that if they are not compelled, both with regard to a laborer and with regard to a contractor, the hand of the one who retracts is on the lower side, even with regard to a laborer.

And if so, this is difficult for Rav: On the one hand, he rules according to Rabbi Dosa, who holds that both a contractor and a laborer who retract [not because of force majeure] have their hand on the lower side; and on the other hand, he rules that a laborer can retract in the middle of the day, and his hand is on the upper side!?

And we answer:

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said:

What is implied by the words of the beraita—that everyone who retracts without force majeure has his hand on the lower side, even a laborer—

concerns a matter involving loss, and it is the view of everyone,

both according to the Rabbis and according to Rabbi Dosa: even a laborer cannot retract, since the homeowner suffers a loss through the worker’s retraction.

We learned: “Anyone who changes”

from the words of the homeowner who hired him,

“his hand is on the lower side. And anyone who retracts,”

whether the homeowner or the worker,

“his hand is on the lower side.”

And we raise it:

Granted, “anyone who changes, his hand is on the lower side”—

the Mishna needed to say this in order to clarify

that the anonymous tanna established it according to Rabbi Judah,

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

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

Is it

not to include a worker,

a day laborer, who likewise, if he retracts, has his hand on the lower side, and not only a contractor, and according to Rabbi Dosa?!

And if so, it is explained that even if it is not a matter involving loss, if he retracts, his hand is on the lower side.

And we explain:

Rather, Rabbi Dosa stated two things:

both a worker and a contractor who retract have their hands on the lower side.

And Rav holds like him

Rabbi Dosa

in one matter,

that a contractor who retracts has his hand on the lower side,

and disagrees with him in one matter,

with regard to a retracting worker, for according to Rav a worker may retract in the middle of the day, and his hand is on the upper side.

And therefore he ruled that a worker retracts in the middle of the day.

Alternatively, “anyone who retracts, his hand is on the lower side,”

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

as it was taught:

“Anyone who retracts”—how so?

If one sold a field to his fellow for one thousand zuz, and he gave him

the buyer

two hundred zuz of it,

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

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

If he wishes, he says to him, “Give me my money,”

those two hundred zuz that I gave you,

“or give me a portion of the land corresponding to my money.”

Moreover,

from where does he collect it

land corresponding to his money?

From the finest-quality property [

as will be explained below].

And when the buyer retracts, 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 it

the seller, corresponding to his money?

From inferior-quality property.

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: The court instructs

the

those

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

so that they should not retract,

that is, it instructs them to do something through which the seller and the buyer will not be able to retract from the sale.

How so? He writes to him

the seller to the buyer:

“I, so-and-so son of so-and-so, sold such-and-such a field to so-and-so for one thousand zuz, and he gave me two hundred zuz of it,”

and I accept upon myself as though he gave me the entire sum of one thousand zuz, and afterward borrowed from me eight hundred. And from now on,

I am a creditor of his for eight hundred zuz.

And consequently, the entire land is acquired immediately by the buyer, since the matter is considered as though he paid him the entire sum, and the buyer returns the remainder to him, even after several years.

The master said: “From where does he collect it”

the buyer from the seller’s land, if the seller retracts from the sale?

From the finest-quality property,

the most select.

And the Gemara assumed:

It enters your mind, from the finest-quality property of his assets.

That is, not the finest portion of the land that was the subject of the sale, but the finest land among all the seller’s assets.

And the Gemara objects: Why is he obligated to give him from the finest-quality property?

“And let him be nothing more than a creditor,”

for he owes him money,

“and we learned: A creditor’s law is in intermediate-quality property!?”

Furthermore,

“Is it not the land for which he gave money,”

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

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said:

Indeed, he does not give him from the finest property of his assets, but

from the finest property within it,

from the select portion of the land that he wished to buy. And likewise, what we said regarding a buyer who retracts from the sale, that he receives inferior-quality property corresponding to his money, the intention is

from the inferior-quality property within it.

But

Rav Aha, son of Rav Ika, said: You may even say that he gives him from the finest property of his assets [

and not only the select portion of that field]; one cannot object, “Let him be nothing more than a creditor, and let him take from intermediate-quality property.”

For

an ordinary person who sells

who buys

land for one thousand zuz

cannot provide its price without selling assets and receiving money for them. And in order to sell them quickly,

he lowers the price,

he reduces their price,

and sells

he sells

his assets,

his assets cheaply.

And now, when the seller retracts, he has caused him a loss. For he sold his assets cheaply and cannot purchase them again.

And he is therefore like one who suffered damage,

and

with regard to one who suffered damage

we learned: Those who suffered damage are assessed for them from the finest-quality property [

from the best of the damager’s lands].

We learned in a beraita:

“Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: We instruct them not to retract. How so? He writes: ‘I, so-and-so son of so-and-so, etc.’”

And I accept upon myself that the matter be considered as though I had received it.

And we raise it:

The reason is that he wrote this to him,

and for that reason he acquires it and cannot retract.

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

But it was taught: One who gives a pledge

a security

to his fellow, and says to him: “If I retract from the sale, my pledge is given to you,”

and you may retain it,

and the other says

he too:

“If I retract

from the sale,

I will double your pledge,”

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

“the conditions have been fulfilled; these are the words of Rabbi Yose.”

And the one who retracts must stand by his undertaking.

And the Gemara explains:

Rabbi Yose follows his own reasoning, for he says: An asmachta acquires,

and therefore, although they undertook only to give it in the future, and the sale has not taken effect now, nevertheless they are obligated to stand by their undertaking.

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

That is, the pledge serves as a money acquisition, and the buyer acquires land to the value of the pledge.

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel said: When are these words stated

that he acquires only corresponding to his pledge?

When he said to him

the buyer to the seller:

“Let my pledge acquire!”

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

But

if

he sold him a field for one thousand zuz, and the buyer gave him five hundred zuz of it, he acquired

the buyer acquired the entire land, even more than the value of the money that he gave him.

And he returns the remainder to him,

the remaining five hundred zuz,

even after several years.

And if so, it is proven that even if the seller did not write to him that the matter would be considered as though he had already received the entire price of the land, as was explained, the buyer acquired the entire land, and not only corresponding to his money.

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

This,

what we learned—that he acquires only corresponding to his money—concerns a case

in which he repeatedly comes and goes for the money,

where the seller enters and leaves the buyer’s house and demands his money from him, and it is evident that he sold his field only because he was pressed and needed money.

And since he does not give 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 only part of the money now.

But

this

that we learned in the beraita, that he acquired the whole of it and returns the remainder to him even after several years, concerns a case

in which he does not repeatedly come and go for the money,

where the seller does not need the money so greatly, and it is evident that he agreed to sell it to him even on the understanding that he would receive part of the money now.

For Rabba said: One who sells an object to his fellow, and

the seller

repeatedly comes and goes for the money [

as explained],

does not acquire

except corresponding to his money.

If he does not repeatedly come and go for the money, he acquires

the whole of it.

And Rava said: One who lends,

the lender,

one hundred zuz to his fellow, and he repays him one zuz at a time.

That is, he repaid his debt to him little by little: on the first day one zuz, and likewise the next day he gave him another zuz, and so on.

It is repayment,

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

Rather, the lender has a grievance against him,

and it is this:

For he says to him

the borrower,

“You caused me to lose them!”

If I had received them from you all at once, they would have been better preserved in my possession, and I would not have squandered them.

There was a certain man who sold

sold

a donkey

a donkey

to his fellow, and one zuz remained outstanding,

he had not yet paid him the last zuz for the donkey,

and he repeatedly came and went for the money,

he was pursuing that last zuz.

Rav Ashi sat and examined it,

and was uncertain:

In such a case, what is the law?

Does he

acquire,

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

or does he not acquire,

for it is evident that he is pressed because of the lack of that one zuz?

Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: Thus Avimi of Hagrunya said in the name of Rava: One zuz

one

is like zuz

many in value,

and he does not acquire.

Rav Aha, 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?