Shevuot 45b — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara raises an objection:

if so

that the hired worker is deemed trustworthy against the employer because he is preoccupied with his workers and does not remember whether he paid him, and for this reason the worker collects from him with an oath,

even

if

he fixed

the employer fixed his wage at a sum defined in advance, and the employer claims that he fixed a certain sum with him, whereas the hired worker claims that he fixed a greater sum with him, —

also.

The hired worker, too, will be deemed trustworthy against him. But it is demonstrated from the beraita that this is not so.

Thus it is taught: A craftsman says

to the employer:

You fixed two

for my wage.

And the other,

the employer,

says: I fixed only one for you —

the one who seeks to extract from his fellow, upon him is the proof!

And the craftsman who comes to extract his wage from the employer must bring evidence, through witnesses who testify that the employer fixed the wage with him as he claims.

And it is difficult: Why do we not deem the worker trustworthy with an oath?

And the Gemara answers:

As for fixing the wage, he certainly remembers it [

how much the fixed amount was, the employer certainly remembers]. Therefore, the Sages did not institute that the worker should swear and collect.

However, there is still a difficulty:

if so, even

if

the time passed

for the payment [for a day laborer collects throughout the following night, and a night laborer collects throughout the following day], and he still did not pay him,

also

let us deem the hired worker trustworthy against the employer, and let him collect with an oath.

But it is demonstrated from the beraita that this is not so.

Thus it is taught: The time passed

for the payment

and he did not give him

the employer did not give him his wage,

behold, this

the worker

does not swear and collect,

but he must bring proof that he still had not paid him.

And it is puzzling: Why is he not deemed trustworthy with an oath against the employer?

And the answer is: If the hired worker comes to claim against the employer after the time that he is obligated to pay him his wage has passed, then we say:

There is a presumption that the employer does not transgress the

prohibition of

“You shall not let it remain overnight.”

But

did you not say that

the employer is preoccupied with his workers,

and he thinks that he already paid, and does not know at all that he is transgressing the prohibition of “You shall not let it remain overnight”?

And the answer is:

These words

that he does not remember whether or not he paid,

are before the time of his obligation arrives

before the time when his obligation to pay has arrived.

But,

when the time of his obligation arrives

when the time of the obligation passes,

he applies himself and remembers.

He directs his attention to it, and remembers.

However, there is a difficulty:

And is a hired worker

suspected of being

one who transgresses

because of

“You shall not rob”

and demands his wage twice? And just as we do not suspect the employer of transgressing “You shall not let it remain overnight,” so too we should not suspect the hired worker of transgressing “You shall not rob.” And the answer is:

With regard to the employer, there are two presumptions.

There are two presumptions establishing him as one who will not transgress but will pay:

One, that the employer does not transgress “You shall not let it remain overnight,”

and one, that a hired worker does not delay his wage,

but claims it immediately.

And since the time passed, presumably the hired worker already collected his wage, and did not leave it with the employer during this time.

Rav Naḥman said in the name of Shmuel: They taught

this law, that the hired worker swears and collects his wage,

only when his wage

the employer

[was fixed] in

the presence of

witnesses.

But when he hired him without witnesses, since he can say to him, “I never hired you,”

and if he says this, certainly the hired worker has no opening of the mouth against him,

he can say to him —

“I hired you, and I gave you your wage!”

And he will be deemed trustworthy through this migo, and will be exempt even without an oath.

Rabbi Yitzḥak said to him

to Rav Naḥman:

Correct [

your words are correct].

And Rabbi Yoḥanan also said

like you!

And the Gemara analyzes: From the fact that Rabbi Yitzḥak mentioned only Rabbi Yoḥanan, and did not mention that Resh Lakish [who was seated beside him] also joined him and agreed with him —

by implication,

it may be said and proven

that Resh Lakish disagreed with him.

For Rabbi Yitzḥak participated in Rabbi Yoḥanan’s lecture together with Resh Lakish, as stated, and he would know whether or not he disagreed with Rabbi Yoḥanan!

And the Gemara rejects this: There is no proof of this.

1.

Some say:

The reason that he did not mention Resh Lakish’s words is because

he was delaying him

Resh Lakish.

And he was silent to him

until Rabbi Yoḥanan finished all his words, and only then would he answer him and disagree with him.

Meanwhile, Rabbi Yitzḥak left the beit-midrash and did not hear Resh Lakish’s view. And it is possible that after Rabbi Yoḥanan finished his words, he agreed with him.

2.

And some say: He was drinking from it!

Resh Lakish was drinking water at the time that Rabbi Yoḥanan stated this law,

and he was silent to him.

Because he was in the middle of drinking, and therefore Rabbi Yitzḥak could not bring proof from his silence.

It was also stated

in accordance with the words of Rav Naḥman in the name of Shmuel:

Rav Menashya bar Zevid said in the name of Rav: They taught

that the hired worker collects his wage with an oath

, only when he hired him through witnesses.

But when he hired him without witnesses, since he can say to him, “I never hired you,” he can say to him, “I hired you” —

“and I gave you your wage!”

Rami bar Ḥama said: How excellent

correct and praiseworthy

is this teaching,

that the hired worker collects with an oath only when he was hired through witnesses. But when the employer has a migo, he does not collect with an oath; rather, the employer is exempt even without an oath.

Rava said to him: What excellence is there?

But

if so,

there will be a difficulty from

the oath of custodians that the Merciful One obligated

such as when the custodian says that the deposit was lost or stolen, and is obligated to swear, and the difficulty is:

How can you find it

this oath? For

since he can

say to him

the custodian to the depositor:

“There were never any such things,”

he can say to him

that the vessels he deposited with him

were taken by force,

and become exempt from the oath, for the same reason as the migo mentioned here in the Gemara, through which the employer becomes exempt when he hires the hired worker without witnesses!? Rami bar Ḥama answered him: The oath of custodians from the Torah is possible where

he deposited it with him

the employer deposited the deposit in the custodian’s hands

through witnesses.

And then he does not have the migo. Since he cannot say, “There were never any such things,” for the witnesses testify that he deposited it with him.

Rava said to him: He still has the migo. Since

since he can say to him, “I returned it to you,” [

for the witnesses testify only that he deposited it. But they do not know whether or not he returned the deposit to him]. And through this,

can he say to him, “It was taken by force”?

And Rami bar Ḥama answered him: It is referring

to a case where he deposited it with him by means of a document.

He deposited the deposit and wrote a document concerning this deposit.

And then the custodian cannot claim, “I returned it to you.” Since if so, the custodian should have demanded from him the document that he wrote at the time of the deposit. And since the document is in the depositor’s possession and not in the custodian’s possession, it is proven that he still had not returned the deposit.

And the Gemara infers from the words of both of them:

By implication, both of them,

Rava and Rami bar Ḥama,

hold

that

one who deposits with his fellow through witnesses —

need not return it to him through witnesses. [

And the proof is from this: When Rava argued to Rami bar Ḥama that he can say, “I returned it,” through a migo from “It was taken by force,” Rami bar Ḥama did not answer him that he must return it to him through witnesses; rather, he answered him that he deposited it by means of a document. And it is proven that indeed he need not return it to him through witnesses.]

But one who deposits with his fellow, and the custodian signed with him

in a document

concerning the deposit —

must return it to him through witnesses,

or the custodian must demand the document from the depositor. And if he has no witnesses or does not have the document in his possession, he is liable! [

And the proof is from the fact that Rami bar Ḥama answered him, “He deposited it by means of a document.” Consequently, if he does not have the document in his possession, he swears and has no migo. Since he should have demanded the document upon returning the deposit, or established witnesses concerning this, and Rava accepted this answer.]

Rami bar Hama raised it against

the words of Rav Sheshet:

“And David placed these matters upon his heart.”

He took these matters to heart, to know whether their words were indeed correct: that one who hires his fellow without witnesses is trusted by virtue of a migo that “it never happened.”

Rav Sheshet encountered Rabbah bar Shmuel. He said to him: Has master taught anything

concerning the laws stated with regard to a hired worker?

He said to him: Yes!

And this:

We learned: A hired worker

who demands his wages

at their time,

within the time for collection,

takes an oath and collects

his wages from the employer.

And the Gemara asks:

How

does this law operate, that he takes an oath and collects? [That is, what is the hired worker’s claim, and what is the employer’s claim]

When he said to him

the hired worker to the employer:

“You hired me, but you did not give me my wages,” and the other

the employer

says: “I hired you and gave you your wages.”

Then the law is that the worker takes an oath that he did not receive his wages, and collects.

But

if

he said to him

the hired worker: An amount of

“Two did you fix”

you set and agreed for me as my wages.

And the other,

the employer,

says: “I fixed for you only one.”

The law is that

the one who extracts from his fellow

that is, the worker who wishes to take from the employer—

the burden of proof is upon him!

And the Gemara infers:

Is it not from the seifa

of this Mishna, which discusses the case in which he demands from him an agreement of two, while he admits to him an agreement of one—that he collects only

with proof,

it follows that

the reisha

in which they dispute whether the employer paid the hired worker’s wages at all or not, he takes an oath and collects even

without proof.

And it is proven from here, not in accordance with Rav and Shmuel, who say that the law of our Mishna—that he takes an oath and collects—applies only when he hired him in the presence of witnesses, which constitute proof. But without witnesses, the employer is trusted by virtue of a migo.

And from the words of the Mishna it is implied that the worker does not require any proof—apart from the oath that he takes.