Commentary for Bava Metzia 153:13
מהו דתימא בציר זוזא אמריתו לי בציר זוזא יהבינא לכו קמ"ל דאמרי ליה כי אמרנא לך בבציר זוזא דלא הוה קים לך השתא קים לך
'Or they can complete the work and receive two <i>sela's</i>.' Is this not obvious? — This is necessary only when labour costs advanced, and the workers retracted. Thereupon the employer went and persuaded them [to return]. I might think that they can say to him, 'When we allowed ourselves to be persuaded, it was on the understanding that you would increase our remuneration.' Therefore we are informed that he [the employer] can answer them, 'It was on the understanding that I should take particular pains over your food and drink.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not pay you more. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
Tosafot on Bava Metzia
Before in the case of the river overflowing, he didn’t differentiate between if it was likely to overflow or it was not likely to overflow, because, you would think that he would only have agricultural ditches if it was needed regularly, so it must be that the river overflowed regularly (Why can’t we just say that the ditch is just to make it easier for the workers, that they can just put the water from the river right into the ditch? We have to answer that ditches are only made for when the river overflows, and not just for workers). And he doesn’t differentiate between if they are from the city or not, because even if they are from that city, it would still be the Ba’al Habayis’es loss. Because, it is not their problem to know how his field works, if it has ditches or whatever. So, if the river overflows, only the ball habayis would that HIS field was watered. But if the river stops, the whole city would know.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy