Bava Metzia 224

שכיר בזמנו נשבע ונוטל וכו': שכיר אמאי תקינו ליה רבנן למשתבע ושקיל

A HIRED LABOURER, WITHIN THE SET TIME, SWEARS AND IS PAID. Why did the Rabbis enact that a hired labourer should swear and receive [payment]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The general principle being the reverse; v. p. 572. n. 6. ');">¹</span>

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכות גדולות שנו כאן הני הלכתא נינהו הני תקנות נינהו אלא אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל תקנות גדולות שנו כאן גדולות מכלל דאיכא קטנות

— Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: Great laws were taught here.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., of great importance, as the Talmud proceeds to explain. ');">²</span>

אלא אמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל תקנות קבועות שנו כאן שבועה דבעל הבית היא ועקרוה רבנן לשבועה דבעל הבית ושדיוה אשכיר משום כדי חייו דשכיר ומשום כדי חייו דשכיר מפסדנא ליה לבעל הבית

Are these then [traditional] 'laws'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. [H], i.e., Scriptural, or traditionally ascribed to Moses. ');">³</span>

בעל הבית גופיה ניחא ליה דמשתבע שכיר ושקיל כי היכי דליתגרו ליה פועלים שכיר גופיה ניחא ליה דמשתבע בעל הבית ויפקע כי היכי דליגרוהו בעל הבית על כרחיה אגר שכיר נמי בעל כרחיה איתגר

They are surely merely [Rabbinical] measures! — But said Rab Judah in Samuel's name: Important enactments were taught here. 'Important'? Does that imply the existence of unimportant ones?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., worthy to be perpetuated. ');">⁴</span>

אלא בעל הבית טרוד בפועלים הוא אי הכי ניתב ליה בלא שבועה כדי להפיס דעתו של בעל הבית

— But, said R. Nahman in Samuel's name: Fixed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not! ');">⁵</span>

וניתב ליה בעדים טריחא להו מילתא וניתב ליה מעיקרא שניהם רוצים בהקפה

measures were taught here. Thus: The oath is the employer's privilege, but the Rabbis took it away from the employer and imposed it upon the employee, for the sake of his livelihood. And on account of the employee's livelihood, are we to cause loss to the employer?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since legally it is his privilege to swear to be free from payment. ');">⁶</span>

אי הכי אפי' קצץ נמי אלמה תניא אומן אומר שתים קצצת לי והלה אומר לא קצצתי לך אלא אחת המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה קציצה ודאי מידכר דכירי ליה אינשי

— The employer himself is pleased that the employee should swear and be paid, so that workers should engage themselves to him. [On the contrary], the employee himself is pleased that the employer should take an oath and be exempt, so that he should engage him! — The employer is bound to engage [labourers]. But the employee too is forced to seek employment! — But [the reason is that] the employer is busily occupied with his labourers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 587. n. 1. ');">⁷</span>

אי הכי אפי' עבר זמנו נמי אלמה תנן עבר זמנו אינו נשבע ונוטל חזקה אין בעל הבית עובר משום בל תלין

If so, let us award it [the wages] to him without an oath! — [The oath is] in order to appease the employer. Then let him pay him in the presence of witnesses.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis should have enacted that workers must be paid in the presence of witnesses, with the result that if the employer pleads that he paid him without witnesses, the employee could then receive payment without swearing. ');">⁸</span>

והא אמרת בעל הבית טרוד בפועליו הוא הני מילי מקמיה דלימטייה זמן חיוביה

— It is too much trouble. Then let him pay him in advance!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Let this be a Rabbinical measure, with the result that if the worker subsequently claims that he has not been paid, he will be disbelieved. ');">⁹</span> — Both prefer credit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The employer, because he may not yet have the money; the employee, because he may lose it whilst working in the field. ');">¹⁰</span> If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Reverting to the final reason. If we assume that the employer, being busily engaged, might have forgotten the exact facts. ');">¹¹</span> even if the dispute concerns a stipulated amount,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'even if he stipulated.' ');">¹²</span> it should be likewise so. Why then has it been taught: If the labourer maintains, 'You arranged with me for two [<i>zuz</i>].' and the other [sc. the employer] pleads, 'I arranged only for one,' the plaintiff must furnish proof?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shebu. 46a. ');">¹³</span> — The stipulated wage is certainly well remembered. [Again] if so, even if the set time passed, he should also be believed. Why did we learn: BUT IF HIS SET TIME PASSED, HE CANNOT SWEAR AND RECEIVE PAYMENT? — It is a presumption that the employer will not transgress [the law]. The wages of him that is hired etc. But have you not said that he is busy with his employees? — That is only before his obligation matures;