Bava Metzia 235:1

הגיעוך אין שומעין לו משקבל עליו אמר לו הילך את יציאותיך ואני אטול את שלי אין שומעין לו

THEY ARE BECOME YOURS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Remove them yourself, and keep them for your trouble.' ');">¹</span>

השוכר את הפועל לעשות עמו בתבן ובקש ואמר לו תן לי שכרי ואמר לו טול מה שעשית בשכרך אין שומעין לו משקבל עליו ואמר לו הילך שכרך ואני אטול את שלי אין שומעין לו:

HE IS NOT HEEDED. [ON THE OTHER HAND,] IF AFTER THE LATTER AGREED [TO THE PROPOSAL [AND REMOVED THEM] HE SAID, 'HERE ARE YOUR [REMOVAL] EXPENSES, AND I WILL TAKE BACK MINE [THE STONES].' HE IS [LIKEWISE] NOT HEEDED. IF A MAN ENGAGES A LABOURER TO WORK FOR HIM ON STRAW OR STRUBBLE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., to collect or tie it into bundles. ');">²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> נפחתה רב אמר ברובה ושמואל אמר בארבע רב אמר ברובה אבל בארבע אדם זורע חציו למטה וחציו למעלה ושמואל אמר בארבע אין אדם זורע חציו למטה וחציו למעלה

AND WHEN HE DEMANDS HIS WAGES, SAYS TO HIM, 'TAKE THE RESULTS OF YOUR LABOUR FOR YOUR WAGE, HE IS NOT HEEDED. IF AFTER HE AGREED [TO THE PROPOSAL] HE SAID TO HIM, 'HERE IS YOUR PAYMENT, AND I WILL TAKE MY PROPERTY,' HE IS [LIKEWISE] NOT HEEDED.

וצריכא דאי אשמועינן דירה בהא קאמר שמואל משום דלא עבידי אינשי דדיירי פורתא הכא ופורתא הכא אבל לענין זריעה עבידי אינשי דזרעי הכא פורתא והכא פורתא אימא מודה ליה לרב ואי איתמר בהך בהך קאמר רב אבל בהא אימא מודה ליה לשמואל צריכא:

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. BROKEN THROUGH: Rab said, The greater part thereof; Samuel ruled, Four [handbreadths]. 'Rab said, The greater part thereof;' but if only four [handbreadths,] one can sow partly above and partly below.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the garden-owner can only demand an equivalent space in the press, but not transplant his whole garden thither. ');">³</span>

נתנו לו זמן: וכמה זמן ב"ד א"ר יוחנן שלשים יום:

'Samuel said, Four [handbreadths]:' one cannot [be expected to] sow partly above and partly below. Now, both [disputes] are necessary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 116b, where Rab and Samuel dispute likewise with reference to a house. ');">⁴</span>

מי שהיה כותלו כו': הא מדקתני סיפא הילך יציאותיך מכלל דפנינהו עסקינן טעמא דפנינהו הא לא פנינהו לא

For if we taught [it] in connection with a dwelling, [it might be said that] only there does Samuel state his ruling, because it is unusual for a man to dwell partly in one place and partly in another; but with respect to sowing, where it is quite usual for a man to sow here a little and there a little, I might say that he agrees with Rab. Whilst if only the present dispute were stated, [I might argue that] only here does Rab hold this view; but in the other case, he agrees with Samuel. Hence both are necessary.

אמאי ותקנה ליה שדהו דאמר ר' יוסי בר' חנינא חצירו של אדם קונה לו שלא מדעתו

IF HE WAS GIVEN A [FIXED] TIME. And what time is given by the Court? — Said R. Johanan: Thirty days.

ה"מ היכא דקא מיכוין לאקנויי ליה אבל הכא אישתמוטי הוא דקא מישתמיט ליה:

IF A MAN'S WALL etc. But since the last clause teaches, 'HERE ARE YOUR [REMOVAL] EXPENSES,' it follows that he [the garden owner] has removed them. Thus, it is only because he removed them;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That they belong to the garden owner. ');">⁵</span>

השוכר לעשות עמו בתבן כו': וצריכא

but why so? Let his field effect possession for him! For R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: A man's courtyard effects possession for him even without his knowledge! — That is only where he [the original owner] desires to grant him possession; but here he merely seeks to evade him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He does not really wish the garden owner to have the bricks, but seeks to evade his responsibilities by telling him to clear them away and keep them for himself, thinking, however, to claim them subsequently. Therefore, unless the latter actually takes advantage of the offer, the bricks remain his. ');">⁶</span>

דאי אשמועינן להך קמייתא דכי קאמר ליה הגיעוך אין שומעין לו משום דלית ליה אגרא גביה אבל הכא דאית ליה אגרא גביה אימא שומעין לו דאמרי אינשי ממרי רשותיך פארי אפרע

IF A MAN ENGAGES A LABOURER TO WORK WITH HIM ON STRAW etc. Now, both are necessary. For if only the first were stated, that when he proposes, 'LET THEM BE YOURS', HE IS NOT HEEDED, [it might be said that] that is because he [the garden owner] has no wage claim upon him; here, however, that he [the labourer] has a wage claim, I might argue that he [the employer] is listened to, because it is proverbial, 'From your debtor accept [even] bran in payment.' Whilst if this clause [alone] were taught, [it might be that] only in this case, once he [the worker] accepts the proposal, is he [the employer] not heeded,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he desires to go back upon it. ');">⁷</span>

ואי אשמועינן הכא הכא שמשקבל עליו אין שומעין לו משום דאית ליה אגרא גביה אבל הכא דלית ליה אגרא גביה אימא שומעין לו צריכא:

because he has a wage claim upon him;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore has a strong title to the materials, since they were offered in lieu of wages. ');">⁸</span>

אין שומעין לו: והתניא שומעין לו אמר רב נחמן לא קשיא כאן בשלו כאן בשל חבירו

but in the former case, where he has no wage claim upon him, I might think that he is heeded:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When desiring to cancel his accepted proposal. ');">⁹</span>

א"ל רבה לרב נחמן בשלו מ"ט דא"ל אגרא עלך בשל חבירו נמי שכרו עליו דתניא השוכר את הפועל לעשות בשלו והראהו בשל חבירו נותן לו שכרו משלם וחוזר ונוטל מבעל הבית מה שההנה אותו

hence both are necessary.

אלא אמר רב נחמן לא קשיא כאן בשלו כאן בשל הפקר

HE IS NOT HEEDED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he offers the workman the material in lieu of wages. ');">¹⁰</span>

איתיביה רבא לרב נחמן מציאת פועל לעצמו אימתי בזמן שאמר לו בעל הבית נכש עמי היום או עדור עמי היום אבל אם אמר לו עשה עמי מלאכה היום מציאתו לבעל הבית

But has it not been taught. He is heeded? — Said R. Nahman: There is no difficulty: here [in the Mishnah] the reference is to his own work, there [in the Baraitha], to his neighbour's.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the labourer was employed to work for a third party, he can be forced to accept the materials in lieu of wages. ');">¹¹</span>

אלא אמר רב נחמן לא קשיא כאן בהגבהה כאן בהבטה

Raba said to R. Nahman: [When he is employed] on his own, what is the reason [that he is not heeded]? Because he [the labourer] can say to him, 'You are responsible for my wages'? [But when employed] by his neighbour he can also say to him, 'You are responsible for my hire'! For it has been taught: If one engaged an artisan to labour on his [work], but directed him to his neighbour's, he must pay him in full, and receive from the owner [of the work actually done] the value of the labour whereby he benefited! — But, said R. Nahman, there is no difficulty: here it refers to his own; there, to that of <i>hefker</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. R. Nahman maintains (supra 10a) that if a person lifts up an object of hefker on his neighbour's behalf, it belongs to himself. Hence, when a worker collects sheaves of hefker for an employer, they belong to himself, and therefore the offer must be accepted. ');">¹²</span>

אמר רבה הבטה בהפקר תנאי היא דתנן שומרי ספיחי שביעית נוטלין שכרן מתרומת הלשכה ר' יוסי אומר הרוצה מתנדב הוא ושומר חנם אמרו לו אתה אומר כן אין באין משל צבור

Raba raised an objection against R. Nahman: That which is found by a labourer [whilst working for another] belongs to himself. When is that? If the employer had instructed him, 'Weed or dig for me to — day.' But if he said to him. 'Work for me to-day' [without specifying the nature of the work], his findings belong to the employer!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 10a. ');">¹³</span>

מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דת"ק סבר הבטה בהפקר קני ואי יהיבי ליה אגרא אין ואי לא לא ורבי יוסי סבר הבטה בהפקר לא קני וכי אזלי צבור ומייתי השתא הוא דקא זכי ביה

— But, said R. Nahman, there is no difficulty: here [in the Mishnah] the reference is to lifting up; there, to watching.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'looking'. In both instances the reference is to hefker. But if the labourer was engaged to tie sheaves, thus having to lift them up, his employer acquires title to them, and therefore must pay him. But if his work was to keep guard, the mere watching does not effect possession, and therefore his employer can force him to accept them as his wages. ');">¹⁴</span>

ומה אתה אומר הכי קאמרי ליה מדבריך לדברינו אין עומר ושתי לחם באין משל צבור

Rabbah said: [Whether] 'watching' [effects possession] in the case of <i>hefker</i> is disputed by Tannaim. For we learnt: Those who keep guard over the aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year are paid out of Temple funds.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the terumah of the Chamber', i.e., the funds contributed by shekel payers. ');">¹⁵</span>

אמר רבא לא דכ"ע הבטה בהפקר קני והכא חיישינן שמא לא ימסרם יפה יפה קמיפלגי דרבנן סברי יהבינן ליה אגרא ואי לא חיישינן שמא לא ימסרם יפה יפה

R. Jose said: He who wishes can donate [his work] and be an unpaid watcher. Said they [the Sages] to him: You say so, [but then] they are not provided by the public.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A sheaf of the earliest barley crop was brought as a heave offering in the Temple; likewise two loaves made of the first wheat to ripen (Lev. XXIII. 10f. 17). These had to be public property, and not that of any individual, and men were engaged and paid out of public funds to watch over a field of corn to see which sheaves ripened the earliest. As there was no sowing in the seventh year, there could only be a crop spontaneously grown from seed that had fallen the previous year. This crop was hefker, as all seventh year crops were, and the Tannaim dispute whether the watchman had to accept payment or not. ');">¹⁶</span>

רבי יוסי סבר לא חיישינן שמא לא ימסרם יפה יפה ומה אתה אומר הכי קאמרי ליה מדבריך לדברינו דחיישינן שמא לא ימסרם יפה יפה אין עומר ושתי לחם באין משל צבור

Now, surely, the dispute is on this question: the first Tanna holds that 'watching' <i>hefker</i> effects possession;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The aftergrowth thus belong to the watchman. ');">¹⁷</span>

איכא דאמרי רבא אמר דכ"ע הבטה בהפקר לא קני והכא בחיישינן לבעלי זרועות קמיפלגי דת"ק סבר דתקינו רבנן למיתב ליה ארבע זוזי כי היכי דלישמעי בעלי זרועות וליפרשו מינייהו ור' יוסי סבר לא תקינו

hence, if he is paid, it is well,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For then possession is effected on behalf of the public. ');">¹⁸</span> but not otherwise. Whilst R. Jose maintains that 'watching' does not effect possession of <i>hefker</i>; hence, only when the community go and fetch it is possession effected. And what is meant by. 'You say [etc.]'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that according to R. Jose the sheaves are not the property of the watcher. ');">¹⁹</span> They said thus to him: From your statement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he may forego payment. ');">²⁰</span> [and] on the basis of our ruling,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That watching gives a title to hefker. ');">²¹</span> [it transpires that] the omer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sheaf of barley. Lev. XXIII. 9ff. ');">²²</span> and the two loaves<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Made of the new wheat, ibid. 16ff. ');">²³</span> are not provided by the public!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We thus see that the question whether 'watching' effects possession in hefker is a point of issue between Tannaim. ');">²⁴</span> — Said Raba: That is not so. <i>All</i> agree that 'watching' effects possession of <i>hefker</i>; but they differ here as to whether we fear that he will not deliver it whole-heartedly. Thus, the Rabbis hold that he must be paid, for otherwise there is the fear lest he does not deliver it wholeheartedly,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if it is not surrendered whole-heartedly, it belongs to the watchman, and is thus not provided by the public. ');">²⁵</span> whilst R. Jose holds that this fear is not entertained. And what is meant by 'You say'? — They say thus to him: From your statement, [and] on the basis of our ruling that we fear that it will not be surrendered whole-heartedly, the <i>'omer</i> and the two loaves are not provided by the public. Others say, Raba said: <i>All</i> agree that 'watching' does not effect possession in the case of <i>hefker</i>; but they dispute here whether we entertain a fear of violent men. The first Tanna holds that the Rabbis enacted that he shall be paid four <i>zuz</i>, so that violent men may hear thereof<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is being watched on behalf of hekdesh. ');">²⁶</span> and hold aloof;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Otherwise, they may think that he is watching it on his own behalf and seize it themselves; for though they respect the rights of hekdesh, they will not respect those of a private individual. ');">²⁷</span> whilst R. Jose holds that they did not enact [thus].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fear being groundless. ');">²⁸</span>