Bava Metzia 221

וזה לפי שאין פעולתו אצלו היכי דמי אי דאמר להו שכרכם עלי שכרו עליו הוא דתניא השוכר את הפועל לעשות בשלו והראהו בשל חבירו נותן לו שכרו משלם וחוזר ונוטל מבעל הבית מה שההנה אותו

the latter, because the wages [i.e., the labour for which wages are due] are not with him. How so? If he [the agent] assured them, 'I am responsible for your wages,' then he is responsible.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore subject to the injunction. ');">¹</span> For it has been taught: If one engages a workman to labour on his [work], but directs him to that of his neighbour, he must pay him in full, and receive in turn from the owner [of the work actually done] the value whereby he benefited him! — It holds good only if he said to them, 'The employer is responsible for your wages.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nevertheless, the employer is not subject to the prohibition, because he did not hire the workers himself. ');">²</span>

לא צריכא דאמר להו שכרכם על בעל הבית

Judah b. Meremar used to instruct his attendant, 'Go and engage labourers for me, and say to them, Your employer is responsible for your wages.' Meremar and Mar Zutra used to engage [labourers] on each other's behalf. Rabbah son of R. Huna said: <i>The market traders of Sura do not transgress [the injunction], The wages of him that is hired shall not abide all night</i> [etc,], because It is well known that they rely upon the market day.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore it is implicitly understood and stipulated, as it were, that the worker is not to be paid before. ');">³</span>

יהודה בר מרימר א"ל לשמעיה זיל אגיר לי פועלים ואימא להו שכרכם על בעל הבית מרימר ומר זוטרא אגרי להדדי

IF ENGAGED BY THE HOUR, HE CAN COLLECT IT ALL DAY AND NIGHT. Rab said: A man engaged by the hour for day work can collect [his wages] all day;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if he was engaged until midday, he must be paid during the rest of the day; otherwise the employer transgresses the injunctions quoted above; similarly the rest of the passage. ');">⁴</span> for night work, can collect [it] all night. Samuel maintained: A man engaged by the hour for day work can collect it all day; for night work, all night and the following day.

אמר רבה בר רב הונא הני שוקאי דסורא לא עברי משום בל תלין מידע ידעי דעל יומא דשוקא סמיכי אבל משום בל תשהא ודאי עובר:

We learnt: IF ENGAGED BY THE HOUR, HE CAN COLLECT IT ALL DAY AND NIGHT, this refutes Rab!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For Samuel can say that it applies to a night worker, but on Rab's view it can apply to ');">⁵</span> — Rab can answer you: It is meant disjunctively. [Thus:] If engaged by the hour for day work, he can collect his wages all day; for night work, he can collect it all night.

שכיר שעות גובה כל הלילה וכל היום: אמר רב שכיר שעות דיום גובה כל היום שכיר שעות דלילה גובה כל הלילה ושמואל אמר שכיר שעות דיום גובה כל היום ושכיר שעות דלילה גובה כל הלילה וכל היום

We learnt: IF ENGAGED BY THE WEEK, MONTH, YEAR OR SEPTENNATE, IF THE TIME EXPIRES BY DAY, HE CAN COLLECT HIS WAGE THE WHOLE OF THAT DAY; IF BY NIGHT, HE CAN COLLECT [IT] ALL NIGHT AND THE FOLLOWING DAY!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And finishing during the day or the night is the same as the case of an hour worker, and thus refutes Rab, ');">⁶</span> — Rab can answer you: It is a dispute of Tannaim. For it has been taught: A man engaged by the hour for day work collects his wage all day; for night work, all night: this is R. Judah's opinion. R. Simeon said: A man engaged by the hour for day work collects all day; for night work, all night and the [following] day. Hence it was said: Whoever witholds<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'suppresses'. ');">⁷</span>

תנן שכיר שעות גובה כל הלילה וכל היום תיובתא דרב אמר לך רב לצדדין קתני שכיר שעות דיום גובה כל היום שכיר שעות דלילה גובה כל הלילה

the wages of a hired labourer transgresses these five prohibitions of five denominations and one affirmative precept as follows:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] lit., 'names', i.e., designations of negative precepts, the designation being by the characteristic word of the injunction. ');">⁸</span> <i>Thou shalt not oppress thy neighbour;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 13. ');">⁹</span></i>

תנן היה שכיר שבת שכיר חדש שכיר שנה שכיר שבוע יוצא ביום גובה כל היום יוצא בלילה גובה כל הלילה וכל היום

neither rob him;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');">¹⁰</span> Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut.XXIV, 14. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר לך רב תנאי היא דתניא שכיר שעות דיום גובה כל היום שכיר שעות דלילה גובה כל הלילה דברי ר' יהודה ר"ש אומר שכיר שעות דיום גובה כל היום שכיר שעות דלילה גובה כל הלילה וכל היום

The wages of him that is hired shall not abide all night with thee;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. ibid. ');">¹²</span> At his day shalt thou give him his hire;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 15 — these are affirmative precepts. ');">¹³</span>

מכאן אמרו כל הכובש שכר שכיר עובר בה' שמות הללו ועשה משום (ויקרא יט, יג) בל תעשוק את ריעך ומשום (ויקרא יט, יג) בל תגזול ומשום (דברים כד, יד) בל תעשוק שכיר עני ומשום (ויקרא יט, יג) בל תלין ומשום (דברים כד, טו) ביומו תתן שכרו ומשום (דברים כד, טו) לא תבא עליו השמש

and, <i>neither shall the sun go down upon it.</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');">¹⁴</span> But Surely those that apply at day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to a worker hired by the day. ');">¹⁵</span>

הני דאיכא ביממא ליכא בליליא דאיכא בליליא ליכא ביממא אמר רב חסדא שם שכירות בעלמא

do not apply at night, and those that apply at night do not apply at day! — Said R. Hisda: It refers to hiring in general.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., these injunctions were written in connection with hiring workers, though it is indeed true that in no single instance are they all infringed together. ');">¹⁶</span> What is meant by 'oppression' and 'robbery'? — R. Hisda said: 'Go, and come again,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. III, 28. ');">¹⁷</span>

איזה הוא עושק ואיזהו גזל א"ר חסדא (משלי ג, כח) לך ושוב לך ושוב זה הוא עושק יש לך בידי ואיני נותן לך זה הוא גזל

go and come again' — that is 'oppression';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., continually deferring payment, though intending to pay eventually. ');">¹⁸</span> 'You have indeed a charge upon me, but I will not pay it' — that is 'robbery'. To this R. Shesheth demurred:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [It is clear from Rashi that what follows is not a citation from a Baraitha, but a piece of R. Shesheth's own Biblical exegesis.] ');">¹⁹</span>

מתקיף לה רב ששת איזהו עושק שחייבה עליו תורה קרבן דומיא דפקדון דקא כפר ליה ממונא אלא אמר רב ששת נתתיו לך זהו עושק יש לך בידי ואיני נותן לך זה הוא גזל

For what form of 'oppression' did Scripture impose a sacrifice?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. V, 20, 25: If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered to him to keep ([H]), or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence ([H]) or hath oppressed his neighbour ([H])&nbsp;… he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord. ');">²⁰</span> For that which is analogous to a bailment,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'In that which was delivered to him to keep.' ');">²¹</span>

מתקיף לה אביי איזה הוא גזל שחייבה עליו תורה קרבן דומיא דפקדון בעינן דקא כפר ליה ממונא אלא אמר אביי לא שכרתיך מעולם זה הוא עושק נתתיו לך זה הוא גזל

where one [falsely] repudiates a debt of money [or its equivalent]! — But, said R. Shesheth, 'I have paid you' — that is 'oppression'; 'You have indeed a charge upon me but I will not pay you' — that is 'robbery'. To this Abaye demurred:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Cf. p. 634, n. 14]. ');">²²</span> What is 'robbery' for which Scripture imposed a sacrifice? — That which is analogous to a bailment, where one falsely repudiates a [debt of] money [or its equivalent]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But admitting liability whilst refusing to pay is not repudiation. ');">²³</span>

ולרב ששת מאי שנא עושק דקשיא ליה ומאי שנא גזל דלא קשיא ליה אמר לך גזל דגזליה והדר כפריה

— But, said Abaye, 'I never engaged you' — that is 'oppression'; 'I paid you' — that is 'robbery'. Now, as for R. Shesheth, how does 'oppression' differ from 'robbery', that he objected to the former, but not the latter?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the same Baraitha [or 'exegesis', v. p. 634, n. 14] which refutes R. Hisda's definition of 'oppression,' refutes his own of 'robbery' too. ');">²⁴</span> — He can answer you: 'Robbery' implies that he first robs him and then repudiates [liability].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' privately he admitted liability, but refused to pay, thereby robbing him; but when sued at court, he repudiated lability altogether. Thus his definition is not opposed to the other, which is based on Biblical exegesis. ');">²⁵</span>

אי הכי אפילו עושק נמי דהדר כפריה הכי השתא בשלמא התם כתיב (ויקרא ה, כא) או בגזל מכלל דאודי ליה מעיקרא אבל גבי עושק מי כתיב או בעושק (ויקרא ה, כא) או עשק כתיב שעשקו כבר

If so, may not 'oppression' too refer to subsequent repudiation?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Hisda's definition of oppression may be correct. Privately, he put him off repeatedly, but when sued, denied liability. ');">²⁶</span> — What comparison is there? As for the other [sc. 'robbery'], it is well, for it is written [<i>And lie unto his neighbour</i>]&nbsp;… <i>Or in a thing taken away by violence</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. This implies, the thing having already been taken away by violence, i.e., he refused to settle an admitted liability, he now lies concerning it and denies liability altogether, in accordance with R. Shesheth's amended definition. ');">²⁷</span>

רבא אמר זה הוא עושק זהו גזל ולמה חלקן הכתוב לעבור עליו בשני לאוין:

which implies that he originally made admission to him. But with respect to 'oppression', is it then written, Or in a thing of oppression?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would likewise imply having first oppressed him, he now denies liability. ');">²⁸</span> — <i>or hath oppressed his neighbour</i> is stated, implying that he had already oppressed him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Denying liability as soon as the worker asked for pay. ');">²⁹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אחד שכר אדם ואחד שכר בהמה ואחד שכר כלים יש בו משום (דברים כד, טו) ביומו תתן שכרו ויש בו משום לא תלין פעולת שכיר אתך עד בוקר אימתי בזמן שתבעו לא תבעו אינו עובר עליו המחהו אצל חנוני או אצל שולחני אינו עובר עליו

Raba said: 'Oppression' and 'robbery' are identical. Why then did Scripture divide them? — [To teach] that two negative precepts are infringed. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. WHETHER IT BE THE HIRE OF MAN, BEAST, OR UTENSILS, IT IS SUBJECT TO [THE LAW], AT HIS DAY THOU SHALT GIVE HIM HIS HIRE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut.XXIV 15. ');">³⁰</span>

שכיר בזמנו נשבע ונוטל עבר זמנו אינו נשבע ונוטל אם יש עדים שתבעו (בזמנו) הרי זה נשבע ונוטל

AND, THE WAGES OF HIM THAT IS HIRED SHALL NOT ABIDE WITH THEE UNTIL THE MORNING.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev.XIX 13. ');">³¹</span> WHEN IS THAT? ONLY IF HE DEMANDED [IT] OF HIM; BUT OTHERWISE, THERE IS NO INFRINGEMENT. IF HE GAVE HIM AN ORDER TO A SHOPKEEPER OR A MONEY-CHANGER,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To supply him to the extent of his wages. ');">³²</span>

גר תושב יש בו משום ביומו תתן שכרו ואין בו משום לא תלין פעולת שכיר אתך עד בקר:

HE IS NOT GUILTY OF INFRINGEMENT. A HIRED LABOURER, WITHIN THE SET TIME,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When payment is due, as defined in preceding Mishnah. ');">³³</span> SWEARS AND IS PAID.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 587, n. I. ');">³⁴</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מני מתני' לא תנא קמא דמאחיך ולא רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה מאי היא דתניא

BUT IF HIS SET TIME PASSED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. if the set time has lapsed. ');">³⁵</span> HE CANNOT SWEAR AND RECEIVE PAYMENT; YET IF HE HAS WITNESSES THAT HE DEMANDED PAYMENT (WITHIN THE SET TIME),<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Some texts rightly omit bracketed words, v. infra P. 113a.] ');">³⁶</span> HE CAN [STILL] SWEAR AND RECEIVE IT. ONE IS SUBJECT TO [THE LAW], AT HIS DAY THOU SHALT GIVE HIM HIS HIRE, IN RESPECT OF A RESIDENT ALIEN,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v, p. 407, n. 8. ');">³⁷</span> BUT NOT TO THAT OF, THE WAGES OF HIM THAT IS HIRED SHALL NOT ABIDE WITH THEE UNTIL THE MORNING. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Who is the authority for our Mishnah? [For] it is neither the first Tanna who interpreted '<i>of thy brethren'</i>, or R. Jose son of R. Judah. To what is the reference? — It has been taught: