Bava Metzia 222

מאחיך פרט לאחרים גרך זה גר צדק בשעריך זה אוכל נבילות

[<i>Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be<i>] <i>of thy brethren</i> — this excludes idolaters;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'others', the several injunctions insisting on prompt payment do not apply in regard to them. ');">¹</span></i></i> or of thy strangers — this means a righteous proselyte;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 410, n. 8. ');">²</span>

אין לי אלא שכר אדם מנין לרבות בהמה וכלים ת"ל בארצך כל שבארצך וכולן עוברים בכל השמות הללו

<i>that are in thy gates</i> — i.e., an alien who eats unclean food.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'carcases' i.e., a resident alien. ');">³</span> From this I know [the law only in respect off man's hire; whence do I know to extend it to animals and utensils? From, <i>that are in thy land</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 14. ');">⁴</span>

מכאן אמרו אחד שכר אדם ואחד שכר בהמה ואחד שכר כלים יש בו משום ביומו תתן שכרו ויש בהן משום בל תלין פעולת שכיר רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר גר תושב יש בו משום ביומו תתן שכרו ואין בו משום לא תלין בהמה וכלים אין בהן אלא משום בל תעשק בלבד

implying, all that are in thy land. And in respect of all<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the hire of an Israelite, proselyte, animal, utensil. ');">⁵</span> these injunctions,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., those of Deut. and Lev. ');">⁶</span>

מני אי תנא קמא דמאחיך קשיא גר תושב אי רבי יוסי קשיא בהמה וכלים

all are transgressed. Hence it was said: The hire of man, animal, and utensils are identical in that they are subject to [the laws], <i>At his day shalt thou give him his hire</i>, and, <i>the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning</i>. R. Jose son of R. Judah said: In respect to a resident alien one is subject to [the law], <i>At his day thou shalt give him his hire</i>; but not to that of, <i>Thou shalt not keep all night</i> [the wages of him that is hired, etc.]. In respect of [the hire of] animals and utensils, only the injunction, <i>Thou shalt not oppress</i> [etc.],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 14. ');">⁷</span> is applicable. Now, who is [the authority for our Mishnah]? If the first Tanna, who interpreted <i>'of thy brethren,'</i> the resident alien presents a difficulty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the first Tanna all injunctions apply to a resident alien, in opposition to our Mishnah. ');">⁸</span>

אמר רבא האי תנא תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל הוא דתנא דבי ר' ישמעאל אחד שכר אדם ואחד שכר בהמה ואחד שכר כלים יש בו משום ביומו תתן שכרו ומשום לא תלין גר תושב יש בו משום ביומו תתן שכרו ואין בו משום בל תלין

If R. Jose. [the hire of] animals and utensils presents a difficulty!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For R. Jose does not apply to them the injunction enumerated in our Mishnah. ');">⁹</span> — Said Raba: This Tanna [of our Mishnah] is a Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael, who taught: Whether it be the hire of man, beast, or utensil, it is subject [to the laws], <i>At his day thou shalt give him his hire</i>, and, <i>The wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee</i>. In respect of a resident alien one is subject to [the law]. <i>At his day thou shalt give him his hire</i>, but not to, <i>Thou shalt not keep</i>. [etc.].</i>

מ"ט דת"ק דמאחיך גמר שכיר שכיר ורבי יוסי ברבי יהודה לא גמר שכיר שכיר

<i> What is the reason of the first Tanna who interprets [the verse] '<i>of thy brethren'</i>? — He deduces [identity of law] from the word 'hire' written twice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 14: Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant ([H]) that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates. — The latter part of the verse has been interpreted above as extending the injunction to the hire of a resident alien, animal, and utensils. Lev. XIX. 13: The wages of him that is hired ([H]) shall not abide with thee until the morning. Just as the first verse refers to an Israelite, resident alien, animals and utensils, so the latter too. ');">¹⁰</span></i> R. Jose son of R. Judah, however, does not accept this deduction. But granted that he does not, yet one should be liable to [the law]. At his day thou shalt give him his hire, in respect of animals and utensils too!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since, by exegesis. Deut. XXIV, 14, the preceding verse, extends the law to these; v. n. 4. ');">¹¹</span>

נהי דלא גמר שכיר שכיר בהמה וכלים משום ביומו תתן שכרו נמי ניחייב תני רבי חנניא אמר קרא ולא תבא עליו השמש כי עני הוא מי שהן באין לידי עניות ועשירות יצאו בהמה וכלים שאינן באין לידי עניות ועשירות

— R. Hanania learnt: Scripture saith, Neither shall the sun go down upon it, for he is poor;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 15. ');">¹²</span> [hence it applies only to] those who are subject to poverty or wealth, and so excludes animals and utensils, which are not subject to poverty and wealth. And the first Tanna, how does he interpret this [verse], 'for he is poor'? — It is necessary to shew that the poor receive precedence over the wealthy.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he owes both their hire, or the hire of their animals, or utensils — and has sufficient for one only, the poor must be paid first. ');">¹³</span>

ות"ק האי כי עני הוא מאי עביד ליה ההוא מיבעי להקדים עני לעשיר ורבי יוסי ברבי יהודה ההוא מלא תעשק שכיר עני ואביון נפקא

And R. Jose son of R. Judah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whence does he learn this? ');">¹⁴</span> — That follows from, <i>Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy</i>. And the first Tanna?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely he agrees that this last verse teaches the priority of the poor man! ');">¹⁵</span>

ות"ק חד להקדים עני לעשיר וחד להקדים עני לאביון

— One teaches the priority of the poor man over the rich; the other, the priority of the poor, over the needy.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. [H] (needy) < [H], denotes a desirous person who, in his utter destitution, which is greater than that of a [H] (a 'poor man'), longs for everything. In his longing he is not ashamed to ask, which a poor man is too proud to do. ');">¹⁶</span> And both are necessary. For if we were [merely] informed [of the poor man's priority over] the needy, [I would think that it is] because he [the needy] is not ashamed to demand it [his wage] from him. But as for the wealthy, who is ashamed to demand it from him, I might say that it is not so [viz., that the poor takes no precedence over him]. Whilst if we learnt this in respect to the wealthy, I would think that it is because he is not in need thereof; but as for the needy, who needs it [more], I might argue that it is not so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the poor has no priority over him. ');">¹⁷</span>

וצריכא דאי אשמעינן אביון משום דלא כסיף למתבעיה אבל עשיר דכסיף למתבעיה אימא לא ואי אשמעינן עשיר משום דלא צריך ליה אבל אביון דצריך ליה אימא לא צריכא

Hence both are necessary.</i> <i> Now as to our Tanna, in either case, [it is difficult]: if he accepts the deduction of 'hired' written twice, then even a resident alien should also be included;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Deut, and Lev. ');">¹⁸</span></i>

ותנא דידן מה נפשך אי יליף שכיר שכיר אפילו גר תושב נמי אי לא יליף שכיר שכיר בהמה וכלים מנא ליה

if he rejects it, whence does he know [the inclusion of] animals and utensils? — In truth, he does not accept this deduction. Yet there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in respect to Deut. XXIV, 15: at his day etc. Lev. XIX. 13: The wages of him etc. ');">¹⁹</span> it is different, because Scripture writes, The wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning: implying, whosoever's hire is with thee.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., even of animals and utensils. And since the subject matter of this injunction is identical with that of Deut. XXIV, 15, that too is included. ');">²⁰</span>

לעולם לא יליף שכיר שכיר ושאני התם דאמר קרא ולא תלין פעולת שכיר אתך עד בקר כל שפעולתו אתך אי הכי אפילו גר תושב נמי אמר קרא רעך רעך ולא גר תושב

If so, then even a resident alien too [is meant]! — The Writ saith, [<i>Thou shalt not oppress</i>] <i>thy neighbour</i>: <i>'thy neighbour'</i> [is specified], but not a resident alien. If so, then even animals and utensils too should be excluded! — But Surely 'with thee' is written!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Interpreted as above. ');">²¹</span> What reason have you to include animals and utensils and exclude a resident alien?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Perhaps it is the reverse. ');">²²</span>

אי הכי אפילו בהמה וכלים נמי הא כתיב אתך מה ראית לרבות בהמה וכלים ולהוציא גר תושב מסתברא בהמה וכלים הוה ליה לרבות שכן ישנן בכלל ממון רעך גר תושב אינו בכלל ממון רעך

— It is logical that animals and utensils are to be included, since they come within the category of the property of 'thy neighbour', whereas [the hire of] a resident alien is not within this category.</i> <i> Now the first Tanna, who interpreted 'of thy brethren,' what is his exegesis on <i>'thy neighbour'</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the inclusion of animals, etc., is deduced from the use of 'hired' twice. ');">²³</span></i>

ות"ק דמאחיך האי רעך מאי עבדי ליה ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדתניא רעך ולא עמלקי עמלקי מאחיך נפקא

— He needs this, even as it has been taught: [<i>Thou shalt not oppress</i>] <i>thy neighbour</i>, but not an Amalekite.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A substitution by the censor for original 'heathen'. ');">²⁴</span> An Amalekite? But that follows from 'of thy brethren! — One gives permission in regard to his 'oppression';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the withholding of his wages beyond the set time. ');">²⁵</span>

חד למשרא עושקו וחד למשרא גזלו וצריכי דאי אשמעינן גזלו משום דלא טרח ביה אבל עושקו דטרח גביה אימא לא ואי אשמעינן עושקו משום דלא אתא לידיה אבל גזלו דאתא לידיה אימא לא צריכא

the other, in regard to [the retention] of his 'robbery'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 506, n. 8. ');">²⁶</span> And both are necessary. For if we were informed that [the retention] of his 'robbery' is permitted, that may be because he [the Amalekite] has not worked for him. But as for oppressing him [by withholding his wages] — I would think that that is not [permitted]. Whilst if we were taught thus about oppressing him, that may be because it [his wage] has not yet reached his [the Amalekite's] hand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence he takes nothing away from him that is actually in his possession. ');">²⁷</span>

ורבי יוסי ברבי יהודה האי לא תלין פעולת שכיר אתך עד בקר מאי עביד ליה מיבעיא ליה לכדרב אסי דאמר רב אסי אפילו לא שכרו אלא לבצור לו אשכול אחד של ענבים עובר משום בל תלין

But as to his 'robbery' — I would think [the retention thereof] is not [allowed]. Hence both are necessary.</i> <i> And R. Jose son of R. Judah, how does he interpret this verse, <i>The wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he does not agree that 'with thee' extends the law to the hiring of animals and utensils, ');">²⁸</span></i>

ואידך מואליו הוא נושא את נפשו נפקא דבר המוסר נפשו עליו

— He needs it to teach the law stated by R. Assi, viz., even if he [the employer] engaged him only to vintage a single cluster of grapes, he is subject to, <i>[It] shall not abide,&nbsp;… all night</i>, etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., not even the smallest sum due to a labourer may be withheld all that time. ');">²⁹</span> And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna, who interprets 'with thee' differently, — whence does he learn R. Assi's dictum? ');">³⁰</span> — That follows from the verse, <i>And setteth his soul</i> [i.e., life] <i>upon it</i>, implying, anything for which he risks his life.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 531, n. 3; hence, even the vintaging of a single cluster is included. ');">³¹</span> </i>