Bava Metzia 223

ואידך ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדתניא (דברים כד, טו) ואליו הוא נושא את נפשו מפני מה עלה זה בכבש ונתלה באילן ומסר את עצמו למיתה לא על שכרו

And the other? — That is needed, even as it has been taught: And he setteth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'lifteth up.' ');">¹</span>

דבר אחר ואליו הוא נושא את נפשו כל הכובש שכר שכיר כאילו נוטל נפשו ממנו רב הונא ורב חסדא חד אמר נפשו של גזלן וחד אמר נפשו של נגזל

his soul [i.e., life] upon it: why did this man [the labourer] ascend the ladder, suspend himself from the tree, and risk death itself; was it not that you should pay him his wages?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that for withholding it one is punished as for taking life. ');">²</span>

מאן דאמר נפשו של גזלן דכתיב (משלי כב, כב) אל תגזל דל כי דל הוא ואל תדכא עני בשער וכתיב (משלי כב, כג) כי ה' יריב ריבם וקבע את קבעיהם נפש ומ"ד נפשו של נגזל דכתיב (משלי א, יט) כן ארחות כל בוצע בצע את נפש בעליו יקח

Another interpretation: And he setteth his soul upon it [teaches]: he who withholds an employee's wages is as though he deprived him of his life. R. Huna and R. Hisda [differ on this]: one says. The life of the robber [is meant];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he brings death upon himself, ');">³</span>

ואידך נמי הכתיב את נפש בעליו יקח בעליו דהשתא ואידך נמי הכתיב וקבע את קבעיהם נפש מה טעם קאמר מה טעם קבע את קבעיהם משום דנטלו נפש:

the other, The life of the robbed. The view that the life of the robber is meant is based on the verse, Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' prov, XXII, 22. ');">⁴</span>

אימתי בזמן שתבעו לא תבעו אינו עובר עליו: ת"ר לא תלין פעולת שכיר יכול אפילו לא תבעו ת"ל אתך לדעתך

which is followed by, For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 23. ');">⁵</span>

יכול אפי' אין לו ת"ל אתך שיש אתך יכול אפי' המחהו אצל חנוני ואצל שולחני ת"ל אתך ולא שהמחהו אצל חנוני ואצל שולחני:

Whilst the opinion that it means the life of the robbed follows from, So are the ways of every one that is greedy of gain; he taketh away the life of its [rightful] owner.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid, I, 19. ');">⁶</span>

המחהו אצל חנוני ואצל שולחני אינו עובר: איבעיא להו חוזר או אינו חוזר רב ששת אמר אינו חוזר ורבה אמר חוזר

And the other too: is it not written, he taketh away the life of its [rightful] owner? — It means, of its present owner.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Translating as the E.V.: which taketh away the life of the owners thereof. ');">⁷</span>

אמר רבה מנא אמינא לה מדקתני אינו עובר עליו מעבר הוא דלא עבר הא מיהדר הדר ורב ששת אמר מאי אינו עובר אינו בתורת לעבור:

And the other too: is it not written, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them? — That states a reason. Thus: Why shall he spoil those that spoiled them? — Because they took their lives.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Translating: and spoil those that spoiled (i.e., deprived them of) their lives. ');">⁸</span>

בעו מיניה מרב ששת קבלנות עובר עליו משום בל תלין או אין עובר משום בל תלין

WHEN IS THAT? ONLY IF HE DEMANDED IT OF HIM; BUT OTHERWISE, THERE IS NO INFRINGEMENT. Our Rabbis taught: The wages of him that is hired shall not abide all night. I might think this holds good even if he did not demand it. Therefore Scripture writes, 'with thee,' meaning., by thy desire.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not by his, i.e., he claimed his wages immediately. ');">⁹</span>

אומן קונה בשבח כלי והלואה היא או אין אומן קונה בשבח כלי ושכירות היא

I might think that even if he lacks it, he is still guilty: but Scripture states, 'with thee,' meaning, only when it [the hire] is with thee. I might think that it [the prohibition] is in force even if he gave him an order to a trader or a money-changer in his favour; but Scripture teaches, 'with thee',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when the charge remains upon thee. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר להו רב ששת עובר והתניא אינו עובר התם שהמחהו אצל חנוני ואצל שולחני

but not if he gave him an order to a trader or a money-changer on his behalf.

נימא מסייעא ליה הנותן טליתו לאומן גמרה והודיעו אפי' מכאן ועד עשרה ימים אינו עובר משום בל תלין נתנה לו בחצי היום מששקעה עליו חמה עובר משום בל תלין

IF HE GAVE HIM AN ORDER TO A SHOPKEEPER OR A MONEYCHANGER ON HIS BEHALF, HE IS NOT GUILTY OF INFRINGEMENT. The scholars propounded: Can he [the employee] return [to the employer] or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the shopkeeper did not supply him. Do the employer's obligations in respect of him still continue, or is the employee considered to have transferred them to another? [Tosaf. rightly points out that the problem under consideration is only in reference to the injunctions relating to the payment within the set time, should the workman return to the employer and ask for his wages; for it is evident that the employer cannot relieve himself of his obligations by merely giving the workman a draft on a shopkeeper.] ');">¹¹</span>

ואי אמרת אומן קונה בשבח כלי אמאי עובר

— R. Shesheth ruled: He cannot return [to him]; Rabbah held: He can return. Rabbah said: Whence do I infer this? — Since it is taught: HE IS NOT GUILTY OF INFRINGEMENT, it is implied, there is only no infringement, yet he can return to him [for payment].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the passage implies that there is still a debt upon the employer, though that particular injunction is no longer applicable. [Tosaf.: The passage implies that there is no infringement as long as the workman relies on the trader for payment.] ');">¹²</span>

אמר רב מרי בריה דרב כהנא בגרדא דסרבלא למאי יהבה ניהליה לרכוכי היינו שבחיה

But R. Shesheth explained: What is meant by, HE IS NOT GUILTY OF INFRINGEMENT? He is no longer within the ambit of infringement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because there is no longer any charge upon him. [Or, because he is no longer under any obligation to pay within the set time. Tosaf.] ');">¹³</span>

לא צריכא דקא אגריה מיניה לבטושי בטשא ובטשא במעתא:

R. Shesheth was asked: Does the injunction. '<i>The wages of him that is hired shall not abide all night</i>' hold good in respect of a contract or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the employee was not engaged by the day, but contracted to do a piece of work. ');">¹⁴</span> Does the artisan obtain a title in return for the improvement [he effected] in the article, so that it [his wages] rank as a loan, or does he not, and hence it is considered wages?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This question is discussed in B.K. 98b, et seq. One view is that when, e.g., wood is given to an artisan and he makes a box, it becomes legally his, on account of his improvements; and when he returns it to his employer it is in the nature of a sale. Hence, with respect to our subject, if the employer does not pay him, he owes him an ordinary debt, as a loan, and so the injunction is inapplicable. If, however, this view be rejected, it remains subject to the law of wages, and the prohibition holds good. ');">¹⁵</span> — R. Shesheth replied: One does transgress [the law]. But has it not been taught: There is no transgression [in this case]? — There it means that he gave him an order to a shopkeeper or a money-changer. Shall we say that the following supports him: If one gave his garment to an artisan [i.e., cloth, to make a garment, which he completed and then informed him [that it was ready], even after ten days he does not transgress [the law], 'Thou shalt not keep all night'. But if he delivered it to him [even] at midday, as soon as the sun sets upon it he is guilty of the transgression. Now, should you say that the artisan obtains a title in return for the improvement [he effects upon] the article, why is he guilty [of that transgression]? — R. Mari son of R. Kahana said: This refers to the removal of the woolly surface of a thick coat.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is not considered an improvement. ');">¹⁶</span> But why did he give it to him [to do this]? [Surely] to soften it! Then that is its improvement?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And so the difficulty remains. ');">¹⁷</span> — But this holds good only if he engaged him for stamping,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A process of flattening cloth. ');">¹⁸</span> every stamping manipulation for a <i>ma'ah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he did not contract for the whole piece of work at all, but was paid according to the amount done. ');">¹⁹</span>