Shevuot 90

Chapter 90

א אי הכי אפילו קצץ נמי אלמה תניא אומן אומר שתים קצצת לי והלה אומר לא קצצתי לך אלא אחת המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה קציצה ודאי מידכר דכיר ליה
1 If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If you say that the labourer takes the oath and receives his wages, because the employer is too busy with his workmen to remember whether he had paid or not.');"><sup>1</sup></span> even in the case where he fixed [the wages], also [let the labourer take the oath];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the dispute is as to the amount that had been agreed upon, let us also say that the labourer should swear and receive what he claims.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב אי הכי אפי' עבר זמנו נמי אלמה תניא עבר זמנו ולא נתן לו הרי זה אינו נשבע ונוטל
2 wherefore has it been taught: [If] the artisan says: 'Two [zuz] did you stipulate to pay me,' and the other says: 'I stipulated t pay you only one;' he who wishes to exact from his neighbour must bring proof!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The artisan who claims an extra one (zuz, denar, or any coin) must bring witnesses to testify that his claim is correct. Why should he not take an oath and receive his money, without witnesses?');"><sup>3</sup></span> - The amount fixed [as wages] he certainly remembers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The employer may possibly not remember whether he paid the labourer, but he remembers the amount he stipulated to pay; therefore the labourer is not in this case more reliable than the employer, and must bring witnesses.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ג חזקה אין בעל הבית עובר בבל תלין והאמרת בעל הבית טרוד בפועליו הוא הני מילי מקמי דלימטי זמן חיובא הוא כי מטי זמן חיובא רמי אנפשיה ומידכר
3 If so, even in the case where his time had expired also [let the labourer tak the oath];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A day labourer has time to claim his wages during the whole of the succeeding night; and a night labourer, during the whole of the succeeding day (B.M. 110b) .');"><sup>5</sup></span> wherefore has it been taught: If his time had expired and he had not given him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the labourer claims that the employer has not yet paid him.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ד וכי שכיר עובר משום (ויקרא יט, יג) בל תגזול גבי בעל הבית איכא תרי חזקי חדא דאין בעל הבית עובר (ויקרא יט, יג) בבל תלין וחדא דאין שכיר משהא שכרו
4 he does not take an oath to receive [his wages];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why should not the labourer take an oath and receive his wages? Since we say the employer is busy with his labourers, he may have forgotten that he has not yet paid him.');"><sup>7</sup></span> [for] it is a presumption that the householder would not transgress [the precept]: the wages of a hired servant shall not abide with thee all night until the morning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 23; since he does not wish to transgress this prohibition, he is careful to remember to pay in time.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ה אמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל לא שנו אלא ששכרו בעדים אבל שכרו שלא בעדים מתוך שיכול לומר לו לא שכרתיך מעולם יכול לומר לו שכרתיך ונתתי לך שכרך א"ל רבי יצחק יישר וכן אמר רבי יוחנן
5 Now did you not say that the householder is busy with his labourers?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that in spite of himself he may really have forgotten. Let the labourer then take the oath!');"><sup>9</sup></span> - That is only before the time of liability arrives, but when the time of liability arrives it thrusts itself upon him, and he remembers.
ו מכלל דפליג עליה ר"ל איכא דאמרי מישתא הוה שתי ליה ושתיק ליה ואיכא דאמרי מישהא הוה שהי ליה ושתיק ליה
6 Would then the labourer transgress [the precept]: thou shalt not rob?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 13; he would not rob his employer by claiming his wages twice; therefore let him take the oath.');"><sup>10</sup></span> - With the householder there are two presumptions: one, that the householder would not transgress [the precept]: 'the wages of a hired servant shall not abide with thee' etc. , and another, that the hired servant would not allow his wages to be delayed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There are two presumptions in favour of the householder; i.e., which incline us to the belief that he paid the wages in the proper time.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ז איתמר נמי אמר רב מנשיא בר זביד אמר רב לא שנו אלא ששכרו בעדים אבל שכרו שלא בעדים מתוך שיכול לומר לו לא שכרתיך מעולם יכול לומר לו שכרתיך ונתתי לך שכרך
7 R'Nahman said that Samuel said: They did not teach this,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the labourer takes an oath that he has not received his wages and obtains his due.');"><sup>12</sup></span> except when he hired him in the presence of witnesses, but if he hired him without witnesses, since he may say to him, 'I never hired you,' he may say to him, 'I hired you and paid you your hire.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If there were no witnesses that the employer hired this labourer, the employer, if he wished to evade payment, could have said that he did not hire him at all; therefore, if he admits he hired him, but says he has paid him, he is believed.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ח אמר רמי בר חמא כמה מעליא הא שמעתא אמר ליה רבא מאי מעליותא א"כ שבועת שומרין דחייב רחמנא היכי משכחת לה מתוך שיכול לומר לו לא היו דברים מעולם יכול לומר לו נאנסו
8 R'Isaac said to him: 'Correct; and so said R'Johanan.' Are we hence to infer that Resh Lakish disagrees with him? - Some say, that he was drinking and was silent; and some say, that he waited for him, and was silent.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 40a.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
ט דאפקיד ליה בעדים מתוך שיכול לומר לו החזרתיו לך יכול לומר לו נאנסו
9 It was stated also: R'Menashya B'Zebid said that Rab said: They did not teach this, except when he hired him in the presence of witnesses, but if he hired him without witnesses, since he may say to him, 'I never hired you,' he may say to him, 'I hired you, and paid you your hire.' Rami B'Hama said: How excellent is this ruling! Said Raba to him: Wherein is its excellence?
י דאפקיד ליה בשטרא
10 If such is the case, the oath of guardians, which the Divine Law imposes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 10; deals with a paid guardian who claims that the loss was unpreventably accidental; he must take an oath to this effect (i.e., that it was hurt, or forcibly removed by robbers, or died) , and is exempt.');"><sup>15</sup></span> - how is it possible of fulfillment?
יא מכלל דתרוייהו סבירא להו המפקיד אצל חבירו בעדים אין צריך להחזיר לו בעדים בשטר צריך להחזיר לו בעדים
11 Since he may say to him, 'The thing never happened,' he may say to him, 'It was an unpreventable accident.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the guardian may say that he never had the other's animal to guard, and he would have been exempt, he should be believed when he says that an accident happened to it. Why, then, does Scripture impose an oath on him?');"><sup>16</sup></span> - In the case where he deposited it with him before witnesses.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Then the oath is imposed; for the guardian could not have evaded payment by saying he never took the animal, for there are witnesses that it was deposited with him.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
יב קרי רמי בר חמא עליה דרב ששת (שמואל א כא, יג) וישם דוד את הדברים האלה בלבו דאשכחיה רב ששת לרבה בר שמואל אמר ליה תני מר מידי בשכיר אמר ליה אין תנינא שכיר בזמנו נשבע ונוטל כיצד בזמן שאמר לו שכרתני ולא נתת לי שכרי והלה אומר שכרתיך ונתתי לך שכרך אבל אמר לו שתים קצצת לי והלה אומר לא קצצתי לך אלא אחת המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה
12 But since he may say to him, 'I returned it to you,' he may say to him, 'An accident happened.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He should still be believed without an oath, for he could have said that he had already returned the animal to its owner.');"><sup>18</sup></span> In the case where he deposited it with him by a document.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The guardian signed a document that he received the animal from him. He cannot say that he returned the animal to the owner, because he would have claimed the return of the document. He is therefore not believed (without an oath) if he says an unpreventable accident happened to it.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
יג הא מדסיפא בראיה הוי רישא בלא ראיה
13 Hence we can infer that both<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Raba and Rami b. Hama.');"><sup>20</sup></span> hold that he who deposits [an article] with his neighbour before witnesses need not return it to him before witnesses;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For Rami b. Hama replies at first that he deposited it with the guardian in the presence of witnesses; and Raba asks, since the guardian may say to him, 'I returned it to you,' etc. Hence, Raba holds that he does not require to have witnesses that he returned it. And Rami b. Hama agrees, for he does not dispute this statement, but gives another answer - that he deposited it by document.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
יד אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק
14 but if by document, he must return it to him before witnesses.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For both agree that the guardian cannot say, 'I have already returned the article to you'; hence, he must return it in the presence of witnesses.');"><sup>22</sup></span> Rami B'Hama applied to R'Shesheth the verse: And David laid up these words in his heart.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I Sam. XXI, 13; he applied this verse to him, because he also 'laid up these words in his heart,' i.e., he took pains to ascertain if the ruling of Rab and Samuel (that the labourer takes an oath and receives his wages only if he was hired in the presence of witnesses) had any support.');"><sup>23</sup></span> For R'Shesheth met Rabbah B'Samuel, and said to him: Have you studied anything about a hired labourer? - He replied to him: Yes, we are taught: A hired labourer [if he claims] within his time limit,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.M. 110b, where the different time limits for claiming are enumerated, in the case of labourers hired for the day, night, week, month, etc.');"><sup>24</sup></span> takes an oath, and receives [his wages]. How? If he said to him: 'You hired me, and did not pay me my wages,' and the other said: 'I hired you and did pay you your wages.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this case, where the dispute is whether he paid him or not, the labourer takes an oath that he has not been paid, and receives his wages.');"><sup>25</sup></span> But if he said to him: 'Two did you stipulate to pay me,' and the other said: 'I stipulated to pay you only one,' he who desires to exact from his neighbour must bring proof.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The labourer must bring witnesses, and if he has no witnesses, he cannot take an oath and receive what he claims.');"><sup>26</sup></span> Now, since the second clause is concerned with proof, the first clause is not concerned with proof!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the first clause does not mention it; hence, in the first clause, the labourer takes an oath, and receives his wages, even if he does not bring witnesses that he was hired by the employer. Thus, this is opposed to the ruling of Rab and Samuel that only if there were witnesses that he was hired is he believed with an oath.');"><sup>27</sup></span> - R'Nahman B'Isaac said:
Previous ChapterNext Chapter