Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 12, scan section 64

he know that he needs it ?) And lest one say that he is guilty even if he has no cash at that time, therefore it is written, " with thee " ; and lest one say that he is guilty even if he has transferred him to a storekeeper or money-changer (with his consent), therefore it is written " with thee." The schoolmen propounded a question: If the storekeeper or the money-changer failed to pay him, may he return his claim to the owner or not ? According to Rabha he may, and accord- ing to R. Shesheth he may not. Said Rabha: My statement is based upon the teaching of the Mishna, which states " there is no transgression," from which we infer that the transgression does not apply, but the obligation remains. R. Shesheth, how- ever, interpreted this expression, that he is no more subject to that law. R. Shesheth was questioned: Is piece-work subject to that law or not ? Shall we assume that the master acquires title to the improvement of an article given him, and therefore when he returned it and was not paid, it is to be considered as a loan, for which there is no transgression ; or that the master does not acquire title and it is considered labor? And R. Shesheth an- swered, It is subject. But there is a Boraitha that it is not. The Boraitha treats if he has transferred him to a storekeeper or money-changer. Collects his money with an oath. For what purpose have the rabbis enacted the oath ? Said R. Na'hman in the name of Samuel: These enactments were made to serve as a rule for- ever; in such cases as are biblical, the oath is to be taken by the employer, and the rabbis have removed the oath from him to the laborer for the sake of his livelihood {i.e., that he should be able to take an oath immediately and collect the money). But is it correct that for the sake of the laborer the right of the employer should be taken away ? With this his right is not taken away, as it is more pleasant for the owner that the oath shall be given to the laborer, so that laborers shall not say that he pays his laborers with oaths. But why can you not say the reverse, that it may be more pleasant for the laborer if the em- ployer takes the oath, that the employers shall not say that he is an unjust claimant ? Therefore it must be said that the reason is, that because the owner has many laborers, it is easy for him to make a mistake in giving to one man instead of the other and swear falsely. But if so, why should not the laborer TRACT BABA METZIA (MIDDLE GATE). 301 be paid without any oath ? To quiet the mind of the em- ployer. But why should it not be enacted that the owner shall pay in the presence of witnesses ? This would be too much trouble. But why should it not be enacted that it shall be paid in advance? Because it is convenient to both to have the pay- ment after (for the owner, as perhaps he has not yet prepared it, and for the laborer, as he may lose it while laboring). If so, why should not the law be the same concerning a stipulation ; and there is a Boraitha that if the specialist says: Your stipula- tion was to pay me two dinars for this my work, and the em- ployer says only one, the plaintiff has to bring evidence (and if he has none the defendant takes an oath) ? Stipulations are dif- ferent, because they are usually borne in mind. But if the reason is because the owner is liable to make a mistake, why should not the same law apply even if the time has elapsed, and the statement of our Mishna is not so ? It is because usually one would not easily transgress the law, " There shall not abide," etc. But was it not said that the owner is liable to make a mistake, as he has many laborers ? This is before the time elapsed, but thereafter one is reminded of his duty. But is then the laborer suspicious of robbery ? Concerning the owner there are two hazakahs ; one that it is not likely that he would transgress by not paying, and the other that the laborer would not leave his wages without any claim. The laborer, however, has only one hazakah, that he would not demand rob- bery ; therefore the preference is given to the employer. If there are witnesses^ etc. But is he not demanding now ? Said R. Assi : The witnesses are that he did so in time. But perhaps he has paid him afterwards ? Said Abye : The wit- nesses are to testify that he had demanded in time, and after- wards was not paid. But does this hold good forever {i.e., that the laborer must always bring witnesses when he demands wages) ? Said R. Huna bar Uqba : It means one day after time is elapsed, it was granted that he shall take it with an oath. MISHNA XII. : If a creditor has to pledge his debtor, he may do so only by court; and even then he has no right to enter his house, as it is written [Deut. xxiv. 11] : " In the street shalt thou stand." If he had mortgaged him two vessels, he may take only one ; he also has to return a pillow for the night and the plough for the day. If the debtor dies, however, he has not to return it to his heirs. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, how- ever, said that even to the debtor himself he is not obliged to 303 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. return only the first thirty days; thereafter he may sell it out in the presence of the court. GEMARA : Said Samuel: Even the messenger of the court has a right only to take away from him in the street, but not to enter his house. But does not our Mishna state that he shall pledge him in the court, of which it is understood that the court may pledge him even in his house ? In this case Tanaim differ, as we have learned from the following Boraitha: The messenger of the court who came to pledge a debtor must not enter the house, but stand on the street ; and the debtor has to bring the pledge out to him, as it is written: " In the street shalt thou stand, and the man " (which may be interpreted the messenger of the court and the creditor). And another Boraitha: If the creditor himself comes to pledge him he must stand outside, and the debtor has to bring him the pledge, but if this is to be done by the messenger of the court, he may enter the house; however, he has no right to pledge cooking utensils, and he also must leave two beds, and a feather-bed for a wealthy man, and a bed and a mat of reeds for the poor one; for him, but not for his wife and children, as the cases of estimation and creditor are equal, concerning the essentials of the debtor, that it must be left to him. The master said : Two beds, etc. For whom ? It is not for his family, as it is stated " for him only." Why, then, are two beds necessary ? One for eating and one for sleeping ? And this is according to Samuel, who said : That to all sicknesses I know a remedy except to the following three : if one eats un-