Bava Metzia

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.  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. 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: The market traders of Sura do not transgress [the injunction], The wages of him that is hired shall not abide all night [etc,], because It is well known that they rely upon the market day. 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;  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. We learnt: IF ENGAGED BY THE HOUR, HE CAN COLLECT IT ALL DAY AND NIGHT, this refutes Rab!  — 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. 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!  — 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  the wages of a hired labourer transgresses these five prohibitions of five denominations and one affirmative precept as follows:  Thou shalt not oppress thy neighbour;  neither rob him;  Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor;  The wages of him that is hired shall not abide all night with thee;  At his day shalt thou give him his hire;  and, neither shall the sun go down upon it.  But Surely those that apply at day  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. What is meant by 'oppression' and 'robbery'? — R. Hisda said: 'Go, and come again,  go and come again' — that is 'oppression';  'You have indeed a charge upon me, but I will not pay it' — that is 'robbery'. To this R. Shesheth demurred:  For what form of 'oppression' did Scripture impose a sacrifice?  For that which is analogous to a bailment,  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:  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]!  — 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?  — He can answer you: 'Robbery' implies that he first robs him and then repudiates [liability].  If so, may not 'oppression' too refer to subsequent repudiation?  — What comparison is there? As for the other [sc. 'robbery'], it is well, for it is written [And lie unto his neighbour] … Or in a thing taken away by violence,  which implies that he originally made admission to him. But with respect to 'oppression', is it then written, Or in a thing of oppression?  — or hath oppressed his neighbour is stated, implying that he had already oppressed him.  Raba said: 'Oppression' and 'robbery' are identical. Why then did Scripture divide them? — [To teach] that two negative precepts are infringed. MISHNAH. 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,  AND, THE WAGES OF HIM THAT IS HIRED SHALL NOT ABIDE WITH THEE UNTIL THE MORNING.  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,  HE IS NOT GUILTY OF INFRINGEMENT. A HIRED LABOURER, WITHIN THE SET TIME,  SWEARS AND IS PAID.  BUT IF HIS SET TIME PASSED,  HE CANNOT SWEAR AND RECEIVE PAYMENT; YET IF HE HAS WITNESSES THAT HE DEMANDED PAYMENT (WITHIN THE SET TIME),  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,  BUT NOT TO THAT OF, THE WAGES OF HIM THAT IS HIRED SHALL NOT ABIDE WITH THEE UNTIL THE MORNING. GEMARA. Who is the authority for our Mishnah? [For] it is neither the first Tanna who interpreted 'of thy brethren', or R. Jose son of R. Judah. To what is the reference? — It has been taught: