Bava Metzia

[Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be] of thy brethren — this excludes idolaters;  or of thy strangers — this means a righteous proselyte;  that are in thy gates — i.e., an alien who eats unclean food.  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, that are in thy land,  implying, all that are in thy land. And in respect of all  these injunctions,  all are transgressed. Hence it was said: The hire of man, animal, and utensils are identical in that they are subject to [the laws], At his day shalt thou give him his hire, and, the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning. R. Jose son of R. Judah said: In respect to a resident alien one is subject to [the law], At his day thou shalt give him his hire; but not to that of, Thou shalt not keep all night [the wages of him that is hired, etc.]. In respect of [the hire of] animals and utensils, only the injunction, Thou shalt not oppress [etc.],  is applicable. Now, who is [the authority for our Mishnah]? If the first Tanna, who interpreted 'of thy brethren,' the resident alien presents a difficulty.  If R. Jose. [the hire of] animals and utensils presents a difficulty!  — 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], At his day thou shalt give him his hire, and, The wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee. In respect of a resident alien one is subject to [the law]. At his day thou shalt give him his hire, but not to, Thou shalt not keep. [etc.]. What is the reason of the first Tanna who interprets [the verse] 'of thy brethren'? — He deduces [identity of law] from the word 'hire' written twice.  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!  — R. Hanania learnt: Scripture saith, Neither shall the sun go down upon it, for he is poor;  [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.  And R. Jose son of R. Judah?  — That follows from, Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy. And the first Tanna?  — One teaches the priority of the poor man over the rich; the other, the priority of the poor, over the needy.  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.  Hence both are necessary. 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;  if he rejects it, whence does he know [the inclusion of] animals and utensils? — In truth, he does not accept this deduction. Yet there  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.  If so, then even a resident alien too [is meant]! — The Writ saith, [Thou shalt not oppress] thy neighbour: 'thy neighbour' [is specified], but not a resident alien. If so, then even animals and utensils too should be excluded! — But Surely 'with thee' is written!  What reason have you to include animals and utensils and exclude a resident alien?  — 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. Now the first Tanna, who interpreted 'of thy brethren,' what is his exegesis on 'thy neighbour'?  — He needs this, even as it has been taught: [Thou shalt not oppress] thy neighbour, but not an Amalekite.  An Amalekite? But that follows from 'of thy brethren! — One gives permission in regard to his 'oppression';  the other, in regard to [the retention] of his 'robbery'  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.  But as to his 'robbery' — I would think [the retention thereof] is not [allowed]. Hence both are necessary. And R. Jose son of R. Judah, how does he interpret this verse, The wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning?  — 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, [It] shall not abide, … all night, etc.  And the other?  — That follows from the verse, And setteth his soul [i.e., life] upon it, implying, anything for which he risks his life.