Bava Metzia

THEY ARE BECOME YOURS,  HE IS NOT HEEDED. [ON THE OTHER HAND,] IF AFTER THE LATTER AGREED [TO THE PROPOSAL [AND REMOVED THEM] HE SAID, 'HERE ARE YOUR [REMOVAL] EXPENSES, AND I WILL TAKE BACK MINE [THE STONES].' HE IS [LIKEWISE] NOT HEEDED. IF A MAN ENGAGES A LABOURER TO WORK FOR HIM ON STRAW OR STRUBBLE,  AND WHEN HE DEMANDS HIS WAGES, SAYS TO HIM, 'TAKE THE RESULTS OF YOUR LABOUR FOR YOUR WAGE, HE IS NOT HEEDED. IF AFTER HE AGREED [TO THE PROPOSAL] HE SAID TO HIM, 'HERE IS YOUR PAYMENT, AND I WILL TAKE MY PROPERTY,' HE IS [LIKEWISE] NOT HEEDED. GEMARA. BROKEN THROUGH: Rab said, The greater part thereof; Samuel ruled, Four [handbreadths]. 'Rab said, The greater part thereof;' but if only four [handbreadths,] one can sow partly above and partly below.  'Samuel said, Four [handbreadths]:' one cannot [be expected to] sow partly above and partly below. Now, both [disputes] are necessary.  For if we taught [it] in connection with a dwelling, [it might be said that] only there does Samuel state his ruling, because it is unusual for a man to dwell partly in one place and partly in another; but with respect to sowing, where it is quite usual for a man to sow here a little and there a little, I might say that he agrees with Rab. Whilst if only the present dispute were stated, [I might argue that] only here does Rab hold this view; but in the other case, he agrees with Samuel. Hence both are necessary. IF HE WAS GIVEN A [FIXED] TIME. And what time is given by the Court? — Said R. Johanan: Thirty days. IF A MAN'S WALL etc. But since the last clause teaches, 'HERE ARE YOUR [REMOVAL] EXPENSES,' it follows that he [the garden owner] has removed them. Thus, it is only because he removed them;  but why so? Let his field effect possession for him! For R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: A man's courtyard effects possession for him even without his knowledge! — That is only where he [the original owner] desires to grant him possession; but here he merely seeks to evade him. IF A MAN ENGAGES A LABOURER TO WORK WITH HIM ON STRAW etc. Now, both are necessary. For if only the first were stated, that when he proposes, 'LET THEM BE YOURS', HE IS NOT HEEDED, [it might be said that] that is because he [the garden owner] has no wage claim upon him; here, however, that he [the labourer] has a wage claim, I might argue that he [the employer] is listened to, because it is proverbial, 'From your debtor accept [even] bran in payment.' Whilst if this clause [alone] were taught, [it might be that] only in this case, once he [the worker] accepts the proposal, is he [the employer] not heeded,  because he has a wage claim upon him;  but in the former case, where he has no wage claim upon him, I might think that he is heeded:  hence both are necessary. HE IS NOT HEEDED.  But has it not been taught. He is heeded? — Said R. Nahman: There is no difficulty: here [in the Mishnah] the reference is to his own work, there [in the Baraitha], to his neighbour's.  Raba said to R. Nahman: [When he is employed] on his own, what is the reason [that he is not heeded]? Because he [the labourer] can say to him, 'You are responsible for my wages'? [But when employed] by his neighbour he can also say to him, 'You are responsible for my hire'! For it has been taught: If one engaged an artisan to labour on his [work], but directed him to his neighbour's, he must pay him in full, and receive from the owner [of the work actually done] the value of the labour whereby he benefited! — But, said R. Nahman, there is no difficulty: here it refers to his own; there, to that of hefker.  Raba raised an objection against R. Nahman: That which is found by a labourer [whilst working for another] belongs to himself. When is that? If the employer had instructed him, 'Weed or dig for me to — day.' But if he said to him. 'Work for me to-day' [without specifying the nature of the work], his findings belong to the employer!  — But, said R. Nahman, there is no difficulty: here [in the Mishnah] the reference is to lifting up; there, to watching. Rabbah said: [Whether] 'watching' [effects possession] in the case of hefker is disputed by Tannaim. For we learnt: Those who keep guard over the aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year are paid out of Temple funds.  R. Jose said: He who wishes can donate [his work] and be an unpaid watcher. Said they [the Sages] to him: You say so, [but then] they are not provided by the public.  Now, surely, the dispute is on this question: the first Tanna holds that 'watching' hefker effects possession;  hence, if he is paid, it is well,  but not otherwise. Whilst R. Jose maintains that 'watching' does not effect possession of hefker; hence, only when the community go and fetch it is possession effected. And what is meant by. 'You say [etc.]'?  They said thus to him: From your statement  [and] on the basis of our ruling,  [it transpires that] the omer  and the two loaves  are not provided by the public!  — Said Raba: That is not so. All agree that 'watching' effects possession of hefker; but they differ here as to whether we fear that he will not deliver it whole-heartedly. Thus, the Rabbis hold that he must be paid, for otherwise there is the fear lest he does not deliver it wholeheartedly,  whilst R. Jose holds that this fear is not entertained. And what is meant by 'You say'? — They say thus to him: From your statement, [and] on the basis of our ruling that we fear that it will not be surrendered whole-heartedly, the 'omer and the two loaves are not provided by the public. Others say, Raba said: All agree that 'watching' does not effect possession in the case of hefker; but they dispute here whether we entertain a fear of violent men. The first Tanna holds that the Rabbis enacted that he shall be paid four zuz, so that violent men may hear thereof  and hold aloof;  whilst R. Jose holds that they did not enact [thus].