Bava Metzia

the loss is the workers; if not, the loss is the employer's, and he must pay them as unemployed workers. Raba also said: If one engaged labourers for irrigation, and there fell rain [rendering it unnecessary], the loss is theirs.  But if the river overflowed,  the loss is the employer's,  and he must pay them as unemployed labourers. Rab also said: If one engaged labourers for irrigation, and the river [whence the water was drawn] failed at midday; if such failure is unusual, the loss is theirs;  if usual: if [the labourers] are of that town [and so would know about it] the loss is theirs; if not, the loss is the employer's. Raba also said: If one engaged labourers for a piece of work, and they completed it in the middle of the day;  if he has some [other] work easier than the first, he can give it to them, or even if of equal difficulty, he can charge them [with it]; but if it is more difficult, he cannot order them to do it, and must pay them in full. But why? Let him pay them as unemployed workers! — Raba referred to the workers  of Mahuza, who, if they do not work, feel faint. The Master said: 'The portion done is assessed for them. E.g., if it is worth six denarii, he must pay them a sela'.  The Rabbis hold that the workers [always] have the advantage. 'Or they can complete the work and receive two sela's.' Is this not obvious? — This is necessary only when labour costs advanced, and the workers retracted. Thereupon the employer went and persuaded them [to return]. I might think that they can say to him, 'When we allowed ourselves to be persuaded, it was on the understanding that you would increase our remuneration.' Therefore we are informed that he [the employer] can answer them, 'It was on the understanding that I should take particular pains over your food and drink.' 'If it is worth a sela', he must pay them a sela'.' Is this not obvious? — This is necessary only if labour was cheap originally [when he hired them], whilst he engaged them for a zuz above [the usual cost], but subsequently  labour appreciated and stood at more than a zuz; I might think that they can plead. 'You promised us a zuz above [the usual price]; give us a zuz more [than was stipulated, since that is now the usual wage].' We are therefore told that he [the employer] may answer them,' When did I promise you an extra zuz, only when you did not agree;  but now you have agreed.' 'R. Dosa said: That which still remains to be done is assessed [thus]: if it be worth six denarii, he pays them a shekel.' In his opinion, the labourer is at a disadvantage. 'Or they can complete their work and receive two sela's.' Is this not obvious? — This is necessary only when labour costs diminished, and the employer retracted; whereupon the labourers went and persuaded him. I might think, he can say to them, '[I re-engaged you] on the understanding that you allow a rebate on your wages': therefore we are taught that they can answer him, 'It was on the understanding that we perform our work particularly well.' 'If a sela', he must pay them a sela'.' Is this not obvious? — R. Huna. the son of R. Nathan, said: It is necessary only in a case where they [the labourers] contracted for a zuz below [the usual wage] in the first place, and subsequently labour costs fell. I might think that [the employer can plead.] 'You agreed with me for a zuz less [than usual], hence I will give you a zuz less;'  so we are taught that they can reply. 'We agreed upon a zuz less only when you would not agree [to pay the full price]; but now you have agreed.' Rab said: The halachah is as R. Dosa. But did Rab really rule thus? Did not Rab say: A worker can retract even in the middle of the day? And should you answer, R. Dosa draws a distinction between time work and piece work,  [I can rejoin,] Did he really admit a distinction? Has it not been taught: If one engages a labourer, and in the middle of the day he [the labourer] learns that he has suffered a bereavement,  or is smitten with fever: then if he is a time worker,