שבועות 45:2 — Soncino English Talmud

If so, even in the case where he fixed [the wages], also [let the labourer take the oath]; wherefore has it been taught: [If] the artisan says: ‘Two [zuz] did you stipulate to pay me,’ and the other says: ‘I stipulated to pay you only one;’ he who wishes to exact from his neighbour must bring proof! — The amount fixed [as wages] he certainly remembers. If so, even in the case where his time had expired also [let the labourer take the oath]; wherefore has it been taught: If his time had expired and he had not given him, he does not take an oath to receive [his wages]; [for] it is a presumption that the householder would not transgress [the precept]: the wages of a hired servant shall not abide with thee all night until the morning. Now did you not say that the householder is busy with his labourers? — That is only before the time of liability arrives, but when the time of liability arrives it thrusts itself upon him, and he remembers. Would then the labourer transgress [the precept]: thou shalt not rob? — With the householder there are two presumptions: one, that the householder would not transgress [the precept]: ‘the wages of a hired servant shall not abide with thee’ etc., and another, that the hired servant would not allow his wages to be delayed. R. Nahman said that Samuel said: They did not teach this, except when he hired him in the presence of witnesses, but if he hired him without witnesses, since he may say to him, ‘I never hired you,’ he may say to him, ‘I hired you and paid you your hire.’ R. Isaac said to him: ‘Correct; and so said R. Johanan.’ Are we hence to infer that Resh Lakish disagrees with him? — Some say, that he was drinking and was silent; and some say, that he waited for him, and was silent. It was stated also: R. Menashya b. Zebid said that Rab said: They did not teach this, except when he hired him in the presence of witnesses, but if he hired him without witnesses, since he may say to him, ‘I never hired you,’ he may say to him, ‘I hired you, and paid you your hire.’ Rami b. Hama said: How excellent is this ruling! Said Raba to him: Wherein is its excellence? If such is the case, the oath of guardians, which the Divine Law imposes — how is it possible of fulfillment? Since he may say to him, ‘The thing never happened,’ he may say to him, ‘It was an unpreventable accident.’ — In the case where he deposited it with him before witnesses. But since he may say to him, ‘I returned it to you,’ he may say to him, ‘An accident happened.’ In the case where he deposited it with him by a document. Hence we can infer that both hold that he who deposits [an article] with his neighbour before witnesses need not return it to him before witnesses; but if by document, he must return it to him before witnesses. Rami b. Hama applied to R. Shesheth the verse: And David laid up these words in his heart. For R. Shesheth met Rabbah b. Samuel, and said to him: Have you studied anything about a hired labourer? — He replied to him: Yes, we are taught: A hired labourer [if he claims] within his time limit, takes an oath, and receives [his wages]. How? If he said to him: ‘You hired me, and did not pay me my wages,’ and the other said: ‘I hired you and did pay you your wages.’ But if he said to him: ‘Two did you stipulate to pay me,’ and the other said: ‘I stipulated to pay you only one,’ he who desires to exact from his neighbour must bring proof. Now, since the second clause is concerned with proof, the first clause is not concerned with proof! — R. Nahman b. Isaac said:^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ

^ᵃnote:If you say that the labourer takes the oath and receives his wages, because the employer is too busy with his workmen to remember whether he had paid or not.
^ᵇnote:Where the dispute is as to the amount that had been agreed upon, let us also say that the labourer should swear and receive what he claims.
^ᶜnote:The artisan who claims an extra one (zuz, denar, or any coin) must bring witnesses to testify that his claim is correct. Why should he not take an oath and receive his money, without witnesses?
^ᵈnote:The employer may possibly not remember whether he paid the labourer, but he remembers the amount he stipulated to pay; therefore the labourer is not in this case more reliable than the employer, and must bring witnesses.
^ᵉnote:A day labourer has time to claim his wages during the whole of the succeeding night; and a night labourer, during the whole of the succeeding day (B.M. 110b).
^ᶠnote:I.e., the labourer claims that the employer has not yet paid him.
^ᵍnote:Why should not the labourer take an oath and receive his wages? Since we say the employer is busy with his labourers, he may have forgotten that he has not yet paid him.
^ʰnote:Lev. XIX, 23; since he does not wish to transgress this prohibition, he is careful to remember to pay in time.
^ⁱnote:So that in spite of himself he may really have forgotten. Let the labourer then take the oath!
^ʲnote:Lev. XIX, 13; he would not rob his employer by claiming his wages twice; therefore let him take the oath.
^ᵏnote:There are two presumptions in favour of the householder; i.e., which incline us to the belief that he paid the wages in the proper time.
^ˡnote:That the labourer takes an oath that he has not received his wages and obtains his due.
^ᵐnote:If there were no witnesses that the employer hired this labourer, the employer, if he wished to evade payment, could have said that he did not hire him at all; therefore, if he admits he hired him, but says he has paid him, he is believed.
^ⁿnote:V. supra 40a.
^ᵒnote:Ex. XXII, 10; deals with a paid guardian who claims that the loss was unpreventably accidental; he must take an oath to this effect (i.e., that it was hurt, or forcibly removed by robbers, or died), and is exempt.
^ᵖnote:Since the guardian may say that he never had the other's animal to guard, and he would have been exempt, he should be believed when he says that an accident happened to it. Why, then, does Scripture impose an oath on him?
^ᵠnote:Then the oath is imposed; for the guardian could not have evaded payment by saying he never took the animal, for there are witnesses that it was deposited with him.
^ʳnote:He should still be believed without an oath, for he could have said that he had already returned the animal to its owner.
^ˢnote:The guardian signed a document that he received the animal from him. He cannot say that he returned the animal to the owner, because he would have claimed the return of the document. He is therefore not believed (without an oath) if he says an unpreventable accident happened to it.
^ᵗnote:Raba and Rami b. Hama.
^ᵘnote:For Rami b. Hama replies at first that he deposited it with the guardian in the presence of witnesses; and Raba asks, since the guardian may say to him, ‘I returned it to you,’ etc. Hence, Raba holds that he does not require to have witnesses that he returned it. And Rami b. Hama agrees, for he does not dispute this statement, but gives another answer — that he deposited it by document.
^ᵛnote:For both agree that the guardian cannot say, ‘I have already returned the article to you’; hence, he must return it in the presence of witnesses.
^ʷnote:I Sam. XXI, 13; he applied this verse to him, because he also ‘laid up these words in his heart,’ i.e., he took pains to ascertain if the ruling of Rab and Samuel (that the labourer takes an oath and receives his wages only if he was hired in the presence of witnesses) had any support.
^ˣnote:V. B.M. 110b, where the different time limits for claiming are enumerated, in the case of labourers hired for the day, night, week, month, etc.
^ʸnote:In this case, where the dispute is whether he paid him or not, the labourer takes an oath that he has not been paid, and receives his wages.
^ᶻnote:The labourer must bring witnesses, and if he has no witnesses, he cannot take an oath and receive what he claims.
^ᵃᵃnote:For the first clause does not mention it; hence, in the first clause, the labourer takes an oath, and receives his wages, even if he does not bring witnesses that he was hired by the employer. Thus, this is opposed to the ruling of Rab and Samuel that only if there were witnesses that he was hired is he believed with an oath.