Shevuot

If so,1 even in the case where he fixed [the wages], also [let the labourer take the oath];2 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!3 — The amount fixed [as wages] he certainly remembers.4 If so, even in the case where his time had expired also [let the labourer take the oath];5 wherefore has it been taught: If his time had expired and he had not given him,6 he does not take an oath to receive [his wages];7 [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.8 Now did you not say that the householder is busy with his labourers?9 — 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?10 — 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. 11 R. Nahman said that Samuel said: They did not teach this,12 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.’13 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.14 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 imposes15 — 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.’16 — In the case where he deposited it with him before witnesses.17 But since he may say to him, ‘I returned it to you,’ he may say to him, ‘An accident happened.’18 In the case where he deposited it with him by a document.19 Hence we can infer that both20 hold that he who deposits [an article] with his neighbour before witnesses need not return it to him before witnesses;21 but if by document, he must return it to him before witnesses.22 Rami b. Hama applied to R. Shesheth the verse: And David laid up these words in his heart.23 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,24 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.’25 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.26 Now, since the second clause is concerned with proof, the first clause is not concerned with proof! 27 — R. Nahman b. Isaac said: workmen to remember whether he had paid or not. receive what he claims. Why should he not take an oath and receive his money, without witnesses? to pay; therefore the labourer is not in this case more reliable than the employer, and must bring witnesses. whole of the succeeding day (B.M. 110b). labourers, he may have forgotten that he has not yet paid him. in the proper time. 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. oath to this effect (i.e., that it was hurt, or forcibly removed by robbers, or died), and is exempt. should be believed when he says that an accident happened to it. Why, then, does Scripture impose an oath on him? there are witnesses that it was deposited with him. owner. 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. 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. the presence of witnesses. 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. day, night, week, month, etc. 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.