ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Metzia 112
BAVA METZIA 112-115 - these Dafim have been dedicated anonymously l'Iluy
Nishmas Tzirel Nechamah bas Tuvya Yehudah.
(a) The Beraisa's second Lashon (regarding the Pasuk "ve'Eilav Hu Nosei es
Nafsho") reads 'Kol ha'Kovesh S'char Sachir, Ke'ilu Notel Nafsho Mimenu'.
Rav Huna and Rav Chisda argue over the meaning of 'Nafsho', which can mean -
either the Soul of the robber or that of the poor man.
(b) The one therefore explains 'Ke'ilu Notel Nafsho Mimenu' to mean -
'withholding a laborer's wages is tantamount to causing one's own death';
the other explains that he will get punished as if he had caused the
(c) The one proves his point from the Pasuk in Mishlei "Such is the way of
anyone who robs, he takes the soul of the owner", which he interprets to
mean literally 'the soul of the poor man'. According to the other one, it
means 'the soul of the current owner of the money (i.e. the robber).
(d) The other one proves his point from the Pasuk there "Do not rob a poor
man ... because Hashem will take their part and will rob the soul of *the
one who robbed them*", which the first one interprets to mean - that Hashem
will rob him, because he robbed the poor man.
(a) The Tana of the Beraisa learn that the La'av of "Lo Salin" is subject to
the laborer claiming his wages - from the Pasuk "Lo Salin ... "Itcha"
(implying 'with you', but without *his* consent).
Rabah proves his ruling from our Mishnah, which states that in such a case,
the hirer does not transgress, implying that he may retract (since the Tana
does not say so). Rav Sheishes interprets the Mishnah's statement to mean -
(not that he *does* not transgress, but) that he *can* no longer transgress,
come what may.
(b) He also learns from "Itcha" that the hirer only transgresses if he has
the money with which to pay - and that, once he sends him to a third party
to receive his payment, he is no longer subject to the La'av.
(c) According to Rav Sheishes, once the laborer has agreed to receive his
wages from the storekeeper, he cannot retract. This means - that if the
storekeeper fails to pay him, he has no claim against his employer.
(d) Rabah maintains - that he can.
(a) They asked Rav Sheishes whether Kablanus is subject to 'bal Talin' or
not. By 'Kablanus', they meant a contractor (who gets paid per job rather
than per day).
(b) Given that the She'eilah is based on whether 'Uman Koneh bi'Sh'vach
K'li' or not - the question is whether 'Uman Koneh bi'Sh'vach K'li' (the
craftsman acquires the vessel that he made), in which case the money will
become a loan (once he hands it over to the client [and Sechirus is not
subject to 'bal Talin']) or not, in which case it is Sechirus (which is).
(c) Rav Sheishes replied 'Over', and he established the Beraisa which says
'Eino Over' - when the hirer arranged for a storekeeper to pay the laborer's
(a) Another Beraisa rules that someone who gives his cloak to a craftsman,
who subsequently ...
1. ... completed the job and informed the owner that it is ready - is not
subject to 'bal Talin'.
(b) We try to prove with this - that 'Ein Uman Koneh bi'Sh'vach K'li'
(substantiating the opinion of Rav Sheishes).
2. ... returned the cloak at midday - is subject to 'bal Talin' from
(a) Rav Mari B'rei de'Rav Kahana refutes the proof by establishing the
Beraisa by a teasler (whose job is to soften the cloth) - thinking that the
article is not improved, in which case, everyone will agree that the Uman
does not acquire the article.
(b) We ask on this however, that when all's said and done, the garment is
improved, inasmuch as it is warmer, and therefore establish the Beraisa when
the owner gave the Uman the garment 'le'Bitushi' - to full (meaning to stomp
on the freshly-made garment which is placed inside a vessel with water).
(c) This answers the Kashya - inasmuch as the Tana is no longer talking
about a Kablan, since the fuller gets paid a small coin per stomp (and here
too, everyone agrees that the Uman does not acquire the garment under such
(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Sachir bi'Zemano Nishba ve'Notel'. The
problem with ...
1. ... this ruling is - that it contravenes the principle 'Ein Nishba
ve'Notel' (one swears to exempt oneself from having to pay, and not to
(b) Rav Nachman finally cites Shmuel, who answers 'Takanos Kevu'os Shanu
Ka'an'. 'Kevu'os' means - they are worthwhile fixing, even if it means
superseding the Shevu'ah d'Oraysa.
2. ... with Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel's initial explanation 'Halachos Gedolos
Shanu Ka'an' is - that it implies 'Halachos le'Moshe mi'Sinai', whereas the
Shevu'ah we are dealing with is a Takanas Chachamim(as the Mishnah in
Shevu'os states specifically).
3. ... his second answer 'Takanos Gedolos Shanu Ka'an' is - the word
'Gedolos', which implies that the current Shevu'ah is a major Takanah and
that there are minor ones. What are the minor ones?
(c) We initially ascribe this switch to the need for the Sachir to earn a
Parnasah, but we refute this suggestion on the grounds that - the Chachamim
would not deprive Reuven of the right to swear, in order to assist Shimon to
make a Parnasah.
(d) Neither can we answer that ...
1. ... the Socher himself is only too pleased with this Takanah, since it
will encourage potential laborers to hire themselves out - because against
that we could argue that the Sachir himself too, would be only too pleased
if the Shevu'ah would remain with the Socher, because it will encourage
potential employers to hire laborers.
2. ... we cannot use this argument with regard to the laborer since he has
no option but to hire himself out - because against that, we could argue
that the employer too, has no option but to hire laborers to pick his crops.
(a) We finally attribute the Takanah - to the fact that the Socher is busy
paying his many employees, and cannot therefore be trusted to swear
truthfully. Consequently, the Chachamim switched the Shevu'ah to the Sachir.
(b) The Shevu'ah is nevertheless necessary - to appease the employer (for
having suspected him).
(c) Chazal did not dispense with the need to swear, by requiring the Socher
to pay ...
1. ... with witnesses (failing which, the Sachir will be believed) - because
witnesses are not always readily available.
2. ... in the morning before he begins work (in which case, the Sachir will
certainly not have been paid yet) - because it suits both parties to give
the Socher credit until the end of the day (the Socher because sometimes he
does not yet have the money to pay, and the Sachir because he might lose the
money in the course of the day).
(a) In a case where the Sachir claims two Dinrim, and the Socher says that
he promised him only one - the Tana of the Beraisa believes the Socher
(because he is Muchzak).
(b) In light of the statement 'Socher Tarud be'Po'alav' - we differentiate
between the question of *whether* he paid (which he tends to forget) and
*how much he fixed* with him (which he does not).
(c) The Tana of our Mishnah ruled 'Avar Zemano, Eino Nishba ve'Notel' -
because it is only up to the final time of payment that we suspect the
Socher of forgetting whether he paid the Sachir or not, but once the final
moment arrives, he strains to remember, and is therefore believed.
(d) The reason that we believe the Socher in this case more than the Sachir
(despite the Chazakah that, had he received his wages, he would not claim a
second time) - because the Socher has the additional Chazakah that the
Sachir would not delay his claim until after nightfall.