Previous daf

1)

(a) The Ba'alei-Batim of Sura were not subject to the La'av of "Lo Salin" - because everybody knew that they had no money until market-day. Consequently, any laborer that they hired did not expect to get paid until then.

(b) Nor would it make any difference if they happened to have money at the time of the transaction.

(c) They were however, subject to the La'av of 'bal Tashheh' - from market-day and onwards.

(a) According to Rav, a laborer who works half the day, may claim until nightfall, and one who works half the night, may claim half the night. According to Shmuel - the latter may also claim the following day until nightfall, because he is considered a night worker, and the day follows the night.

(b) The half-day laborer on the other hand, may not claim the following night - because the night does not follow the day.

(c) Rav explains our Mishnah 'S'chir Sha'os Govah Kol ha'Laylah ve'Chol ha'Yom' - 'li'Tzedadin', meaning that we divide the statement into two (so that 'Kol ha'Laylah' refers to a S'chir Yom, and 've'Chol ha'Yom', to a S'chir Laylah).

(d) We also learned there that if the contract of a laborer who is hired for a week or a month ... , terminates during the night, then he has the entire night and the day in which to claim. To answer this Kashya - Rav cites a Machlokes Tana'im in a Beraisa.

(e) Rav's opinion conforms with that of Rebbi Yehudah. The author of our Mishnah is - Rebbi Shimon.

(a) The Torah (in Ki Seitzei) mentions only one Asei in connection with paying workers ("be'Yomo Titen Secharo") - but five La'avin ("Lo Sa'ashok es Re'acha", "Lo Sigzol", "Lo Salin" [Kedoshim], "Lo Sa'ashok Sachir Ani ... ", "Lo Savo Alav ha'Shemesh" [Ki Seitzei]).

(b) They cannot all apply to one laborer simultaneously - because those among them that apply specifically to a day-worker will not apply to a night-worker, and vice-versa.

(c) We interpret "Lo Sigzol" (in Kedoshim) to refer to this set of La'avin and not literally to the prohibition of stealing - because we learn the La'av of Gezel from Ribis and Ona'ah, so that no Pasuk is necessary.

(a) Rav Chisda interprets 'Oshek' as 'Lech va'Shov ... ', and 'Gezel' as 'Yesh Lecha be'Yadi, ve'eini Nosen Lach'. Rav Sheishes rejects Rav Chisda's interpretation of Oshek (though he agrees with his interpretation of Gezel), based on the fact - that the Torah prescribes a Korban Shevu'ah for Oshek, and that constitutes a denial of the claim (as the Pasuk writes "ve'Kichesh ba'Amiso"), which 'Lech ve'Shov ... ' is not.

(b) So *he* interprets 'Oshek' as - 'Nesativ Lach'.

(c) Abaye rejects the above interpretation of 'Gezel' - on the same basis as Rav Sheishes rejected Rav Chisda's interpretation of 'Oshek', namely, that 'Gezel' too, is mentioned in the Parshah of Korban Shevu'ah, and therefore requires a denial of the claim no less than 'Oshek'.

(d) Abaye therefore interprets 'Oshek' as 'Lo Secharticha Me'olam', and 'Gezel', as 'Nesativ Lach'.

(a) Abaye asks on Rav Sheishes' interpretation of 'Gezel', the same Kashya as he asked on Rav Chisda's interpretation of 'Oshek' (as we already explained). Rav Sheishes therefore establishes the Beraisa - when outside Beis-Din, the hirer refused to pay him, but inside Beis-Din, he denied the claim completely and swore to that effect.

(b) We cannot however, answer the Kashya on Rav Chisda in the same way - because "O Ashak" implies that he denied the claim from the first moment; whereas "O be'Gezel" means that he stole from him initially, and "ve'Kichesh" (the denial) took place in Beis-Din.

(c) Rava disagrees. *He* interpret the Torah's use of the two Leshonos, "Oshek" and "Gezel" - as two La'avin for the same transgression.

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah rules that 'S'char Adam, S'char Beheimah and S'char Keilim' - are subject to "be'Yomo Titen Secharo" and "Lo Salin".

(b) The hirer can only transgress "Lo Salin" and "be'Yomo Titen S'charo" - once the laborer has claimed his wages.

(c) The Tana rules that 'Himchehu Eitzel Chenvani O Eitzel Shulchani' - once the hirer sends the laborer to a storekeeper or a banker for his wages, he is no longer subject to "Lo Salin" and "be'Yomo Titen S'charo".

(d) The reason that we say by 'Himchehu Eitzel Chenvani', that the laborer needed fruit from him anyway is - because otherwise, the hirer is obligated to pay his employees with money and not with goods (unless it is to their convenience.

7)

(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa Darshens the Pasuk Ki Seitzei "Lo S'ashok ... *me'Achecha*" to preclude 'Acherim' - which refers to a Nochri.

(b) From ...

1. ... "Gercha", he includes - a Ger Tzedek?
2. ... "bi'She'arecha" - he includes a Ger Toshav (who eats Neveilos but does not serve idols).
3. ... "be'Artzecha" - he includes 'S'char Beheimah ve'Keilim'.

(c) What all this group has in common, according to this Tana is - that all the La'avin and the Asei, in both Parshas Kedoshim and Parshas Ki Seitzei apply to each of them.

(d) This Tana cannot be the author of our Mishnah - because our Mishnah precludes a Ger Toshav from "Lo Salin".

(a) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah in the Beraisa agrees with our Mishnah that a Ger Toshav is not subject to "Lo Salin". He also argues with the Tana Kama in respect of Beheimah ve'Keilim. What prompts him to say that they are only subject to "Lo Sa'ashok Sachir" is - the fact that that is where "be'Artzecha" (which comes to include them) is written.

(b) The author of our Mishnah is neither the Tana Kama nor Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah - but Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael.

(c) When Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael says that a Ger Toshav is subject to "be'Yomo Titen Secharo", he cannot mean to preclude "Lo Sa'ashok Sachir" - since that is where "bi'She'arecha" (from which we include a Ger Toshav) is written.

(d) And he adds that the Ger Toshav is not subject to "Lo Salin". As a matter of fact, he is also not subject either to "Lo Sa'ashok es Re'acha" or to "Lo Sigzol" (since they are written in Kedoshim). The reason that Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael specifically mentions "be'Yomo Titen Secharo" (for Chiyuv) and "Lo Salin" (for P'tur) is - because these are the source Pesukim for a night-worker and a day-worker respectively.

(a) The Tana Kama learns to include a Ger Tzedek and a Ger Toshav, as well as S'char Beheimah ve'Keilim, in the La'avin in Kedoshim - from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' of "Sachir" "Sachir" (since the word is written in both places).

(b) Not only does Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah not hold of "Sachir" "Sachir" to include S'char Beheimah ve'Keilim in the La'avin in Kedoshim, but he can also not include them in the Asei of "be'Yomo Titen Secharo" (in Ki Seitzei) - because the Torah writes there "Ki Ani Hu", to preclude S'char Beheimah ve'Keilim, since they do not generally lead to poverty one way or another.

(a) The Tana Kama learns from "Ki Ani Hu" that one gives a poor man precedence should the hirer not have enough money to pay both. Rebbi Yossi b"Rebbi Yehudah learns that - from the Pasuk there "Lo Sa'ashok S'char Ani ve'Evyon".

(b) The Tana Kama requires both Pesukim, one to give a poor man precedence over a rich one, and the other, to give him precedence over an Evyon - who possesses nothing at all ('ha'Ta'ev le'Chol Davar').

(c) An Ani take precedence over an Evyon - because, unlike the Evyon, he is embarrassed to ask for his wages.

(d) Having taught us that a poor man takes precedence over ...

1. ... an Evyon, we nevertheless need another Pasuk to teach us that he also takes precedence over a rich one. We might otherwise have thought - that he does not, because, unlike an Evyon who is not embarrassed to ask, a rich man is.
2. ... a rich man, we nevertheless need another Pasuk to teach us that he also takes precedence over an Evyon - because he needs the money far more than a rich man does.

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah precludes a Ger Toshav from the La'avin in Kedoshim, but includes Beheimah ve'Keilim. He does not hold of 'Sachir" Sachir" ...

1. ... but he includes the latter from "Lo Salin Pe'ulas Sachir Itcha ad Boker" ('Kol she'Itcha' [see also Tosfos DH 've'Rebbi Yossi ... ').
2. ... and he precludes from Lo Sa'ashok es Re'acha" - a Ger Toshav, who is not called Re'acha'.

(b) We opt to include Beheimah ve'Keilim but to preclude a Ger Toshav (and not vice-versa ["Re'acha", 've'Lo Beheimah ve'Keilim']) - because Beheimah ve'Keilim can also be included inasmuch as it can refer to the money of Re'acha (whereas a Ger Toshav cannot).

(c) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa, who includes a Ger Toshav in all the La'avin, learns from "Re'acha" to preclude a Nochri (like we learned in a Beraisa). Even though he already learned that from "me'Achecha" - he learns from one of them ('Im Eino Inyan') to permit Gezel Nochri.

(d) Having taught us that ...

1. ... Gezel Nochri is permitted, we nevertheless need a second Pasuk to permit Oshek - because, unlike Gezel, he worked for his wages.
2. ... Oshek of a Nochri is permitted, we need a second Pasuk to permit his Gezel - because, unlike Oshek, the Nochri already has the object in his possession.

(a) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who precludes Beheimah ve'Keilim from the La'avin in Kedoshim, learns from "Lo Salin ... *Itcha*" like Rev Asi, who says - that even if one hires a laborer to pick one cluster of grapes (symbolical of a Sachir Sha'os [see Tosfoe DH 'Li'vtzor'), he is subject to "Lo Salin".

(b) The Tana Kama learns this from the Pasuk "ve'Eilav Hu Nosei es Nafsho". Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah learns from there - the extent of the sin of withholding a laborer's wages, seeing as he risked his life (by climbing up a tall ladder, and then working there picking fruit, knowing that he might fall). Consequently, the Pasuk is saying, withholding his wages is akin to taking his life.