סָבַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא לְמֵימַר: אַרְעָא בְּחֶזְקַת יַתְמֵי קָיְימָא, וְעַל בַּעַל חוֹב לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה. אֲמַר לְהוּ הַהוּא סָבָא, הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עַל הַיְּתוֹמִים לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? אַרְעָא, כֵּיוָן דִּלְגוּבְיָינָא קָיְימָא – כְּמַאן דְּגַבְיָא דָּמְיָא, וְעַל הַיְּתוֹמִין לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה.
Rabbi Ḥanina thought to say that the land remains in the orphans’ possession, as they are currently in control of it, and therefore the responsibility falls upon the creditor to bring proof. A certain elder said to them: This is what Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The responsibility falls upon the orphans to bring proof. What is the reason for this? Since this land stands ready for collection, it is considered as though it has already been collected and is in the creditor’s possession. Consequently, the responsibility falls upon the orphans to bring proof.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: סָפֵק זֶה קָדַם וְסָפֵק זֶה קָדַם – קוֹצֵץ וְאֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן דָּמִים.
Abaye said: We learn a similar halakha in the mishna (Bava Batra 24b) as well, with regard to a tree planted adjacent to a city. Such a tree must be chopped down in any event, regardless of what preceded what. If the city preceded the tree, the owner is not entitled to compensation, but if the tree was there first, he receives payment for the tree. If it is uncertain whether this one was first or that one was first, the owner of the tree cuts it down and the people of the city do not give money to the owner.
אַלְמָא כֵּיוָן דִּלְמִיקָּץ קָיְימָא, אָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: אַיְיתִי רְאָיָה וּשְׁקוֹל. הָכִי נָמֵי, הַאי שְׁטָרָא כֵּיוָן דִּלְגוּבְיָינָא קָיְימָא – כְּמַאן דְּגַבְיָא דָּמְיָא, וְעַל הַיְּתוֹמִים לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה.
Apparently, since this tree is standing to be chopped down, as it is chopped down regardless of whether it or the town was there first, we say to the owner of the tree: You must bring proof to support your claim that the tree was there before the town and only then you may take its value, although the tree is currently in his possession and has not yet been cut down. So too, with regard to this document recording the lien on the land, since it is ready for collection, it is considered as though it has been collected and the responsibility falls upon the orphans to bring proof.
אַיְיתוֹ יַתְמֵי רְאָיָה דְּאִינְהוּ אַשְׁבַּחוּ, סָבַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא לְמֵימַר: כִּי מְסַלְּקִינַן לְהוּ – בְּאַרְעָא מְסַלְּקִינַן לְהוּ.
In the case where the orphans brought proof that they indeed enhanced the land, Rabbi Ḥanina thought to say: When we remove them, we remove them by giving them part of the land equivalent to the value of their enhancement.
וְלָא הִיא, בִּדְמֵי מְסַלְּקִינַן לְהוּ, מִדְּרַב נַחְמָן. דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שְׁלֹשָׁה שָׁמִין לָהֶם אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח, וּמַעֲלִין אוֹתָן בְּדָמִים, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: בְּכוֹר לְפָשׁוּט,
The Gemara comments: But that is not so, as we remove them by paying them with money, as derived from a statement of Rav Naḥman. As Rav Naḥman says that Shmuel says: In three cases the court appraises the enhanced value for the parties involved in enhancing a field, and they are paid in money rather than by being given a portion of the property. And these are they: The first is a firstborn son who makes payment to an ordinary, i.e., non-firstborn, son. This is a case where two sons, one firstborn and the other not, inherit a field from their father. Before it is divided, they both work and enhance the field. When the time comes to divide the field, the firstborn son, who receives a double portion, must pay his brother for the enhancement that the latter contributed to the former’s portion. This payment is given in money rather than land.
וּבַעַל חוֹב וּכְתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה לִיתוֹמִים, וּבַעַל חוֹב לְלָקוֹחוֹת.
And the second case is that of payment taken by a creditor or the payment of a marriage contract by someone who is obligated to reimburse orphans, i.e., a creditor or widow who collects land from the orphans of the deceased debtor or husband, respectively. He or she must pay the orphans for any enhancements they made after their father’s death. This payment is also given in money rather than land. And the third case is that of a creditor who is obligated to purchasers, i.e., a creditor who collects the debt from lands that were sold by the debtor. He pays money to the purchaser for the enhancements generated by the purchaser but does not pay him in land.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: לְמֵימְרָא דְּסָבַר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּעַל חוֹב לְלָקוֹחוֹת? וּמַאי אִית לֵיהּ שְׁבָחָא לְלוֹקֵחַ? וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח! וְכִי תֵּימָא, לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן – בְּשֶׁבַח הַמַּגִּיעַ לִכְתֵפַיִם, כָּאן – בְּשֶׁבַח שֶׁאֵין מַגִּיעַ לַכְּתֵפַיִם. וְהָא מַעֲשִׂים בְּכׇל יוֹם, וְקָא מַגְבֵּי שְׁמוּאֵל אֲפִילּוּ בְּשֶׁבַח הַמַּגִּיעַ לִכְתֵפַיִם!
Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Is this to say that Shmuel maintains that a creditor must pay the value of the enhancement to the buyers? And what type of enhancement is there that is given to a buyer according to Shmuel? But doesn’t Shmuel say: A creditor collects even the enhancement, not only the land itself? And if you would say that this is not difficult, as here it is referring to enhancement that is so great that it reaches the shoulders, meaning it is large enough to be carried away on porters’ shoulders, whereas there it is referring to enhancement that does not reach the shoulders, that is still difficult. But aren’t there incidents every day where Shmuel would collect everything on behalf of a creditor, even enhancement that reaches the shoulders?
לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דְּמַסֵּיק בֵּיהּ כְּשִׁיעוּר אַרְעָא וּשְׁבָחָא, הָא דְּלָא מַסֵּיק בֵּיהּ שִׁיעוּר אַרְעָא וּשְׁבָחָא.
The Gemara responds: It is not difficult; this is referring to a case where the debtor owed him the amount of the value of the land and the enhancement combined, and therefore the creditor does not leave the buyers with anything, whereas that involves a case where he did not owe him the amount of the value of the land and the enhancement. Since he has taken more than the sum to which he is entitled, he pays the buyers for the improvement.
וְכִי לָא מַסֵּיק שִׁיעוּר אַרְעָא וּשְׁבָחָא, דְּיָהֵיב לֵיהּ זוּזֵי לְלוֹקֵחַ וּמְסַלֵּק לֵיהּ, הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: אִי אִית לֵיהּ זוּזֵי לְלוֹקֵחַ לָא מָצֵי מְסַלֵּק לֵיהּ לְבַעַל חוֹב – שַׁפִּיר. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: אִית לֵיהּ זוּזֵי לְלוֹקֵחַ מָצֵי מְסַלֵּק לֵיהּ לְבַעַל חוֹב, וְנֵימָא לֵיהּ: אִי הֲווֹ לִי זוּזֵי – הֲוָה מְסַלֵּיקְנָא לָךְ מִכּוּלַּאּ אַרְעָא, הַשְׁתָּא דְּלֵית לִי זוּזֵי – הַב לִי גְּרִיוָא דְּאַרְעָא בְּאַרְעַאי שִׁיעוּר שְׁבָחַאי!
The Gemara asks: And if he did not owe him the amount of the value of the land and the enhancement, it was stated that the creditor gives the buyer money and removes him. This works out well according to the one who says that even if the buyer has money he cannot remove the creditor by paying him his debt in cash, as the creditor has the right to claim land. According to this opinion, it works well. But according to the one who says that if the buyer has money he may remove the creditor by paying him cash and keep the land for himself, let him say to him as follows: If I had money prepared I would remove you from the entire land; now that I do not have money equal to the value of the entire land, since you must repay me for the enhancement, at least give me a plot of earth in my land corresponding to the amount of the value of my enhancement.
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן דְּשַׁוְּיַאּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: לֹא יְהֵא לְךָ פֵּרָעוֹן אֶלָּא מִזּוֹ.
The Gemara responds: Here we are dealing with a case where the debtor set aside this land as designated repayment [apoteiki] for the creditor, as he said to him: You shall be able to collect from only this land, but no other. Consequently, the creditor wants to take the entire land, as his lien applies only to this field, and if it turns out that he has other claims he will be unable to collect them from elsewhere.
מַתְנִי׳ הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ לְשָׁבוּעַ אֶחָד בִּשְׁבַע מֵאוֹת זוּז, הַשְּׁבִיעִית מִן הַמִּנְיָן. קִבְּלָהּ הֵימֶנּוּ שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים בִּשְׁבַע מֵאוֹת זוּז – אֵין הַשְּׁבִיעִית מִן הַמִּנְיָן.
MISHNA: In the case of one who receives a field from another to cultivate for one Sabbatical cycle of seven years culminating with the Sabbatical Year for seven hundred dinars, the Sabbatical Year is included in the tally, despite the fact that he is unable to work the land during that year. If he received it from him to cultivate for seven years for seven hundred dinars, the Sabbatical Year is not included in the number, and he may keep the field for an additional year to take the place of the Sabbatical Year, during which he could not work the land.
שְׂכִיר יוֹם – גּוֹבֶה כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה. שְׂכִיר לַיְלָה – גּוֹבֶה כׇּל הַיּוֹם. שְׂכִיר שָׁעוֹת – גּוֹבֶה כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה וְכׇל הַיּוֹם. שְׂכִיר שַׁבָּת, שְׂכִיר חֹדֶשׁ, שְׂכִיר שָׁנָה, שְׂכִיר שָׁבוּעַ, יָצָא בַּיּוֹם – גּוֹבֶה כׇּל הַיּוֹם, יָצָא בַּלַּיְלָה – גּוֹבֶה כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה וְכׇל הַיּוֹם.
The tanna addresses a different issue, the halakha of the payment of workers. A day laborer collects his wages from his employer all night following his work shift. A night laborer collects his wages all the following day, while an hourly laborer collects his wages all night and all day. With regard to a weekly laborer, a monthly laborer, a yearly laborer, or a laborer for a Sabbatical cycle of seven years, if he left upon the completion of his work in the day, he collects his wages all day; if he left at night, he collects his wages all night and all day.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִנַּיִן לִשְׂכִיר יוֹם שֶׁגּוֹבֶה כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תָלִין פְּעֻלַּת שָׂכִיר אִתְּךָ עַד בֹּקֶר״. וּמִנַּיִן לִשְׂכִיר לַיְלָה שֶׁגּוֹבֶה כׇּל הַיּוֹם – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּיוֹמוֹ תִתֵּן שְׂכָרוֹ״.
GEMARA: The Sages taught: From where is it derived concerning a day laborer that he collects his wages all night? The verse states: “The wages of a hired laborer shall not remain with you all night until the morning” (Leviticus 19:13). This indicates that he must pay him by the morning, and he has therefore not transgressed the prohibition of delaying the payment of wages until that time. And from where is it derived concerning a night laborer that he collects his wages all day? As it is stated: “On the same day you shall give him his wages” (Deuteronomy 24:15).
וְאֵימָא אִיפְּכָא! שְׂכִירוּת אֵינָהּ מִשְׁתַּלֶּמֶת אֶלָּא בַּסּוֹף.
The Gemara asks: But why not say the opposite, i.e., that a night laborer may be paid all night, while a day laborer receives his wages all day? The Gemara responds: The obligation to pay a person’s wage is incurred only at the end of the period for which he was hired.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״לֹא תָלִין פְּעֻלַּת שָׂכִיר אִתְּךָ״, אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁ״עַד בֹּקֶר״? מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עַד בֹּקֶר״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר אֶלָּא עַד בֹּקֶר רִאשׁוֹן בִּלְבַד.
The Sages taught: From the indication of that which is stated in the verse: “The wages of a hired laborer shall not remain with you all night [lo talin],” do I not know that this means: “Until the morning,” as this is the meaning of: “Remain with you all night [talin]”? Why must the verse state: “Until the morning”? It teaches that he transgresses the prohibition of withholding payment only until the first morning alone, but does not transgress this prohibition another time for any further delay.
מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ, מַאי? אָמַר רַב: עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תְּשַׁהֶא״. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מַאי קְרָאָה – ״אַל תֹּאמַר לְרֵעֲךָ לֵךְ וָשׁוּב וּמָחָר אֶתֵּן וְיֵשׁ אִתָּךְ״.
The Gemara asks: From that point forward, what is the halakha? Rav said: Although one no longer transgresses the prohibition of delaying payment of wages, one violates the prohibition of: Do not delay, by delaying his wages. Rav Yosef said: What is the verse from which it is derived? “Do not say to your neighbor: Go and come again, and tomorrow I will give, when you have it with you” (Proverbs 3:28).
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ צֵא שְׂכוֹר לִי פּוֹעֲלִים – שְׁנֵיהֶן אֵין עוֹבְרִין מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תָּלִין״. זֶה, לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא שְׂכָרָן,
The Sages taught: Concerning one who says to another: Go out and hire workers for me, both of them do not violate the prohibition of delaying payment of wages if they fail to pay immediately. This one, the employer, is exempt because he did not hire them himself, and strictly speaking they are not his hired workers.