These words of Torah are dedicated l’ilui nishmat Menachem Mendel ben Harav Yoel David Balk, a”h.
This week we learned Bava Metzia 118 and 119. Here are some highlights.
Bava Metzia 118: Can an employer change the deal and pay with wheat?
Our Mishnah taught that if a man promised to pay a worker cash to collect hay or animal feed, he cannot change the terms of the deal and tell the worker that he will allow him to keep some of the hay instead of giving him cash. What about if the employer offered the employee wheat and barley and not hay and feed? Generally, Halacha considers items worth money to be the equivalent of money. Why can’t the employer pay his employee with hay instead of cash?
Rashi and the Rashba differ in explaining the law of our daf. Rashi (s.v. Ein Shom’in Lo) teaches that the law is based on the verse. The Torah enjoined the employer not to delay the payment of wages. It said, “Lo talin peulat sachir it’cha ad boker, Do not have sleep over the wages of a hired man with you until morning.” (Vayikra 19:13) The Torah prohibits delayed payment of a wage. Based on the verse that requires that the wage be paid, the employer may not choose to switch the terms and pay with hay, an item worth money. Rashba felt that the verse did not teach us anything about what can be given as payment. According to Rashba, our law is based on logic. A person hires himself out in order to earn money with which he will purchase food for his family. He did not hire himself out to get hay, which he will then have to sell, to provide his family with food.
Rosh (Bava Kamma Perek Alef Siman 5) agrees with Rashi. He feels that our law is based on the verse. He ruled that just as an employer cannot change the terms of the deal and pay with hay, he cannot change the terms of the deal and pay with wheat or barley. The verse mandated that the employer provide his wage, and that meant cash. However, Rashba ruled that an employer could change the deal to pay with wheat. Our Gemara’s law was based on logic. An employee is working to feed his family. He had never agreed to work to get items that he would need to work with some more in order to feed the family. An employer could give him food as a wage.
There might be another difference in law between Rashi and Rashba. Bava Metzia has taught that there are scenarios where there is no law of bal talin. If an emissary hired an employee, even though he said, “The employer you work for will pay you,” there is no possibility for violating bal talin. According to Rashi, the law enjoining paying with hay instead of cash is based on the bal talin verse. Therefore, if the employer were to higher through an emissary, since the verse does not apply in this case, he would be able to switch the wage. We would have the usual law that shaveh kesef kikesef, what is worth money is the same as money. However, according to Rashba, our law is not based on a verse. Therefore, even if the employer were to hire through a representative he would not be able to switch the wage and allow the employee to take hay instead of giving him cash (Meorot Daf Hayomi).
Bava Metzia 119: Is Torah learning only for Jews?
A man was asked to give a Torah lesson to a class. Some of the members of the class were Jewish. Others were not. Was he allowed to teach a regular Torah lesson? Gemara Chagigah (13a) teaches that the verse “Lo asah chein l’chol goy umisphatim bal yeda’um, He has not done so for every nation, and He has not informed them of His laws,” is a mandate that Torah is only for the Jewish nation.
God gave the non-Jewish world seven Noahide laws. One of those laws is to avoid illicit marital acts, arayot. A second is to have a system of justice, dinim. Two sections of Shas deal with these topics, Nashim and Nezikin. The teacher could teach a class from these topics. Since these are laws that are applicable to the gentile world, it is correct to teach it to them just as it is correct to teach it to Jews. Some might argue that Hashem wants us to teach the gentiles the bottom-line halachot of marriage and monetary justice. Perhaps Hashem does not want us to teach Talmud and deep analysis to others. Our daf would prove such a thought wrong.
The Gemara discusses a complicated issue. If there were two gardens, one on top and the other below, and there were plants growing in the wall of sand between the gardens, who owned the plants? Rabbi Meir argued that the owner of the top garden owned the plants, for their roots were drawing nourishment from his earth. Rabbi Yehudah argued that the owner of the lower garden owned the plants for they were in his air space. Rabbi Shimon taught that the plants the owner of the top garden could reach were his, and the plants he could not bend and reach were the property of the lower garden owner. Efraim, the student of Reish Lakish, taught that the halacha followed the ruling of Rabbi Shimon. He taught this to the Persian King Shvor Malka. Shvor Malka was an expert in Jewish law. He was so excited about the ruling that he declared that Reish Lakish deserved royal favor for his teachings. Maharitz Chayut proved from here that deep lessons about monetary law can be shared with members of other nations. All people should have just laws regarding monetary concerns. That is why Amoraim shared halachic analysis with the Persian king. Therefore, in the scenario of the teacher, the invited rabbi was told by Rav Zilberstein to accept the invitation and give a lesson about any sugya in Nezikin. (Chashukei Chemed)
By Rabbi Zev Reichman
Rabbi Zev Reichman teaches Daf Yomi in his shul, East Hill Synagogue.
