Flow Chart of Sugyah

Alex Schaeffer, Ilana Silber, Paula Garshowitz

If a person hires skilled workers and they deceived the employer, or the employer deceived them, they can only complain because they have no monetary claim against each other.	Quote from Mishnah	דתניא השוכר את האומנין והטעו את בעל הבית או בעל הבית הטעה אותן אין להם זה על זה אלא תרעומת
When is it said that a day worker has no monetary claim against the employer?	Clarification of Baraita	במה דברים אמורים
This is said when the employer cancels on the workers before they have left for work.	Answer	שלא הלכו
But, for example, if the workers come to work and the supplies are not available, they are paid as inactive workers. Cases of the Gemara: -if you hired a donkey driver to transport grain and when the worker showed up there was no grain -if you hired workers to plow the field and when the workers showed up the land was unsuitable for plowing		אבל הלכו חמרים ולא מצאו תבואה פועלין ומצאו שדה כשהיא לחה נותן להן שכרן משלם אבל אינו דומה הבא טעון לבא ריקן עושה מלאכה ליושב ובטל
When is it said that neither party has a monetary claim against each other?	Clarification of Baraita	בד"א
This is said when workers who are hired on contract have not started their work yet. But if they had started their work and one of them broke the contract, a different law applies. They are evaluated for the work they have performed, and they are paid based on the evaluation.	Answer	שלא התחילו במלאכה אבל התחילו במלאכה שמין להן מה שעשו
How do we evaluated them?	Question	כיצד
Case 1: Workers were hired to harvest the land for 2 selaim. At noon they stopped working and there was half a field left unharvested. Case 2: Workers were hired to weave clothing for 2 selaim. At noon they stopped working and the work was only half completed.	Answer	קבלו קמה לקצור בשני סלעים קצרו חציה והניחו חציה בגד לארוג בשני סלעים ארגו חציו והניחו חציו
Since they completed half the work, they receive half of the money they contracted for, regardless of the current price of labour (eg. if the price has gone up or down). Or the workers can complete their work and collect the full payment.	The Ruling	שמין להן את מה שעשו היה יפה ששה דינרים נותן להן סלע או יגמרו מלאכתן ויטלו שני סלעים ואם סלע נותן להם סלע
	Talmud’s discussion on Baraita
An excerpt from the above braita was taught in the presence of Rav. The Braita: If the workers arrive and there is no labour for them to perform they are paid full wages.	Case in Talmud	תני תנא קמיה דרב נותן להם שכרן משלם
Rav said that his uncle Rabbi Hiya said that he would not have paid the worker full wages since he did no work. He would have paid the worker as an inactive worker. And yet the Braita says that the employer must pay the worker full wages. This implies that Rabbi Hiya does not follow the Braita.	Question	אמר ליה חביבי אמר אילו אנא הואי לא הוה יהיבנא להן אלא כפועל בטל ואת אמרת נותן להם שכרן משלם
You can’t compare the worth of someone who works to someone who doesn’t do any work.	Proof	והא עלה קתני אינו דומה הבא טעון להבא ריקן עושה מלאכה ליושב ובטל
When Rav was taught the Braita, the teacher did not finish teaching him, therefore Rav thought that the Braita meant you have to pay full wages instead of paying as an inactive worker.	First Answer	לא סיימוה קמיה
There are those who say that Rav teacher did indeed finish teaching him the Braita.	Second Version	איכא דאמרי סיימוה קמיה
Rav said that his uncle Rabbi Hiya said that he would not have paid the workers anything at all because they didn’t perform any labour. But the Braita says that we pay them as inactive workers. This poses a difficulty because Rabbi Hiya contradicts the Braita.	Question	והכי קאמר חביבי אמר אי הואי אנא לא הוה יהיבנא ליה כלל ואת אמרת כפועל בטל אלא קשיא הך
There is no difficulty because Rabbi Hiya only says that the workers should not be paid at all when the show up and there is no work to be done in a case where they inspected the field the night before. They should have realized that the land would be unsuitable for work. The Braita’s ruling that they are paid as inactive workers applies to a situation in which the workers did not come to inspect the land the night before.	Answer	לא קשיא הא דסיירא לארעיה מדאורתא הא דלא סיירא לארעיה מאורתא
This is comparable to Rava’s ruling. The case: An employer hired worker to dig ditches in his field, however it rained and the field was unsuitable for digging. The Law: If the workers and the employer inspected the land the night before, then the workers are not paid at all. But if the workers and the employer had not inspected the land the night before, then the employer must pay the workers as inactive workers.	The Case The Law	כי הא דאמר רבא האי מאן דאגר אגירי לרפקא ואתא מטרא ומלייה מיא אי סיירא לארעיה מאורתא פסידא דפועלים, לא סיירא לארעיה מאורתא פסידא דבעל הבית ויהיב להו כפועל בטל
This is comparable to another one of Rava’s rulings. The case: An employer hires workers to irrigate this field, however it rained and the field no longer required irrigation. The law: It is the workers loss and the employer does not have to pay the worker at all. However if the river swelled and watered the field, it is the employers loss and he must pay the workers as inactive workers.	The case The Law The case The Law	ואמר רבא האי מאן דאוגיר אגורי לדוולא ואתא מטרא פסידא דפועלים אתא נהרא פסידא דבעל הבית ויהיב להו כפועל בטל
This is comparable to another one of Rava’s rulings. The case: An employer hires workers to draw water and irrigate his field. At noon the river from which the workers were drawing dried up, making it impossible to finish their work. The law: If the river does not usually dry up, it is the workers’ loss and they are not paid. If the river usually dries up and the workers are residents of the town, they would be expected to know this and it is their loss, however if they are not residents of the town it is the employer loss, and they are paid as inactive workers.	The Case The Law	ואמר רבא האי מאן דאוגיר אגורי לדוולא ופסק נהרא בפלגא דיומא אי לא עביד דפסיק פסידא דפועלים , עביד דפסיק, אי בני מתא פסידא דפועלים, לאו בני מתא פסידא דבעל הבית
Rava’s final ruling. The case: An employer hires workers to carry out a certain task that he thinks will take the whole day to complete. At noon the workers are finished. The law: If he has another task for the workers which is less or equally physically demanding than the previous task, then he may tell them to do this for the rest of the day, however if the next task is more physically demanding he is not allowed to give them this task and he must allow them to take the rest of the day off and pay them for the entire day.	The Case The Law	ואמר רבא האי מאן דאגר אגורי לעבידתא ושלים עבידתא בפלגא דיומא אי אית ליה עבידתא דניחא מינה יהיב להו, א"נ דכותה מפקד להו, דקשה מינה לא מפקד להו ונותן להם שכרן משלם
Why must they be paid their full wages if the work only took them half a day? Let them be paid as inactive workers for the afternoon.	Question	אמאי וליתיב להו כפועל בטל
Rava’s ruling was referring to the workers of Mechoza. The people of Mechoza were primarily employed as porters and constantly carried heavy loads. By taking half a day off, this was of no benefit to them because it weakens their muscles, therefore they must be paid their full wages. However other workers do not need to be compensated for the rest of the day and would be paid as inactive workers.	Answer	כי קאמר רבא באכלושי דמחוזא דאי לא עבדי חלשי