״מֵאַחֶיךָ״ – פְּרָט לַאֲחֵרִים. ״גֵּרְךָ״ – זֶה גֵּר צֶדֶק. ״בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ״ – זֶה אוֹכֵל נְבֵילוֹת.

The verse states: “You shall not oppress a hired laborer who is poor and needy, whether he be from your brothers or from your stranger that is in your land within your gates” (Deuteronomy 24:14), which is interpreted as follows: The term “from your brothers” serves to exclude others, i.e., gentiles, who are not your brothers. As for the term “your stranger,” this is referring to a righteous convert. As for the term “within your gates,” this is referring to a ger toshav who lives in Eretz Yisrael and eats unslaughtered animal carcasses because he has not accepted Judaism upon himself.

אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שְׂכַר אָדָם, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת בְּהֵמָה וְכֵלִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּאַרְצְךָ״ – כׇּל שֶׁבְּאַרְצְךָ. וְכוּלָּן עוֹבְרִים בְּכׇל הַשֵּׁמוֹת הַלָּלוּ.

I have derived only that the prohibitions of delaying wages apply to the hire of people. From where do I know to include payment for the rental of animals and utensils in the prohibition of delaying wages? The verse states: “In your land,” which includes all that is in your land. And in all of the above cases of delaying payment they transgress all of these prohibitions which apply to delaying payment.

מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ: אֶחָד שְׂכַר אָדָם וְאֶחָד שְׂכַר בְּהֵמָה וְאֶחָד שְׂכַר כֵּלִים – יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם ״בְּיוֹמוֹ תִתֵּן שְׂכָרוֹ״, וְיֵשׁ בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תָּלִין פְּעֻלַּת שָׂכִיר״. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם ״בְּיוֹמוֹ תִּתֵּן שְׂכָרוֹ״, וְאֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם ״לֹא תָלִין״. בְּהֵמָה וְכֵלִים אֵין בָּהֶן אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תַּעֲשֹׁק״ בִּלְבַד.

From here the Sages stated: Whether referring to the hire of a person or the rental of an animal or the rental of utensils, all are subject to the prohibition of: “On the same day you shall give him his wages” (Deuteronomy 24:15), and they are likewise subject to the prohibition of delaying the payment of wages of a hired laborer (Leviticus 19:13). Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: One who hires a ger toshav is subject to the prohibition of: “On the same day you shall give him his wages,” but is not subject to the prohibition of delaying payment of wages, and the payment of rent of an animal or vessels is included only in the prohibition of: “Do not oppress” alone.

מַנִּי? אִי תַּנָּא קַמָּא דְּ״מֵאַחֶיךָ״ – קַשְׁיָא גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב. אִי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי – קַשְׁיָא בְּהֵמָה וְכֵלִים!

The Gemara returns to its initial question: In accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna of the baraita, who interprets the verse: “From your brothers,” the halakha of a ger toshav is difficult, as he equates a ger toshav with a Jew, unlike the mishna. If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, the halakha of the rental payment of animals and vessels is difficult, as Rabbi Yosei maintains they are not included in any of the prohibitions except for: Do not oppress.

אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי תַּנָּא – תַּנָּא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הוּא, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: אֶחָד שְׂכַר אָדָם, וְאֶחָד שְׂכַר בְּהֵמָה וְאֶחָד שְׂכַר כֵּלִים – יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם ״בְּיוֹמוֹ תִתֵּן שְׂכָרוֹ״ וּמִשּׁוּם ״לֹא תָלִין״. גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב – יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם ״בְּיוֹמוֹ תִתֵּן שְׂכָרוֹ״, וְאֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תָּלִין״.

Rava said: This tanna of the mishna is a tanna from the school of Rabbi Yishmael, as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Whether in the case of the hire of a person, the rental of an animal, or the rental of vessels, all of these payments are subject to the mitzva of: “On the same day you shall give him his wages,” and the prohibition of delaying payment of wages. A ger toshav is subject to the mitzva of: “On the same day you shall give him his wages,” but he is not subject to the prohibition of delaying payment of wages.

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא ״דְּמֵאַחֶיךָ״ – גָּמַר ״שָׂכִיר״ ״שָׂכִיר״. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא גָּמַר ״שָׂכִיר״ ״שָׂכִיר״.

Until this point, the Gemara has discussed the source of the ruling of the first tanna. It now analyzes the reasons behind the different opinions. What is the reason of the first tanna of the baraita, who interprets the verse: “From your brothers”? He derives it by verbal analogy comparing the words: “You shall not oppress a hired laborer,” and the verse: “The wages of a hired laborer shall not remain with you all night until the morning.” Just as the former verse includes a Jew, a ger toshav, the rental of an animal, and the rental of utensils, so too, the latter verse includes all of the above. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, does not derive this verbal analogy of: “Hired laborer” and “hired laborer.”

נְהִי דְּלָא גָּמַר ״שָׂכִיר״ ״שָׂכִיר״, בְּהֵמָה וְכֵלִים מִשּׁוּם ״בְּיוֹמוֹ תִתֵּן שְׂכָרוֹ״ נָמֵי נִיחַיַּיב? תָּנֵי רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְלֹא תָבֹא עָלָיו הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ כִּי עָנִי הוּא״ – מִי שֶׁהֵן בָּאִין לִידֵי עֲנִיּוּת וַעֲשִׁירוּת, יָצְאוּ בְּהֵמָה וְכֵלִים שֶׁאֵינָן בָּאִין לִידֵי עֲנִיּוּת וַעֲשִׁירוּת.

The Gemara challenges: Although Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, does not derive the verbal analogy of the words: “Hired laborer” and “hired laborer,” one should still also be liable in the case of animals or vessels due to the injunction of: “On the same day you shall give him his wages.” From where does he derive that such items are not included in this prohibition? Rabbi Ḥananya teaches in a baraita that the verse states: “On his day you shall give him his wages, and the sun shall not set upon him, for he is poor” (Deuteronomy 24:15). This verse clearly is referring to one who can enter into a state of poverty and wealth, which excludes animals and vessels, which cannot enter into a state of poverty and wealth.

וְתַנָּא קַמָּא, הַאי ״כִּי עָנִי הוּא״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי: לְהַקְדִּים עָנִי לְעָשִׁיר. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: הָהוּא ״מִלֹּא תַעֲשֹׁק שָׂכִיר עָנִי וְאֶבְיוֹן״ נָפְקָא.

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the first tanna, who does not address this verse of: “For he is poor,” what does he do with it? The Gemara answers: That verse is necessary to give precedence to a poor person over a wealthy person if the employer does not have enough money to pay all his workers. And how does Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, derive that halakha? In his opinion that halakha is derived from: “You shall not oppress a hired laborer who is poor and needy” (Deuteronomy 24:14).

וְתַנָּא קַמָּא: חַד לְהַקְדִּים עָנִי לְעָשִׁיר, וְחַד לְהַקְדִּים עָנִי לְאֶבְיוֹן.

The Gemara asks: But if so, why does the first tanna require another verse? The Gemara explains: He maintains that one verse serves to give a poor person precedence over a wealthy person, while the other one serves to give a poor person precedence over a destitute person, i.e., a complete pauper who owns nothing.

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן אֶבְיוֹן – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא כְּסִיף לְמִתְבְּעֵיהּ. אֲבָל עָשִׁיר, דִּכְסִיף לְמִתְבְּעֵיהּ – אֵימָא לָא. וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן עָשִׁיר – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא צְרִיךְ לֵיהּ, אֲבָל אֶבְיוֹן דִּצְרִיךְ לֵיהּ – אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.

The Gemara adds: And both verses are necessary, as had the Torah taught us only that a poor person comes before one who is destitute one could have said that this is because a destitute person is not ashamed to demand his money; he is so needy he is not embarrassed to ask for money. But with regard to a wealthy person, who is ashamed to demand his wages, one might say that a poor person does not receive precedence over him. And conversely, had the Torah taught us only that this halakha applies to a wealthy person one could have said that it is because he does not need his wages right away, but with regard to a destitute person, who does need it immediately, say that it does not apply. It was therefore necessary for both verses to be stated.

וְתַנָּא דִּידַן: מָה נַפְשָׁךְ? אִי יָלֵיף ״שָׂכִיר״ ״שָׂכִיר״ – אֲפִילּוּ גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב נָמֵי, אִי לָא יָלֵיף ״שָׂכִיר״ ״שָׂכִיר״ – בְּהֵמָה וְכֵלִים מְנָא לֵיהּ?

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the ruling of the tanna of our mishna, whichever way you look at it, it requires clarification. If he derives the verbal analogy of the words: “Hired laborer” and “hired laborer,” then even a ger toshav should be included. If he does not derive the verbal analogy of the words: “Hired laborer” and “hired laborer,” from where does he derive that this halakha applies to animals and vessels?

לְעוֹלָם לָא יָלֵיף ״שָׂכִיר״ ״שָׂכִיר״, וְשָׁאנֵי הָתָם דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״וְלֹא תָלִין פְּעֻלַּת שָׂכִיר אִתְּךָ עַד בֹּקֶר״: כֹּל שֶׁפְּעוּלָּתוֹ אִתְּךָ. אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב נָמֵי! אָמַר קְרָא ״רֵעֲךָ״ – רֵעֲךָ, וְלֹא גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב.

The Gemara answers: Actually, he does not derive the analogy of: “Hired laborer” and “hired laborer,” and there it is different, as the verse states: “The wages of [pe’ulat] a hired laborer shall not remain with you all night until the morning” (Leviticus 19:13). This verse is referring to any case where its work [pe’ulato] is with you, which includes animals and vessels. The Gemara asks: If so, then even a ger toshav should be included, as he too performs work for you. The Gemara responds: The initial section of the verse states: “Your neighbor,” which refers to your neighbor who is Jewish, and not a ger toshav, who is not called a neighbor.

אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ בְּהֵמָה וְכֵלִים נָמֵי! הָא כְּתִיב ״אִתְּךָ״. מָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת בְּהֵמָה וְכֵלִים וּלְהוֹצִיא גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב? מִסְתַּבְּרָא בְּהֵמָה וְכֵלִים הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹת – שֶׁכֵּן יֶשְׁנָן בִּכְלַל מָמוֹן רֵעֲךָ, גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב אֵינוֹ בִּכְלַל מָמוֹן רֵעֲךָ.

The Gemara asks: If so, then even animals and utensils should not be included, as they too are not called: Your neighbor. The Gemara replies: It is written: “With you,” which includes all items that work with you. The Gemara asks: What did you see to decide to include animals and utensils, and to exclude a ger toshav? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that he should include animals and utensils, as they are at least included in the category of your neighbor’s money, whereas a ger toshav is not included in your neighbor’s money.

וְתַנָּא קַמָּא דְּ״מֵאַחֶיךָ״ [וְר׳ יוֹסֵי בְּר׳ יְהוּדָה], הַאי ״רֵעֲךָ״ מַאי עָבְדִי לֵיהּ? הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״רֵעֲךָ״ וְלֹא גּוֹי. גּוֹי מֵ״אַחֶיךָ״ נָפְקָא!

The Gemara asks: And the first tanna of the baraita, who interprets: “From your brothers,” what does he do with this verse: “Your neighbor”? The Gemara explains: That verse is necessary for him for that which is taught in a baraita: “Your neighbor,” and not a gentile. The Gemara challenges: The exclusion of a gentile is derived from: “Your brothers,” and no additional verses are necessary for this purpose.

חַד לְמִשְׁרֵא עוֹשְׁקוֹ, וְחַד לְמִשְׁרֵא גְּזֵלוֹ, וְקָא סָבַר גֶּזֶל גּוֹי מוּתָּר. וּצְרִיכִי: דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן גְּזֵלוֹ – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא טָרַח בֵּיהּ, אֲבָל עוֹשְׁקוֹ, דְּטָרַח בֵּיהּ – אֵימָא לָא. וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן עוֹשְׁקוֹ – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא אֲתָא לִידֵיהּ, אֲבָל גְּזֵלוֹ, דַּאֲתָא לִידֵיהּ – אֵימָא לָא. צְרִיכָא.

The Gemara answers: One verse serves to permit one who oppresses him, and the other one serves to permit stealing from him, and both are necessary. Because had the Torah taught us this halakha only with regard to stealing from him, one could have said that this is because the gentile did not toil for him, but one who oppresses him, where he has toiled for him, you might say that he is not permitted to oppress him. And conversely, had the Torah taught us only that the practice of he who oppresses him is permitted, it might have been said that this is because the money has not yet reached his hand, but with regard to stealing from him, when he takes money that has already reached his hand, say that this halakha does not apply. Therefore, both cases are necessary.

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הַאי ״לֹא תָלִין פְּעֻלַּת שָׂכִיר אִתְּךָ עַד בֹּקֶר״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַב אַסִּי. דְּאָמַר רַב אַסִּי: אֲפִילּוּ לֹא שְׂכָרוֹ אֶלָּא לִבְצוֹר לוֹ אֶשְׁכּוֹל אֶחָד שֶׁל עֲנָבִים – עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תָּלִין״.

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, do with this verse: “The wages of a hired laborer shall not remain with you all night until the morning”? The Gemara answers: It is necessary for him for that which Rav Asi teaches, as Rav Asi says: Even if one hired the laborer to harvest only one cluster of grapes for him, one violates the prohibition of delaying payment of wages.

וְאִידַּךְ: מִ״וְאֵלָיו הוּא נֹשֵׂא אֶת נַפְשׁוֹ״ נָפְקָא, דָּבָר הַמּוֹסֵר נַפְשׁוֹ עָלָיו.

The Gemara asks: And from where does the other Sage, i.e., the first tanna, derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the phrase: “For he sets his soul upon it” (Deuteronomy 24:15). This indicates that one is liable for delaying the payment of wages due for any work; as a laborer obligates himself to perform the work, it is something for which he gives his soul.