1)

(a)Rava rules that if an employer hired laborers to water his field, and their services are not required because...

1. ... it rained then it is the laborers who must bear the loss (and receive no compensation [because, since the employer knew no more than they did, he can blame it on their bad Mazel]).

2. ... the local river overflowed its banks then the employer must pay them like a Po'el Batel, because he is aware of the river's habits, and the onus was on him to warn the laborers.

(b)If those same laborers are forced to stop work in the middle of the day because the local river dried up then, if it is unusual for the river to stop flowing, or even if it common, but they are local residents (who are conversant with the river's habits), then they must bear the loss. But if it is both unusual for the river to stop flowing and the laborers are from another town, then it is the employer who loses out (for not informing them of the likelihood of this happening).

(c)And in a case where an employer employed laborers to do a certain task that day, and they completed it in the middle of the day, he rules that he is permitted to give them other work in the afternoon, provided it is easier or at least, not more difficult than the what they did in the morning. But if the only work that the employer has is more difficult than the original task, then he must pay them in full and send them home.

(d)In the latter case, despite the fact that they did not work in the afternoon, he nevertheless pays them in full, and not like a Po'el Batel because Rava is referring to the people of his town Mechuza, who were used to carrying loads, and sitting idle affected them detrimentally (and was more difficult for them to handle than working).

2)

(a)The Beraisa (that we discussed on the previous Amud) finds it necessary to inform us that if the retracting laborers subsequently complete the job, they receive the full two Sela'im in a case when laborers' wages rose, and the employer had to convince them to finish the job. Bearing in mind that the Chachamim give the laborer the upper hand, we might now have accepted their claim that they only completed the job on the understanding that they would receive the higher wage, but the Tana teaches us that this is not the case.

(b)Indeed, when the employer convinced them to return, he did not expect them to continue working on the same terms as before because he had in mind to provide them with extra food (which he is now obligated to do [but not to give them a rise]).

(c)And when the Tana added that if what they did is worth a Sela, they receive a Sela he is speaking in a case where originally, the laborers asked for a Sela for half a day's work, though the going rate was less. However, in the middle of the day, the price of laborers went up to a Sela, and the laborers demanded an equivalent wage increase. Consequently, the Tana teaches us that, based on his counter-argument (that they only refused to accept less than a Sela because the going rate was less, but now that all laborers received a Sela, the reason to ask for more no longer applies), the employer only needs to pay them a Sela.

3)

(a)After citing Rebbi Dosa (who holds 'Yad Po'el al ha'Elyonah'), the Tana continues 'O Yigm'ru Melachtan ve'Yitlu Sh'nei Dinrim. He needs to tell us this in a case where the price of laborers dropped, and this time it is the employer who retracted and needed to be convinced to allow them to complete the job. Consequently, we might now have accepted his claim that he only agreed on the understanding that they accept a wage reduction, and the Tana comes to teach us that this is not the case.

(b)When the laborers convinced the employer to allow them to complete the job, they did indeed expect him to accept them on the same terms as before, because they had in mind to perform better-quality work (which they are now obligated to do).

(c)And he adds 'Sela, Nosen lahem Sela', explains Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Nasan in a case where originally, the employer hired them for less than a Sela for half a day's work, although the going rate was a Sela. However, in the middle of the day, the price of laborers dropped, and now the employer expects them to accept an equivalent wage decrease. Consequently, the Tana needs to teach us that (based on their counter-argument (that he only refused to pay them a Sela because that was the going rate, but now that all laborers receive a Sela, he has no reason to pay them less), the employer remains obligated to pay them a Sela.

(d)The basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Dosa and the Rabanan is whether we hold 'Yad Po'el al ha'Elyonah' (the Rabanan), or 'Kol ha'Chozer Bo, Yado al ha'Tachtonah' (Rebbi Dosa). Note, that when we first asked on Rebbi Dosa, we thought that Rebbi Dosa holds 'Yad Po'el ha'Tachtonah' (because the employer is Muchzak in the money).

4)

(a)Rav rules like Rebbi Dosa ('Kol ha'Chozer Bo, Yado al ha'Tachtonah'). The problem with this is that Rav himself rules that a laborer has the right to retract even in the middle of the day.

(b)The basis of Rav's Chidush is the Pasuk in Behar "Avadai Heim" (i.e. we are slaves of Hash-m, and not of anybody else).

(c)Initially, we try to draw a distinction between a day laborer (who may retract) and a contractor, who is hired to do a specific job, (which he needs to complete), and the basis of this distinction is the fact that the Pasuk ("Avadai Heim") does not apply to a contractor, who can in no way be deemed a slave of the person who employs him (and does not therefore need to be precluded).

(d)Seeing as Rav holds like Rebbi Dosa Rebbi Dosa must also be speaking specifically by a contractor.

5)

(a)A Sachir (an employee) is paid by the day a Kablan (a contractor), for the job.

(b)The Beraisa rules that if either of them retracted in the middle of the day due to the death of a close relative or because he was running a high fever he receives his full wage (because he is an Ones).

(c)We initially establish the author as Rebbi Dosa because, according to the Rabanan, a laborer has the upper-hand even when his retraction is not due to an Ones.

(d)And we extrapolate that when there is no Ones, neither of them have the right to retract, a proof that Rebbi Dosa does not differentiate between a Sachir and a Kablan, as we suggested earlier to answer the Kashya on Rav.

6)

(a)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak establishes Rebbi Dosa by a Kablan, and the Beraisa can even go like the Rabanan. To achieve this, he establish the Beraisa by a Davar ha'Avud (where the retraction causes a loss, and), where even the Rabanan concede that a laborer is forbidden to retract where there is no Ones.

(b)Our Mishnah states 'Kol ha'Meshaneh, Yado al ha'Tachtonah; ve'Chol ha'Chozer Bo, Yado al ha'Tachtonah'. The Chidush of the former statement is that Rebbi is presenting a Stam Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah, who says (in Perek ha'Gozel Eitzim) that if a dyer dyes wool black instead of red ... , he has the underhand.

(c)The Chidush in the latter statement is that, although the Reisha only gave an 'Uman' (implying a Kablan) the underhand, the Seifa here comes to teach us that a Sachir has the underhand, too.

(d)And to reconcile Rav's ruling like Rebbi Dosa on the one hand, and his permitting a Sachir to retract on the other, we conclude that even though Rebbi Dosa speaks by both a Kablan and a Sachir, Rav only rules like him regarding the former, but not regarding the latter.

7)

(a)Alternatively, Rav rules like Rebbi Dosa with regard to a Sachir as well, and 'Kol ha'Chozer Bo, Yado al ha'Tachtonah' refers to a seller or a purchaser who retracts from the sale of a field, after the latter has paid two hundred out of the sale price of a thousand Zuz.

(b)Practically speaking, if ...

1. ... the seller retracts after having paid part of the money the purchaser has the option of demanding either his money back, or part of the field, corresponding to what he paid, and what's more, the seller must give him Idis (good-quality land).

2. ... the purchaser retracts then the seller has the equivalent option, though he need only give the purchaser Ziburis (poor-quality land).

(c)According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel however, this situation could never arise because whenever a purchaser does not have sufficient funds to pay for the entire property, Beis-Din make the seller write a Shtar to the effect that he sold the entire property immediately, for whatever the purchaser paid him, and the balance is converted into a loan to be paid whenever he has the money.

8)

(a)The Tana requires the seller to pay good-quality land if he is the one to retract. The two problems with this, assuming that the Tana means 'from his best-quality fields' are a, that, seeing as even a creditor only has the right to claim from Beinonis (middle-quality fields [and even that is only due to 'Ne'ilas Deles', to encourage people to lend money to those who need it], a reason that does not apply to a sale), on what grounds would a purchaser claim Idis and b. because since the purchaser paid for a specific plot of land, why should the seller be obligated to give him a different one?

(b)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak therefore interprets the Beraisa to mean the purchaser receives the best part of the plot of land that he paid for (see Tosfos DH 'me'Idis'), and by the same token, in the case where he is the one to retract, he receives the worst part of the land that he paid for.

(c)Rav Acha Brei d'Rav Ika interprets the Beraisa like we assumed initially because he says, we consider the purchaser a Nizak (who gets paid from the best of the Mazik's property),

(d)This is because someone who buys a field for a thousand Zuz generally needs to sell some of his Metaltelin cheaply in order to obtain the money for it, and by retracting, the seller turns this into a loss, for which we penalize him.

9)

(a)The Beraisa discusses a case where one of two men entering into a business deal, hands his friend a security, assuring him that, should he retract from the deal, he will forego the security. His friend on the other hand promises that, if he retracts, he will pay back double.

(b)Rebbi Yosi rules that the agreement is valid on the basis of the principle 'Asmachta Kanya' (meaning that an exaggerated stipulation must be taken seriously, and is valid).

(c)Rebbi Yehudah qualifies Rebbi Yosi's ruling restricting it to the value of the security (because he holds 'Asmachta Lo Kanya').

(d)Raban Shimon ben Gamliel qualifies Rebbi Yehudah's ruling, restricting it to the case of a security (as we explained) but if the purchaser were to hand the seller a down payment, then even by Stam (without any stipulation), he would acquire the entire piece of land that he is buying.

10)

(a)The problem we now have with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel is that in his earlier ruling, he required the balance to be inserted in a Shtar in the form of a loan, which he does not do here.

(b)We reconcile the two rulings by citing Rava who draws a distinction between 'Ayil ve'Nafik a'Zuzi' (where the seller is pressing the purchaser for his money) and 'Lo Ayil ve'Nafik a'Zuzi'.

(c)The reason for this is because in the former case, the seller is clearly forced to sell because he desperately needs the money, in which case, he does not relinquish ownership until the money is fully paid ... .

(d)Consequently, in the former case unless the money is converted into a loan, even Raban Shimon ben Gamliel will agree that it does not acquire until he has paid every last cent, whereas in the latter, it acquires immediately.

11)

(a)Rava says that legally, there is nothing that the creditor can do to prevent the debtor from paying off his debt of a hundred Zuz, a Zuz at a time, and that all that he has on him is complaints.

(b)Rav Ashi asked whether a purchaser who has paid all but for the last Zuz for a donkey (see Maharam), for which the seller was pestering him does also not acquire, even though there is only one Zuz outstanding, or whether, seeing as the balance is so small, it is unlikely that they should be able to retract.

(c)Rav Mordechai quoted Avimi from Hagrunya in the name of Rava as saying that one Zuz (short) is no different than many Zuzim.

12)

(a)When Rava ruled that under the same circumstances, the purchaser acquires the object, he was relating to a case where the seller was selling a field because it was in such bad shape.

(b)This case is different than a regular case of 'Ayil ve'Nafik a'Zuzi' bcause 'Anan Sahadi' (we are witnesses) that the owner wants to sell the field predominantly because of the shape it is in, and that he is only chasing the purchaser for the money to prevent him from retracting.