Implied question: Why did they say "like the Ba'al ha'Bayis said"?

Answer #1: We believe you that the Ba'al ha'Bayis said so.

Answer #2: If the Ba'al ha'Bayis said more than four, they should receive like the Ba'al ha'Bayis said.

Support: This is why below, we ask [which of these is correct]. Do we say [that they mean] "we believe you that the Ba'al ha'Bayis said so", or because he intends for more [if the Ba'al ha'Bayis said more].

Explanation: We discuss when he said "your wages are on me";

If he said "your wages are on the Ba'al ha'Bayis", what is the difference if they intended for a higher amount that the Ba'al ha'Bayis might have said? He pays to them only what he stipulated! The Ri and R. Chananel said so.

Explanation: If they accepted to harvest the crop for two Sela'im, and they harvested half and the price of labor rose, and the price of what remains to be done is one and a half Sela'im, and the workers retracted, he gives to them only half a Sela;

This is because he will need to give [to other workers] one and a half Sela'im to harvest the other half. This is like R. Dosa;

Citation (Mishnah): If the employer retracts, he has the lower hand.

Explanation (Rashi): If the price of labor declined, and the price of the half [that remains to be done] is only a Shekel (half Sela), and the employer retracted, he gives to them one and a half Sela'im, for he can find workers to finish the harvest for half a Sela.

Implied question: Why didn't he explain that he has the lower hand when the price of labor rose, and he must pay to them one and a half Sela'im for the half that they did, like it is worth now?

Answer: This is unreasonable. Why should he give to them more than he stipulated with him, since they do not lose through his retraction?

Just the contrary, they profit! Now they will find people who will pay to them one and a half Sela'im to harvest half a crop, and he would have paid them only a Sela!

Question: Below (77a), it says that if they will finish their task they receive two Sela'im. [We ask that] this is obvious, and answer that the case is, the price of labor declined, and the employer retracted, and the workers appeased him;

Why did the employer retract, because the price of labor declined? What does he profit through retracting? He must give to them one and a half Sela'im for what they did!

Also, why did the workers appease him, since they do not lose anything?

Answer: The employer retracted due to hatred. There was a quarrel between them;

The workers appeased him so they will not need to search and find a [new] place to earn money.

Explanation: If we say regarding workers that he intends for Iluya of the employer (better terms that he might have offered), also here, we should say that the husband intends for Iluya of his wife, that [perhaps] she said "bring to me my Get."

Implied question: What the Shali'ach said, that she said "receive for me my Get" is Iluya (better) for the husband. She will be divorced quicker if she said so!

Answer: In any case, now that she said "bring", it is more advantageous for the husband if he relies on what she said, so she will be divorced at least when the Get reaches her hand;

Since she is not divorced [even then], this shows that that the husband does not intend for her Iluya;

Similarly regarding workers, we should not say that he intends for Iluya of the employer!

Suggestion: Iluya of the husband is that she is not divorced quickly;

This is better for him than when she is divorced immediately, for now he still has the ability to [Mevatel the Get and] stay married, or divorce.

Support: Now, it is simple how we learn [from divorce to workers. He intends for the Meshale'ach's words, if they are better for him than the Shali'ach's words]!

Rejection: We cannot resolve this with what it says below "granted, had he said oppositely... when the Get reaches [the Shali'ach's] hand she is divorced, for he relies on her words";

According to this suggestion, this is her Geri'usa (her words are worse for him), for she is divorced quickly, and we learn from this that all the more so, [workers] should rely on Iluya of the employer!

If so, this contradicts what we learned above, that obviously [workers] rely on Iluya that the Shali'ach said, and not on Geri'usa of the employer. Here, the husband relies on her Geri'usa!

Question (Ri): We hold like R. Meir, who judges (obligates for) Dina d'Garmi (causing damage. It is more direct and sure to result in damage than Gerama), in Bava Kama (100a);

If so, why doesn't [the employer] give to them like an idle worker, since due to him, they are idle that day?

Answer: We discuss a case in which when [the employer] retracts, [the workers] can still find employment elsewhere. Even so, he has complaints, for he can find employment only through exertion.

Implied question: Below, why do we distinguish between when the donkey-drivers did not go, and when they went and found the field wet?

We could have distinguished even when they did not go at all, between when they can still find employment, and when [the employer] retracted too late for them to find employment!

Answer: We discuss a common case. When they went, it is not common that they can still find employment. If they did not go, presumably, when [the employer] retracts, he retracts immediately, and they can still find employment.