## Shevuot Daf 45b

###### Shevuot 45b:1
[Shevuot 45b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/45b:1)

אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ קָצַץ נָמֵי! אַלְּמָה תַּנְיָא: אוּמָּן אוֹמֵר ״שְׁתַּיִם קָצַצְתָּ לִי״, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר ״לֹא קָצַצְתִּי לְךָ אֶלָּא אַחַת״ – הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה? קְצִיצָה וַדַּאי מִידְכָּר דְּכִיר לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If so,** then **even** with regard to the amount **fixed** as payment, the employer is apt to be forgetful. **Why,** then, **is** it **taught** in a *baraita*: If the **craftsman says: You fixed two** coins **as my** payment **and the other,** the employer, **says: I fixed only one** coin **as your** payment, the *halakha* is that **the burden of proof rests upon the claimant?** The craftsman must bring witnesses to collect the additional sum; an oath is not sufficient. Why is it not assumed that the employer is distracted, and the craftsman would be allowed to take an oath and collect the amount he claims? The Gemara answers: With regard to the **fixing** of wages, **he certainly remembers.**


###### Shevuot 45b:2
[Shevuot 45b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/45b:2)

אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ עָבַר זְמַנּוֹ נָמֵי! אַלְּמָה תַּנְיָא: עָבַר זְמַנּוֹ וְלֹא נָתַן לוֹ – הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** then **even** if **the time** the wages were due **had passed,** the worker should be able to prove that he has not been paid by taking an oath. **Why,** then, **is** it **taught** in a *baraita* that if **the** established **time** for paying wages **had passed,** i.e., the night after the work was performed, **and** the employer **had not given** the worker his wages, **he no** longer can **take an oath and receive** his wages, but rather must bring witnesses to prove that he was not yet paid.


###### Shevuot 45b:3
[Shevuot 45b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/45b:3)

חֲזָקָה אֵין בַּעַל הַבַּיִת עוֹבֵר בְּ״בַל תָּלִין״. וְהָאָמְרַתְּ: בַּעַל הַבַּיִת טָרוּד בְּפוֹעֲלָיו הוּא! הָנֵי מִילֵּי – מִקַּמֵּי דְּלִימְטֵי זְמַן חִיּוּבָא הוּא; כִּי מָטֵי זְמַן חִיּוּבָא – רָמֵי אַנַּפְשֵׁיהּ וּמִידְּכַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: There is **a presumption** that **the employer will not violate the prohibition against delaying** payment of wages (see Leviticus 19:13) and will have paid the worker by the deadline. The Gemara asks: **But didn’t you say** that the **employer is distracted with his laborers** and is apt to forget to pay? The Gemara responds: **This statement,** that he is presumed to be distracted, applies only **before the time arrives** that **he** incurs **liability** for delaying payment of wages. **When the time** that he incurs **liability arrives, he takes it upon himself** to **remember** to pay.


###### Shevuot 45b:4
[Shevuot 45b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/45b:4)

וְכִי שָׂכִיר עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תִּגְזוֹל״?! גַּבֵּי בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אִיכָּא תְּרֵי חֲזָקֵי: חֲדָא דְּאֵין בַּעַל הַבַּיִת עוֹבֵר בְּ״בַל תָּלִין״, וַחֲדָא דְּאֵין שָׂכִיר מְשַׁהֶא שְׂכָרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is the hired** worker suspected of demanding his wages twice and **violating** the prohibition **against robbery** (see Leviticus 19:13)? The Gemara answers: **With regard to the employer there are two presumptions** supporting his claim that the wages were paid: **One** is **that the employer will not violate the prohibition of delaying** payment of wages, **and one** is **that a hired worker will not defer** requesting **his wages.** Therefore, if he is requesting his wages after the deadline, he probably already received them, and he no longer can prove his claim with only an oath.


###### Shevuot 45b:5
[Shevuot 45b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/45b:5)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁשְּׂכָרוֹ בְּעֵדִים, אֲבָל שְׂכָרוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּעֵדִים – מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ: ״לֹא שְׂכַרְתִּיךָ מֵעוֹלָם״, יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ: ״שְׂכַרְתִּיךָ, וְנָתַתִּי לְךָ שְׂכָרְךָ״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִצְחָק: יִישַׁר, וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Naḥman says** that **Shmuel says:** The Sages **taught** that a worker takes an oath and receives his wages **only when** the employer **hired him in** the presence of **witnesses. But** if **he hired him not in** the presence of **witnesses,** then **since he could have** made a more advantageous claim [*miggo*] and **said to him: I never hired you, he can** instead **say to him: I hired you but** already **gave you your wages,** and that claim is accepted by the court. There is a principle in *halakha* that one is deemed credible when he makes a less advantageous claim than he could have made. **Rabbi Yitzḥak said to** Rav Naḥman: **That is correct; and so said Rabbi Yoḥanan.**


###### Shevuot 45b:6
[Shevuot 45b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/45b:6)

מִכְּלָל דִּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ? אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי מִישְׁתָּא הֲוָה שָׁתֵי לֵיהּ וְשָׁתֵיק לֵיהּ, וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי מִישְׁהָא הֲוָה שָׁהֵי לֵיהּ וּשְׁתֵיק לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Can one infer **from the fact** that Rabbi Yitzḥak said that it was specifically Rabbi Yoḥanan who says this, **that Reish Lakish,** who often engaged in disputes with Rabbi Yoḥanan, **disagrees with him,** even though Rabbi Yitzḥak did not report that he does? **Some say** that Reish Lakish **was drinking** at the time that Rabbi Yoḥanan made his statement **and** therefore **was silent, and some say** that **he was waiting for him** to complete his statement **and** therefore **was silent.** It remains unclear whether he disagreed.


###### Shevuot 45b:7
[Shevuot 45b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/45b:7)

אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי: אָמַר רַב מְנַשְּׁיָא בַּר זְבִיד, אָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁשְּׂכָרוֹ בְּעֵדִים, אֲבָל שְׂכָרוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּעֵדִים – מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ: ״לֹא שְׂכַרְתִּיךָ מֵעוֹלָם״, יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ: ״שְׂכַרְתִּיךָ, וְנָתַתִּי לְךָ שְׂכָרֶךָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was also stated** that **Rav Menashya bar Zevid says** that **Rav says:** The Sages **taught** that a worker takes an oath and receives his wages **only when** the employer **hired him in** the presence of **witnesses. But** if **he hired him not in** the presence of **witnesses, since he could have said to him: I never hired you, he can** instead **say to him: I hired you but** already **gave you your wages,** and that claim is accepted by the court.


###### Shevuot 45b:8
[Shevuot 45b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/45b:8)

אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: כַּמָּה מְעַלְּיָא הָא שְׁמַעְתָּא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: מַאי מְעַלְּיוּתָא? אִם כֵּן, שְׁבוּעַת שׁוֹמְרִין דְּחַיֵּיב רַחֲמָנָא – הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ ״לֹא הָיוּ דְבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם״, יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ ״נֶאֶנְסוּ״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rami bar Ḥama said: How excellent is this *halakha*. Rava said to him: What** is its **excellence? If** the *halakha* is **so, how can you** ever **find** an instance of the **oath of the bailees** concerning a deposit **that the Merciful One imposed? Since** the bailee **could say to** the owner: **These events never occurred,** i.e., I never accepted a deposit from you, **he can say to him:** The deposit was lost **by accident.** He will not need to take an oath to support his claim, since he would have been deemed credible without taking an oath if he had denied accepting the deposit at all.


###### Shevuot 45b:9
[Shevuot 45b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/45b:9)

דְּאַפְקֵיד לֵיהּ בְּעֵדִים. מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ ״הֶחְזַרְתִּיו לָךְ״, יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ ״נֶאֶנְסוּ״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rami Bar Ḥama answered: The oath of the bailees is still relevant **where** the owner **deposited** the item **with him in** the presence of **witnesses.** Rava retorts: Even then, **since** he **could say to him: I** already **returned it to you,** and his claim would be accepted without his taking an oath, **he can say to him:** The deposit was lost **by accident,** and his claim will be accepted without his taking an oath.


###### Shevuot 45b:10
[Shevuot 45b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/45b:10)

דְּאַפְקֵיד לֵיהּ בִּשְׁטָרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rami bar Ḥama answered: The oath of the bailees is still relevant **where** the owner **deposited** the item **with him, with a document** given as a receipt. Possession of the receipt serves as evidence that the bailee has not returned the deposit.


###### Shevuot 45b:11
[Shevuot 45b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/45b:11)

מִכְּלָל דְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ סְבִירָא לְהוּ: הַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵירוֹ בְּעֵדִים – אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהַחְזִיר לוֹ בְּעֵדִים; בִּשְׁטָר – צָרִיךְ לְהַחְזִיר לוֹ בְּעֵדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **By inference** from their statements, one may conclude **that both** Rava and Rami bar Ḥama **hold** that if **one deposits** an item **with another** person **in** the presence of **witnesses,** he **does not need to return** it **to him in** the presence of **witnesses,** and his claim that he returned it without witnesses is accepted. But if one deposits an item with another person **with a document** given as a receipt, **he needs to return** it **to him in** the presence of **witnesses,** who can testify that it was returned.


###### Shevuot 45b:12
[Shevuot 45b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/45b:12)

קָרֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: ״וַיָּשֶׂם דָּוִד אֶת הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה בְּלִבּוֹ״. דְּאַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת לְרַבָּה בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תָּנֵי מָר מִידֵּי בְּשָׂכִיר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, תְּנֵינָא: שָׂכִיר בִּזְמַנּוֹ – נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. כֵּיצַד – בִּזְמַן שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ: ״שְׂכַרְתַּנִי וְלֹא נָתַתָּ לִי שְׂכָרִי״, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: ״שְׂכַרְתִּיךָ וְנָתַתִּי לְךָ שְׂכָרֶךָ״; אֲבָל אָמַר לוֹ: ״שְׁתַּיִם קָצַצְתָּ לִי״, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא קָצַצְתִּי לְךָ אֶלָּא אֶחָת״ – הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rami bar Ḥama would cite** this verse **about Rav Sheshet: “And David laid up these words in his heart”** (I Samuel 21:13), as Rav Sheshet took it upon himself to find sources that would support or contradict the statements of Rav and Shmuel. **As** it is recounted that **Rav Sheshet encountered Rabba bar Shmuel** and **said to him: Does the Master teach any** *halakhot* **about a hired worker?** Rabba bar Shmuel **said to him: Yes, I teach** this *baraita* (*Tosefta* 6:1): **A hired worker within his time** for receiving wages **takes an oath and receives** payment. **How so?** This applies in a case **when** the worker **said to** the employer: **You hired me but did not give me my wages, and the other,** the employer, **says: I hired you and gave you your wages. But** if the hired worker **said to him: You fixed two** coins **as my** payment, **and the other,** the employer, **says: I fixed only one** coin **as your** payment, **the burden of proof rests upon the claimant,** who must provide witnesses to testify that the wage was the greater sum.


###### Shevuot 45b:13
[Shevuot 45b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/45b:13)

הָא מִדְּסֵיפָא בִּרְאָיָה הָוֵי – רֵישָׁא בְּלֹא רְאָיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Sheshet suggested: **Since the latter clause** addresses a case **in** which **proof,** witness testimony, **is** required, **the first clause** must address a case **in** which **proof** is **not** required. This contradicts the statements of Rav and Shmuel above that the worker may take an oath and receive payment only when he has witnesses that this person hired him.


###### Shevuot 45b:14
[Shevuot 45b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/45b:14)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:**