Siman 336

Our sages, of blessed memory, said [Bava Metzia 118a]: One who hires a worker to work with him in straw and stubble, and said to him, "Take what you have made for your wages," we do not listen to him. And even though in all matters "the value of money is as money," nevertheless, regarding a worker who initially went down for his wages and "to it he lifts up his soul," one is obligated to sell what he has and pay him in ready cash, for "his wages shall not remain overnight" is written, implying that which was stipulated with him [Rashi]. And there are some among the early authorities who hold that only regarding straw and stubble is the law thus, but regarding wheat and barley he may give to him. However, most of the poskim hold that the law is so in all things, and thus our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, ruled without qualification, and such is the primary view.

And even if he hired him to work with ownerless property, if he hired him to gather an ownerless item, he cannot say to him afterward, "Take what you have done as your wage," for as soon as the laborer lifted it from the ground, the employer acquired it. And even according to the one who holds that one who lifts a lost object for his fellow, his fellow does not acquire it, in the case of a laborer he does acquire it, for his hand is like the hand of the owner [Bava Metzia 10a]. But if he hired him to guard an ownerless item for him, he can say to him, "Take what you have done as your wage," because the employer has not yet acquired it. Therefore, he should go and acquire it himself, for if another person precedes him in acquiring it, the laborer will remain bald from here and from there, since he knew it was ownerless property, he cannot claim from the employer. And it is not similar to one who hires a laborer to work with his own property and showed him his fellow's property [Sma]. And he can say this to him even if the employer is wealthy and has much, since he has not yet acquired this [Tur], for by mere sight one does not acquire ownerless property, as I have written in siman 273.

If one hired him to work with him on his own property or to gather from ownerless property, and said to him, "Take what you have made as your wage," and the worker agreed to take them as his wage, and afterwards the employer retracted, we do not listen to him. This is specifically when the worker performed a meshikhah or a lifting, or if the object is in his domain. And some say that by the fact that they are in his domain he does not acquire them, for he only said this to him to put him off, as is written in siman 166 regarding one whose wall fell into the garden of his fellow, and the owner of the wall said to the owner of the garden, "Build it and it shall be yours," where he does not acquire it because he only intended to put him off; see there. And the first opinion holds that a hired worker is different; since he owes him his labor wage, he certainly did not say this to put him off [Sma]. And see what I wrote in siman 72, section 54. And our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Arukh, ruled according to this opinion without qualification [and the difficulty raised by the Taz, see Nimukei Yosef at the end of Bava Metzia].

One who hires a worker to work on his own property and showed him the property of his fellow, he gives him his wages in full, and the hirer returns and takes from the homeowner what he benefited him, as has been explained in siman 332. And he cannot say to him, "Take what you have done as your wages," since the object is not mine, for the worker can say to him, "You obligated yourself, and who asked you to hire for the property of others, and why did you not tell me that the work belongs to others?" And even if he did not say to him, "Your wages are upon me," but rather hired him without specification, since he did not tell him that it belongs to his fellow, the worker thought it was his. Therefore, if he hired him to work on the property of his fellow without specification and did not say to him, "Your wages are upon me," he can say to him, "Take what you have done as your wages," since the worker knew that it was not his. But if he said to him, "Your wages are upon me," he cannot say this to him, for it is as if he hired him for his own property.

Reuven who hired workers for the work of Shimon in the presence of Shimon, and Shimon remained silent, silence is considered like an admission, and it is as if he hired them himself for all the laws that have been explained, and he must pay them the price for which Reuven hired them. And the same law applies to one who hires a melamed for the son of his fellow in the presence of his fellow and he remains silent, as was written in siman 81 and in siman 334. And Reuven who said to his son or to his son-in-law, "study with your son and I will pay you," he is exempt from paying him; since he is obligated to study with his son, he can say, "I was mocking you," as was written there.

An incident occurred regarding Reuven who hired a melamed for his son and for his friend's son, and his friend agreed to pay his portion. Afterwards, at the halfway point of the time, his friend arose and hired another, and it is simple that he is obligated to pay Reuven for the past. However, he claimed that he did not hire him for a year, but rather on the condition that he perform his work properly, and that he would not extend the time of the hiring except until Pesach. The Rashba, of blessed memory, ruled that he is obligated to take a shevuat de'oraita since he is a modeh b'miktzat. And if he paid for the past, or if he said to him "heilech," he takes a shevuat hesset that it is as he says:

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote: One who hires a worker and he was seized for angaria for the service of the king, he cannot say "behold I am before you," rather he only gives him according to what he did with him. Thus far his words. And it is taught in the Tosefta, chapter 7 of Bava Metzia, and its explanation is that even if he returns from the angaria within a few days, the owners do not need to wait for him, and he shall pay him for what he did and hire another worker. And see what I wrote in siman 310.