Bava Metzia 110: Ambiguous Contracts, Land Improvements, When To Pay Workers

After speaking briefly about a wife who has inherited dead vines or date trees.   Normally she owns the principal and her husband may partake of the produce.  Since there will be no produce, is the husband permitted to benefit from the sale of the wood after they are cut down?  Abaye clarifies that if these are located in someone else's field, she will have no inheritance after they are cut down.  Thus the wood should be considered principal, or hers alone.

The Gemara discusses documents that are ambiguous.  For example, if an owner clams that the "years" in their contract refers to three years and the renter says that "years" refers to two years, what should be done if the owner harvests and uses the produce before the court has reached its decision?  The rabbis discuss a number of possible considerations, including the fact that the owner could have said any number of years but he made the least personally advantageous claim.  This example is called a migo.  Another interesting example tells that the owner claims that the shareholder was to take one third of the produce but the sharecropper claims he was to take one half.  Among the rabbis' considerations is the fact that the local custom is followed above all else in this type of disagreement.  

The Gemara then speaks to a case regarding the improvement of land.  An owner died, leaving his fields to a creditor and to his orphans.  The creditor claims that the owner improved the fields before he died but the orphans say that they improved the fields after their father's death.  Who is believed?  Who must bring proof?  The rabbis suggest a number of reasons that each party should have to prove their claim.  One of the major principles in operation is the notion that the creditor was understood to be taking the land, and thus it is as if he has already done so.  It is wonderful to find this sort of philosophical argument in the middle of an ancient conversation.  

We learn a new Mishna: If land is rented for seven years for seven hundred zuz, is it as if the land is being rented over the shemita year?  In answering this question, the Mishna speaks to halachot regarding paying workers' wages:

• A worker hired for a day collects for the entire night and must be paid that night
• A worker hired for a night collects the coming day
• A worker hired by the hour collects the entire night or day
• A worker hired for a week, month, year or shemita cycle ends work during the day, he collects that entire day
• A that same worker ends working at night, he collects the entire night and day

The Gemara suggests that there are proof texts to challenge each point.  The rabbis conclude that  an owner should not have to pay workers for unfinished jobs.  Thus we do not necessarily have to pay workers in the night or during the day.

The rabbis continue to argue about the requirement to pay workers immediately; one cannot hold a worker's wages overnight or for the entire day.  

The raThe