Talmud - Shevu'ot 45b שבועות מ״ה ב׳

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.

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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Shevuot 45b explores wage disputes between workers and employers, examining oath requirements, payment deadlines, and presumptions against delaying wages.