1)

(a)The Beraisa's second Lashon (regarding the Pasuk "ve'Eilav Hu Nosei es Nafsho") reads 'Kol ha'Kovesh S'char Sachir, Ke'ilu Notel Nafsho Mimenu' ('When someone quashes the wages of a laborer, it is as if he took away his Soul from him'). Rav Huna and Rav Chisda argue over the meaning of 'Nafsho', which can mean - either the Soul of the robber or that of the poor man.

(b)The one therefore explains 'Ke'ilu Notel Nafsho Mimenu' to mean that 'withholding a laborer's wages is tantamount to causing one's own death'; the other explains - that he will get punished as if he had caused the laborer's death.

(c)The one proves his point from the Pasuk in Mishlei "Such is the way of anyone who robs, he takes the soul of the owner", which he interprets to mean literally 'the soul of the poor man'. According to the other one, it means - 'the soul of the current owner of the money (i.e. the robber).

(d)The other one proves his point from the Pasuk there "Do not rob a poor man ... because Hash-m will take their part and will rob the soul of the one who robbed them", which the first one interprets to mean - that 'Hashem will rob him, because he robbed the poor man'.

2)

(a)The Beraisa learns that the La'av of "Lo Salin" is subject to the laborer claiming his wages - from the Pasuk "Lo Salin ... "Itcha" (implying 'with you', but without his (the laborer's) consent).

(b)The Tana also learns from "Itcha" a. that the hirer only transgresses if he has the money with which to pay - and b. that, once he sends him to a third party to receive his payment, he is no longer subject to the La'av.

(c)According to Rav Sheishes, once the laborer has agreed to receive his wages from the storekeeper, he cannot retract. This means - that if the storekeeper fails to pay him, he has no claim against his employer.

(d)Rabah maintains - that he can retract.

3)

(a)Rabah proves his ruling from our Mishnah, which states that in such a case, the hirer does not transgress, implying that he may retract (since the Tana does not say so). To counter this proof, how does Rav Sheishes interpret the Mishnah's statement, Rav Sheishes interprets the Mishnah's statement to mean - (not that he does not transgress, but) that he can no longer transgress, come what may.

4)

(a)They asked Rav Sheishes whether Kablanus is subject to 'bal Talin' or not. By 'Kablanus', they meant a contractor (who gets paid per job rather than per day).

(b)The question is - whether whether 'a craftsman acquires the vessel that he manufactured' (Uman Koneh bi'Sh'vach K'li) in which case the money will become a loan (once he hands it over to the client [which is not subject to 'bal Talin']) or not, in which case it is Sechirus (which is).

(c)Rav Sheishes replied 'Over', and he established the Beraisa which says 'Eino Over' - where the hirer arranged for a storekeeper to pay the craftsman's wages.

5)

(a)Another Beraisa rules that someone who gives his cloak to a craftsman, who subsequently ...

1. ... completes the job and informs the owner that it is ready - is not subject to 'bal Talin'.

2. ... returned the cloak at midday - is subject to 'bal Talin' from nightfall.

(b)We try to prove with this - that 'Ein Uman Koneh bi'Sh'vach K'li' (substantiating the opinion of Rav Sheishes).

6)

(a)Rav Mari B'rei de'Rav Kahana refutes the proof by establishing the Beraisa by a teaseler (whose job is to teasel [soften] the cloth) - thinking that the article is not improved, in which case, everyone will agree that the Uman does not acquire the article.

(b)We query this however, on the grounds - that, when all's said and done, the garment is improved, inasmuch as it is warmer.

(c)We therefore establish the Beraisa where the owner gave the Uman the garment 'le'Bitushi' - to full (meaning to stomp on the freshly-made garment which is placed inside a vessel with water).

(d)This answers the Kashya - inasmuch as the Tana is no longer talking about a Kablan, since the fuller gets paid a small coin per stomp (and here too, everyone agrees that the Uman does not acquire the garment under such circumstances).

7)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah 'Sachir bi'Zemano Nishba ve'Notel'. The problem with ...

1. ... this ruling is - that it contravenes the principle 'Ein Nishba ve'Notel' (one swears to exempt oneself from having to pay, but not to claim).

2. ... with Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel's initial explanation 'Halachos Gedolos Shanu Ka'an' is - that it implies 'Halachos le'Moshe mi'Sinai', whereas the Shevu'ah we are dealing with is a Takanas Chachamim (as the Mishnah in Shevu'os specifically states).

3. ... his second answer 'Takanos Gedolos Shanu Ka'an' is - the word 'Gedolos', which implies that the current Shevu'ah is a major Takanah and that there are minor ones. What are the minor ones?

(b)Rav Nachman finally cites Shmuel, who answers 'Takanos Kevu'os Shanu Ka'an'. 'Kevu'os' means - they are worthwhile fixing, even if it means superseding the Shevu'ah d'Oraysa.

(c)We initially ascribe this switch to the need for the Sachir to earn a Parnasah, but we refute this suggestion on the grounds that - the Chachamim would not deprive Reuven of the right to swear, in order to assist Shimon to make a Parnasah.

(d)Neither can we answer that ...

1. ... the Socher himself is only too pleased with this Takanah, since it will encourage potential laborers to hire themselves out - because against that we could argue that the Sachir himself too, would be only too pleased if the Shevu'ah would remain with the Socher, because it will encourage potential employers to hire laborers.

2. ... we cannot use this argument with regard to the laborer since he has no option but to hire himself out - because against that, we could argue that the employer too, has no option but to hire laborers to pick his crops.

8)

(a)We finally attribute the Takanah - to the fact that the Socher is busy paying his many employees, and cannot therefore be trusted to swear truthfully. Consequently, the Chachamim switched the Shevu'ah to the Sachir.

(b)The Shevu'ah is nevertheless necessary - to placate the employer who suspects him.

(c)Chazal did not dispense with the need to swear, by requiring the Socher to pay ...

1. ... with witnesses (failing which, the Sachir will be believed) - because witnesses are not always readily available.

2. ... in the morning before he begins work (in which case, the Sachir will certainly not have been paid yet) - because it suits both parties to give the Socher credit until the end of the day (the Socher because sometimes he does not yet have the money to pay, and the Sachir because he might lose the money in the course of the day).

9)

(a)In a case where the Sachir claims two Dinrim, and the Socher says that he promised him only one - the Beraisa believes the Socher (because he is Muchzak).

(b)In light of the statement 'Socher Tarud be'Po'alav' - we differentiate between the question of whether he paid (which he tends to forget) and how much he fixed with him (which he does not).

(c)Our Mishnah ruled 'Avar Zemano, Eino Nishba ve'Notel' - because it is only up to the final time of payment that we suspect the Socher of forgetting whether he paid the Sachir or not, but once the final moment arrives, he strains himself to remember, and is therefore believed.

(d)The reason that we believe the Socher in this case more than the Sachir (despite the Chazakah that, had he received his wages, he would not claim a second time) - because the Socher has the additional Chazakah that the Sachir would not delay his claim until after nightfall.