Study Bava Metzia folio 112B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
§ The Mishnah teaches: If a hired laborer requests payment at the proper time and the employer claims he already paid him, the laborer takes an oath that he did not receive his wages and then receives the wages from the employer. The Talmud asks: Why did the rabbis institute for a hired laborer, who is the plaintiff, to take an oath and receive his wages, in opposition to the principle that in the case of a monetary dispute between two parties, the defendant takes an oath that he is not liable and thereby exempts himself from payment?
אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל: הלכות גדולות שנו כאן. הני הלכתא נינהו? הני תקנות נינהו! אלא אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל: תקנות גדולות שנו כאן. ״גדולות״, מכלל דאיכא קטנות?
Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: They taught great halakhot here. The Talmud is puzzled by this choice of words: Are these halakhot? They are ordinances designed for the proper running of business transactions, not halakhot that apply to everyone at all times. The Talmud emends the above statement: Rather, Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: They taught great ordinances here. The Talmud is still unsatisfied with the terminology: Does the word great indicate by inference that there are minor ordinances? Which ordinances are considered of minor importance?
אלא אמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל: תקנות קבועות שנו כאן. שבועה דבעל הבית היא, ועקרוה רבנן לשבועה דבעל הבית ושדיוה אשכיר, משום כדי חייו דשכיר. ומשום כדי חייו דשכיר (מפסדנא) [מפסדינן] ליה לבעל הבית?
Rather, Rav Naḥman says that Shmuel says: They taught fixed ordinances here that are necessary for practical life. The reason is that taking the oath is actually the duty of the employer, but the rabbis transferred the oath of the employer and imposed it upon the hired laborer due to the livelihood of the hired laborer. The laborer requires his wages to survive, and therefore if the employer is allowed to exempt himself by taking an oath, the laborer will be left with nothing. The Talmud asks: And simply due to the livelihood of the hired laborer should we cause the employer to lose out? If the employer is entitled to take an oath to exempt himself, why should he suffer due to the laborer’s needs?