Bava Metzia 77B

נותן לו שכרו, אם קבלן הוא ⁠– נותן לו קבלנותו.

he gives him his wage; if he is a contractor, he gives him his contracted payment?

מני? אילימא רבנן, מאי איריא שמע שמת לו מת או שאחזתו חמה דאניס, כי לא אניס נמי ⁠– הא אמרו רבנן יד פועל על העליונה! אלא לאו רבי דוסא היא, ושמע מינה לא שאני ליה לרבי דוסא בין שכירות לקבלנות.

The Talmud explains: Whose opinion does this baraita follow? If we say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, why does the baraita rule that he receives his full payment specifically in a case when the laborer heard that a relative of his died, or if he was gripped with fever, where he was unable to work due to circumstances beyond his control? When he is not compelled by circumstances beyond his control to stop working, this should also be the halakha. After all, the Rabbis said that the laborer is at an advantage. Rather, is it not correct to say that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of R' Dosa? And one can learn from it that R' Dosa does not differentiate between hired work and contracted work in this regard.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק: בדבר האבוד, ודברי הכל.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The ruling of this baraita is stated with regard to a matter that involves financial loss if the work is not completed. Consequently, the employer is at an advantage, unless the laborer is compelled to stop working due to circumstances beyond his control, in which case everyone agrees that he receives his full wages.

תנן: כל המשנה ידו על התחתונה, וכל החוזר בו ידו על התחתונה. בשלמא כל המשנה ידו על התחתונה, דסתם לן תנא כרבי יהודה. אלא כל החוזר בו ידו על התחתונה לאתויי מאי? לאו לאתויי פועל וכרבי דוסא?

We learned in the Mishnah: Whoever changes the terms accepted by both parties is at a disadvantage, and whoever reneges on an agreement is at a disadvantage. The Talmud asks: Granted, with regard to the statement: Whoever changes is at a disadvantage, one can understand this, as the tanna taught us an unattributed Mishnah in accordance with the opinion of R' Yehuda, indicating that this is the halakha. But concerning the clause: Whoever reneges is at a disadvantage, what does it serve to add? Does it not serve to add the halakha of a laborer, and this is in accordance with the opinion of R' Dosa, who holds that workers may not renege?