The ethical obligation of the worker towards his employer TB Baba Metzia 10

 There’s an ongoing debate on today’s daf TB Baba Metzia 10 whether one person can acquire a lost abandoned object for another person. One such discussion revolves around a farm worker and his employer.

“The Gemara discusses the opinion of Rav Naḥman and Rav Ḥisda, who both say: In a case of one who performs an act of acquisition by lifting a found item on behalf of another, the other person, i.e., the latter, does not acquire ownership of the item.

“What is the reason for this? The reason is that it is a case of one who seizes assets for a creditor in a situation that will result in a disadvantage for others, as the debtor owes money to other creditors as well; and one who seizes assets for a creditor in a situation that will result in a disadvantage for others does not acquire the assets for him. Although a creditor can himself seize the assets as payment for the debt, no one else can take action that will benefit one person at the expense of others. Similarly, since everyone has equal rights to an ownerless item that is found, one person cannot deprive all others of that right on behalf of another person.

“Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Naḥman from a baraita: The found item of a laborer, i.e., something that he found, belongs to him and not to the employer for whom he is working at that time.

“In what case is this statement, that the item belongs to the laborer, said? It is said when the employer told the laborer to perform a specific task, e.g., he said to him: Weed for me today, or: Till for me today. Since the employer specified the task that he hired the laborer to perform, the laborer has rights to the item that the laborer found. But if the employer said to the laborer: Work for me today, without specifying the nature of the work, the found item is the employer’s, as finding ownerless items is included within the general category of work. This indicates that a laborer can acquire an item for someone else, which contradicts Rav Naḥman’s principle.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Although not pertinent to the main point of the disagreement, Rashi ד"ה נַכֵּשׁ עִמִּי הַיּוֹם teaches that the worker must give an honest day’s work. Even though the worker has acquired the lost object, the employer may deduct from the worker’s wages the time he spent procuring the lost object since the worker was absent during that time in the job he was hired to do.

Rav Naḥman counters that a worker is different for “his hand is like an extension of the employer’s hand. Consequently, whatever the worker finds he is acting like an agent of the employer and acquires the lost object for the employer.

Rava responds that the worker is not really an extension of the employer for he can quit at any time he so wishes. The Schottenstein edition of our massekhet notes the worker’s obligation to his employer. The worker cannot quit willy-nilly. “He must, of course, give his employer notice of his withdrawal at least declare before witnesses that he is henceforth no longer in the employ of his employer. Furthermore, their regulations regarding the circumstances under which an employee is liable for any loss incurred by his employer as a result of his early withdrawal.” (10a3, note 14)

Jewish ethics requires the worker must give the employer an honest day’s work or compensate him for the loss employer incurs. Later on in our massekhet we shall learn what the ethical obligations of the employer towards the workers are.