Shevuos Daf 45 חג השבועות דַף 45

The Mishnah taught that if a שכיר – hired worker claims he was not yet paid, and the employer says he already paid him, the שכיר swears and collects his wages. The Gemara asks why the Rabbis instituted this law, and Rav Nachman says in Shmuel’s name: תקנות קבועות שנו כאן – permanent enactments were taught here. Fundamentally, the employer should swear that he paid to exempt himself, but the Rabbi removed the shevuah from the employer and placed it upon the employee (enabling him to collect), משום כדי חייו – because of [the employee’s] livelihood. The Gemara ultimately explains: בעל הבית טרוד בפועלים הוא – the employer is preoccupied with his workers, and may mistakenly think he paid when he did not. Therefore, the Rabbis allowed the employee to swear he was not paid, and collect. The Gemara asks that if so, he should not even need to swear, and answers: כדי להפיס דעתו של בעל הבית – to appease the mind of the employer, who would be frustrated if the employee could simply claim he was not paid and collect.

The Gemara asks, if a שכיר can swear and collect his wages because the employer is preoccupied with his workers, why does a Baraisa state: עבר זמנו ולא נתן לו - once the time for payment has passed, and he claims [the employer] has still not paid him, he cannot swear and collect? It explains: חזקה אין בעל הבית עובר בבל תלין – there is a presumption that an employer does not violate the prohibition to delay payment overnight. Although we are concerned that he may mistakenly believe he already paid, that is only before payment is due, but כי מטי זמן חיובא –once the time of his obligation arrives, רמי אנפשיה ומידכר – he places it upon himself to remember if he has not yet paid.

Although there is also an opposing חזקה that the שכיר would not steal (and falsely claim he was not yet paid), the employer has a second חזקה supporting him, דאין שכיר משהא שכרו – that an employee does not delay collecting his wages.

Shmuel said that a שכיר can only swear and collect where he was hired in the presence of עדים. Otherwise, מתוך שיכול לומר לו לא שכרתיך מעולם – since [the employer] could have said to him, “I never hired you,” יכול לומר לו שכרתיך ונתתי לך שכרך – he is also able to say to him, “I hired you, but I paid your wages,” and is believed that he clearly remembers having paid. Other Amoraim agreed with and praised this ruling, but Rava objected that if this מגו is legitimate, שבועת שומרין דחייב רחמנא היכי משכחת לה – how can you find an application of the shevuah that the Torah obligated a watchman to make when he claims the item was lost through an אונס? Since he can claim לא היו דברים מעולם – “[The entire deposit] never happened,” he should be believed to claim נאנסו – “It was lost through an unavoidable incident”!? Even if the פקדון was originally given in front of עדים, he can still claim החזרתיו לך – “I returned [the פקדון] to you,” and should be believed to claim נאנסו!? Rami bar Chama answers that the shevuah applies where the פקדון was recorded in a שטר, so the שומר cannot claim he returned it.