Labor Loss in a National Plague

The baraita continues: In what case is this statement said? When they did not go to the workplace, i.e., the employer reneged prior to the laborer setting out to work. But if donkey drivers went and could not find any produce to carry, or laborers went off to work and found that the field was too moist for tilling, the employer must give them their full wages to which they are entitled. But he does not give them the entire stipulated amount, as a donkey driver who comes back loaded cannot be compared to one who comes back empty, nor can a laborer who performs work be compared to one who sits idle. The employer deducts a sum from the laborers’ wages, paying them the amount they are willing to receive given that they do not actually have to perform the work.

He doesn't pay the laborer anything: Its is the laborers bad luck. He too should have taken into account that the field may not be available for work.

MISHNA: In the case of one who receives a field from another to cultivate and it is an irrigated field or a field with trees, if the spring that irrigated the field dried up or the trees were cut down, he does not subtract from the produce he owes the owner as part of his tenancy, despite the fact that he presumably considered these factors when agreeing to cultivate the field. But if the cultivator said to the landowner explicitly: Lease me this irrigated field, or he said: Lease me this field with trees, and the spring dried up or the trees were cut down, he may subtract from the produce he owes as part of his tenancy. GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the ruling of the mishna? If we say that the large river from which all the channels originate dried up, why does he not subtract from the produce he owes as part of his tenancy? Let the cultivator say that it is the result of a regional disaster. Consequently, he should be able to subtract from the produce he owes. Rav Pappa said: The case in the mishna is where a small river that irrigates this field alone dried up, as the landowner can say to him: You should have brought water in a bucket.

(1) One who hires a worker to water the field from this river, and the river stops up for half the day, if there isn’t any way to stop or even that his way is to interrupt and the worker knows the way of the river, the loss of the worker and the employer doesn’t give him anything, even though that also the employer knows the way of the river. But if the worker doesn’t know the way of the river, and the employer knows, he gives the worker workman’s comp. Note: and similarly in every case of extraordinary circumstance that happens to the worker, whether the two of them knew that the way of the compulsion to come or the two of them didn’t know, it comes to be the loss of the worker. But if the employer knows and the worker doesn’t know, it comes to be the loss is of the employer. And if a naturally occurring complete disaster comes consider above siman 321 [where it's ruled that the laborer get's paid and the loss is on the employer]. Someone that rents a house to live in it, and dies within the time of the rental, doesn’t have to pay only the time that he dwelled in it, because the owner of the house comes to be like the worker, and he should have made it a condition. There are those who disagree. Therefore, if he received all the rent payment, there is no need to return them all, so it seems to me. If they run away because of a change in weather, it comes to be like the other forces, and it comes to be the loss of the worker or the teacher.