Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/333

Paragraph 1- If one hires workers and they mislead the employer or the employer mislead them, they would only have the right to complain against the other. There are those who say that if the employer pulled the craftsmen-vessel they were using to work, the employer would no longer be able to retract, and neither would the worker if he is a lessee. If he is daily laborer, however, he may retract as was discussed. The homeowner can, however, retain the craftsmen-vessel and hire others. When is this true? Where the workers did not yet go. If donkey-rider went and did not find grain, however, or workers went and found the field was moist, or the employer hired them to irrigate the field and they discovered it was already full of water, and the employer had investigated the work the night before and saw that workers were needed, the workers would not have the right to anything. What could the employer have done? If the employer did not investigate, he must pay their wages as an idle worker, because there is no comparison between one who comes full and one who comes empty, nor is there a comparison between one who works and one who is idle.

Paragraph 2- When is it true that they only have the right to a complaint when they did not go? Where they were unable to hire themselves yesterday when this employer hired them. If they were able to be hired yesterday and now cannot hire themselves at all, however, it is like a lost item to them and the employer must pay them like an idle worker. If they were hired for less, the employer would pay the difference. If they went- this only applies if they went themselves, but not if their agent went- even if they were unable to hire themselves out yesterday, the employer must pay them like an idle worker, assuming they cannot now hire themselves out at all. If they found someone who would hire them now, however, they would only have a complaint against the employer. There are those who say that even if they could only find a heavier job from the original but they will add to their wages, they must hire themselves out in another place. There are those who disagree. If they can only be hired out for less, the employer would pay the difference. All these laws are only where the employer did not investigate his work the night before, which is negligent of him. If the employer was not at all negligent, however, he is not at fault and would be exempt, as was discussed. See later 334:2 with respect to a schoolteacher who hired himself out for two years and began teaching the first year, that it is considered beginning for both years. The same applies to all workers.

Paragraph 3- If the worker began working and retracted halfway through the day, he may retract. Even if he already accepted payment for the work and cannot pay back the employer he may retract, and the money owed will be a debt, because the verse states, “for the Jews are servants to me,” and not servants to servants. For this reason a worker is prohibited from hiring himself out to be in the employer’s house for three years, even as a school teacher or scribe.

Paragraph 4- How do we rule on a worker who retracted after he began? We appraise what he did, and he would collect, regardless of whether the cost of labor went up or down. This is only where he retracted in a standard case. If he retracted because the value of labor went up, however, we would not listen to him. If he is a lessee we would appraise what will be done in the future. See above 76:23. Regardless of whether the worker gave him a low rate at the time he was hired, and regardless of whether the cost of labor went down later or did not go down, we would appraise what will be done in the future. How so? If the worker accepted one standing grain to harvest at two selaim or he accepted to work with such and such amount of barrels of wine, and he harvested half and left the other half, or he accepted a garment to weave at two selaim and he weaved half and left the other half, we would appraise what will be done in the future. If it was worth six dinar, the employer would give a shekel or the worker will finish the job. If the remaining part was worth two dinar, he would only give him a selah because he only performed half the job. An employer who retracts has the same law as a lessee, and would have the lower hand.

Paragraph 5- When is this true? With respect to a matter that does not involve a loss. With respect to a matter that does involve a loss, however, such as lifting flax from its pool or where the employer hired a donkey-driver to bring trumpets for one who died or for a bride or anything similar, both a worker and lessee would not be able to retract- the employer’s waiter or servant has the status of a matter that involves a loss because the employer cannot do the work himself and through the employee retracting this will cause him a loss- unless an unavoidable accident occurred, such as where the worker or his wife or children got sick or he found out that a relative died. The employer would not, however, have to pay for all their wages; just for what they did. The workers would have the upper hand. If the employer or lessee retracted after the circumstances behind the accident had passed, and the worker subsequently performed his work, the employer must pay him for his work and cannot deduct anything. Otherwise, however, the employer may deduct for all the days he was sick or the accident was applicable, even if the worker did not retract. The same is true if a schoolteacher became sick and we would deduct for the days of his sickness. If the worker or teacher already received payment, however, there are those who say he would not have to return the money. A schoolteacher who retracts is considered a case where the matter involves a loss. Similarly, if a scribe contracts to writes a scroll and then retracts, it is considered a matter that involves a loss. Schoolteachers have the same law as workers in that they must follow the custom regarding waking up early or leaving late, as was discussed in Siman 331. The teacher is prohibited from doing work while teaching or staying up too late at night or eating too much. Any party that deviates has the lower hand and can be removed. If one hired himself out for a set time, has the rules of a worker. If he hired himself to teach this book or half this book, however, he would have the rules of a lessee. See below Siman 334 and 335 regarding the laws of a teacher. If no accident occurred and the worker retracted, and the employer could have found other workers when he hired these, and now he cannot find other workers, he would hire from their cost or mislead them. If he found other workers to hire but he mislead these, he must pay the amount he agreed to pay in the latter employment. How does he mislead them? He tells them he originally agreed to a sela but they can come and take two until their work is complete, but he only has to pay what they agreed on originally. Even if he gives them the two, they must return the surplus. If a worker worked for free with his employer, he may even retract in a matter that involves a loss

Paragraph 6- How does one hire at the expense of the worker? He hires other works who will complete the work so that he does not suffer a loss and any additional amount these workers charged over the original workers would be taken from the original workers. Up to how much can he hire? Up to the pay of the original workers. If the employer had their money in his possession, he can hire workers for 40-50 zuz a day per worker to complete the job, even if he hired the original workers for three or four. If he did not hire other workers, the original workers are not required to pay for the damage they caused. There are those who say that this that he may hire for 40-50 zuz is only where he has possession of their craftsmen-vessel. For other matters, however, he would not be able to do so. This is only true for a matter that causes a non-monetary loss, such as a teacher or something similar. With respect to a matter that causes a loss, however, the worker must pay for the damage he caused.

Paragraph 7- When is this true? Where there are no workers available to complete the work at the original wage. If there are workers he can hire for the original wage, however, and the workers told him to hire those workers and complete the work, the employer would only have the right to complain, regardless of whether the workers were employees or lessees. For an employee we would appraise what he did, and for the lessee we would appraise what will need to be done.

Paragraph 8- If one tells a craftsman to make such and such item for him and he will purchase it, and the craftsman made it and the buyer no longer wants to purchase it, and it is something that if it is not purchased immediately, the craftsman will suffer a loss, the buyer would be liable. If a chazzan hired himself out with the leaders of the city for a year with such and such conditions, and later hired himself out to this same city with different leaders but did not make any conditions, he certainly is hiring himself out under those same conditions. This is only where he hired himself out the second year. If he remained silent, however, we do not say he is relying on the original condition. If a father hired his son out to work, even if he does not feed him, the son is certainly happy with what the father did and would take based on what the father arranged until he retracts. If an employer told the schoolteacher to leave and the schoolteacher agreed, the employer can retract and retain him because he does not have the power to waive the obligations owed to the child. With respect to other workers, however, if the employer told the worker in front of two to leave him, the worker would be exempt without a waiver. There are those who say that if he said it out of anger he would not be exempt.