The reason for the division in the law of hiring workers
In many poskim, we find a distinction in the halakhic law of ‘hiring workers’ between a situation where the worker is hired for a specific purpose, and one where the worker is hired to prevent an action. In the first case, he must pay him, while in the second case, he does not have to pay unless a settled property is made. I asked: What is the explanation for this division?
P.S.
There is indeed an opinion that draws a distinction between the absence of a hindrance to an action that necessarily causes an action – for example, do not go outside, which essentially leaves the person in his place. and the absence of a hindrance that leaves many actions – for example, do not participate in a particular tender. But I ignore this approach.
I don’t know this distinction, but if they both agreed that he would work without payment, he doesn’t have to pay in both cases. And if they agreed to pay, he certainly has to pay in both cases. So what’s the point? Wasn’t there a reference to this in their contract? I don’t see a difference between the cases.
There may be a difference regarding what gives rise to the contract, since the property of a worker is related to the tools he uses or to the commencement of the work. In practice, when hired not to do something, there is no tool of action and no commencement of work, and therefore there is room to say that there must be settled property. But as mentioned, this is a difference that is not specifically related to the payment of wages for the work, but to the scope of the contract.
In fact, in these matters, everything is determined by law and not by halacha.
Quote from the book (Mishpatei Hoshen on Shu”a Hoshen Mishpat, p. 6):
The opinion of many of the rabbis is that if a person has made a wage for preventing himself from doing a certain action, even though he has the benefit and benefit of preventing the other person from doing this action, this does not constitute a “labor hire,” and there is no exemption from paying the laborer. There is no labor hire except when the worker is hired to do a certain action in the beginning and end, but for preventing an action such as telling him not to go to a certain meeting, he will receive so and so in his wages, he is not obligated to pay him, unless he has pledged to do so in a fixed amount.
And there are those who share this [Minchat Pateiim Si’ Qe’u, and Ai’ In response to Joshua 8:16, 17, and more]. And there are contemporary jurists who wrote that if a gift is made with a friend who lives in a certain place, because he is restricted to being in a certain place, it is like the hire of laborers in the construction and construction industry, and I do not think that there is anything in this that is considered "hire of laborers" [Pechi Choshen 5:8, note 3. Teshuvot ve HaNhagot, 3, 6:11, letter 6].
All my words are true.
That is, you do not accept the division?
Claiming that the division lies in the duration of the contract? And if so, what is the explanation for the fact that the contract lies in the tool, and not in the meaning of the actual content of the activity?
I don't accept unless he means to divide me. I'm not entirely clear about what he means.
I didn't understand your question. I said that in my opinion there is no difference what you are required to do as long as you have summed up the work and the salary. Why would there be a division?
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
