MISC section - contents: Q I was hired by a school to work as a speech therapist. They promised that I would be paid for a minimum of 12 hours. During the course of the year, some students left the school, and now there are a couple of hours a week during which I have nothing to do. The school continues to pay me in full. Is it right for me to be taking the full pay? A It is challenging to answer questions of what is best to do, as most of Choshen Mishpat (monetary law) deals with rulings of one’s rights and outright obligations. But we cannot turn down such a noble request. We will present halachic background, and you should know better than we how to act best in your case. Should a disagreement arise in the future, this response, which is based on partial information from one side, cannot be used to bolster either side. There are a few Talmudic precedents about a worker who was hired for a job, which became (partially) superfluous. Technical considerations help determine who should have foreseen the situation arising and stipulated what to do in such a case, and this affects who “the winner” is (see Bava Metzia 77a). But in this case, it seems that it was stipulated that the school would pay you even if there were no longer a need for twelve hours of work, as has happened and they are doing. However, in the gemara’s parallel cases, there are two things the employer can do to minimize his damage of having to pay for work he does not receive. We will now discuss for your consideration if either is appropriate for you. Halacha considers one’s pay to consist of different elements. Part of the pay is for the toil of doing work of the given level of difficulty. As a consequence, in a case that a person gets paid without having to work, we reduce the amount that corresponds to the toil, and he receives s’char batala (wages of one who is idle). The gemara (ibid.) points out that some people do not like being idle, in which case nothing is removed from their salary. The gemara (ibid.), discussing a day worker who finished the job before day’s end, says that the employer can instruct him to do other work during the remaining time if the work is not more difficult than that for which he was hired. The employer can also find an alternative employer to provide work to compensate him for the unused time (Rama, Choshen Mishpat 335:1). There is even an opinion that he can give the worker harder work if he pays for the extra toil (ibid.). Thus, the school could plausibly ask to reduce your salary to s’char batala or ask you to do other jobs in your spare time if they are not more difficult. (Difficulty may not be limited to exertion but could include factors like embarrassment about doing things which people of your professional standing are not accustomed to do (see ibid. and Bava Metzia 30b)). Your stipulation might preclude these possibilities, as might the standard market practice, which is a crucial factor in commercial agreements. You are in a better position to ascertain the matter than we are. It is likely that by remaining quiet on the subject, the school has relinquished its rights (mechila) to make these demands (see Tosafot, Bava Metzia 66b). (In order to use the logic of mechila, you need to know that someone of sufficient authority is aware of the situation and accepts it.) However, if you want to be particularly noble you could consider volunteering to either reduce your wages a little or help the school in other ways. However, it is logical to say that this case is different from the gemara’s discussion of uncompleted work. Here, you continue to work at your job, just that you have more free time than expected (see Tosafot Harosh, Bava Metzia 77a). There is reason to claim that under such circumstances, the legal and perhaps the moral obligation to take a cut in salary or take on additional responsibilities is diminished. Much depends on the scope of the reduction of your workload. Ask the Rabbi Q&A is part of Hemdat Yamim, the weekly parsha sheet published by Eretz Hemdah. You can read this section or the entire Hemdat Yamim at www.ou.org or www.eretzhemdah.org. And/or you can receive Hemdat Yamim by email weekly, by sending an email to info@eretzhemdah.org with the message: Subscribe/English (for the english version) or Subscribe/Hebrew (for the hebrew version). Please leave the subject blank. Ask the Vebbe Rebbe is partially funded by the Jewish Agency for Israel. [2] ArtScroll Series • Mesorah Publications
Ltd. "Rabbi, let me explain myself to you", said the student. "Imagine a man traveling in a cart. If the cart goes too slowly, all types of creatures jump onto it. If the cart travels very fast, however, nothing can jump onto the cart. Similarly, when I pray slowly, all types of foreign thoughts enter my head, whereas when I pray fast I don't have that problem." "I'm afraid, however", said Rabbi Eliezer Yitzchak, "that when
you pray as fast as you do, you yourself may be one of the 'creatures' that
doesn't manage to jump onto the cart." Our Sages tell us that this battle was lead by Moses himself, and it was Moses who killed Og in battle. It seems strange, that this was the only battle in which Moses actually fought. In previous wars, Moses did not participate as a combatant. For example, when Israel was attacked by Amalek, Moses instructed his disciple Joshua to choose soldiers and lead them into battle. My father explained that our Sages wish to teach us an important lesson. Joshua was the one destined to lead the People of Israel into the Promised Land, whereas Moses was the one who brought God’s Torah to the People. In order to fight the Amaleks, the anti-Semitic forces massed against us, we need the Land of Israel. When the Jews possess a land of their own and are independent, they can defeat the anti-Semitic forces. When the Jews live in exile, the most they can do is minimize the destructive power of Amalek, they cannot hope to destroy Amalek completely. The destruction of Amalek can be accomplished only in Israel. (Indeed, the mitzva to wipe out Amalek applied only after the Tribes of Israel conquered the Land and appointed their king.) Ultimately, it is little Israel which stands in defense of the Jew everywhere. Against the giants, we need the power of Moses, the strength of
the Torah. As long as the People of Israel follow the Torah, they need not fear
even the giants. David Magence , Har Nof , Jerusalem Leaving the issue of milk aside for now, there are different
opinions about the honey, which also leads to the halachic issue of the
permissibility of bee honey and of royal jelly. What RAZZ shared with us has
halachic significance as well as relevance to this column on the wonders of
nature. The following is excerpted... When it comes to "milk and honey", opinions differ. Those that
"argue" for bee honey point to Yaakov Avinu's gift to the ruler in Egypt and to
Shimshon's eating of bee honey. According to the Mishna (Nedarim 6:9), one who
vows to abstain from dvash is prohibited in bee honey and permitted in date
honey. Is bee honey kosher? ... general principle that any product of a non-kosher animal is non-kosher, yotzei min hatamei, tamei. The bee does not actually "produce" the honey the way an animal produces milk. For something to be considered the product of an animal, the animal's body must produce it from its constituent elements. Honey, according to the Talmud, is not produced by the bee. Rather, the bee takes in nectar from plants and then simply regurgitates it in the hive to be stored as winter food. In fact, enzymes in the bee's saliva act upon the 12-carbon sucrose molecules in nectar and split them each into two 6-carbon molecules, glucose and fructose. The saliva also causes a steep drop in the PH of the honey compared to nectar. Finally, the honey is fanned by the bees to concentrate it. The bee does not decompose food into base components and then "produce" honey. Nothing new is added to the nectar besides the minute quantities of enzymes, nor is it ever decomposed. Thus, bee honey is really just a fruit nectar! How about Royal Jelly? Popular product in health food stores. Rich in protein, sugar, vitamins, fatty acids, and amino acids. Unlike honey, it is a glandular secretion by bees from their hypopharyngeal and mandibular glands as royal food for the developing queen bee... Prohibited by Rav Herschel Schachter, the OU, and Rabbi Moshe Heinemann of the Star-K. However, Rabbi Eliezar Waldenberg (Tzitz Eliezar) and others permit it for a variety of reasons... it is available in Israel under some hashgachot. By the way, one opinion about CHALAV is that it refers to white
white. Moshe’s grievous sin, according to Rashi, was smiting a rock to produce water, instead of speaking to it as commanded, even though previously he had hit the rock. For Rambam, the cause of Moshe’s downfall was his anger at the people. Perhaps, as Rav Chananel noted, Moshe should better have asked, “Shall Hashem bring forth water?” rather than, “Shall we bring forth water?” (ibid 20:10). Rabbi Meir Zvi Grossman argues that Moshe’s demise was actually a function of his lack of response to the people’s new plaint, so relevant now, after the recent sin of the spies: “Why did you bring us to this evil place [without the] figs, grapes or pomegranates,” of which the spies spoke, and where, “there is no water to drink?” (ibid 20:5). Having now sojourned 19 years on the border of Eretz Yisrael, the people clearly needed to see the distinction between the Land, where water comes from the heaven and streams (Devarim 8), and the arid desert where Hashem intervenes with a rock. Thus, as Saadia Gaon suggests, Moshe was to have addressed the people about this rock, rather than speak to it. Now we better under- stand: For failing to uplift the people’s optimism in the Land, Moshe was correspondingly denied entry to it. Shabbat Shalom Menachem Persoff [The Parshat Chukat Homepage]
|
