Lesson # 275 (part eight) • Labor Law

As was stated in a prior lesson, when the laws of employment were being developed, a great many of the people were engaged in agriculture and many workers had very few skills. There were, of course, the professionals, such as rabbis, doctors, teachers, and artisans such as goldsmiths, silver- smiths, carpenters, repairmen, and the like. Since so many people were unskilled, they were very often hired on an ad hoc basis, usually for a day or two or for longer periods during the planting and harvest seasons. Very often the employer would hire the employee without specifying the type of work the employee would be called upon to do.

After the work was commenced, there may be some reason why the employer requires other type of work to be done, or perhaps the work for which the employee was hired was completed and there was still time during the day for which the employee was hired.

Since most of the work done by day workers was of a physical nature, there is a difference between the demand of the job, whether it is classified as easy or hard physical labor. Every community has its own standards as to what is easy or hard.

An Employee Is Hired Without Specifying the Scope of His Work
The employer hires an employee for a day or any longer period and there was no discussion as to the type of work that the employee is to do. The employer may give the employee any kind of work that he has to be done. The employer may instruct the employee to do one type of work and then instruct him to other types of work during the hours and days for which he was employed. Even if he starts the employee with relatively easy work, he may in the midst of the day instruct him to do harder work, even though there is still easy work to be done.

The Scope of the Work Is Specified
The employer hires an employee and specifies the work for which he is hired. The employer may not change the scope of his work as long as such work is still to be done for the employer. However, if the work for which he is hired is completed, or even if not yet commenced or completed, and the employer sees that the employee cannot do this type of work satisfactorily the employer may give the employee other work that is no more difficult to perform. But he may not give the employee work that is more difficult than that for which he was hired. If the employer has no other comparable work, he may fire the employee and pay him for what he has done and pay him the minimum wage for the balance of the hours for which he was hired. If the employee, before he commenced the work, was aware that the work would take less than the day for which he was hired, when the work is finished the employer may fire the employee and he does not have to pay him the minimum wage for the remaining time, since the employee knew when he started that there was not sufficient work for him to do for a complete day. If the employee is a teacher of a student and the student is sick and cannot be taught, the father of the student cannot substitute another student, since each student is different and there is not the same scope of work with the substitute student that there was with the original student. This applies if it is harder to teach the substitute student, but if the substitute student has the same learning ability as the original student, the father of the original student may make the substitution.

If the teacher was hired to teach a class of a specified number of students and one of them got sick, the community can substitute another student even if it is harder to teach the substitute student than the student who got sick.

Employee may consume produce of field
The Torah states. "When you come into the vineyard of your fellow; you may eat grapes as is your desire. to your fill. but you may not put into your vessel. When you come into the standing grain of your fellow; you may pluck ears with your hand. but you may not lift a sickle against the standing grain of your fellow." (D'varim23:25-26) The Talmud (Baba Metzia ch.7) explains that these verses apply to a worker who was hired by the owner to work in his field or on the detached produce. I have used the word produce to include all that grows from the soil: fruits, vegetables. gourds, melons. grapes, and so on. There are two situations regarding produce:
(1) it is still attached to the soil, or
(2) it is now detached from the soil.

We will first discuss the circumstances under which a worker may eat of the produce on which he is working, whether attached or detached from the soil, and when he may not do so. The time when the employee is going to eat of the produce is crucial as to whether or not he may do so. There is a limited time when it is permitted to eat produce still attached to the soil when the employee takes hold of the produce to eat it; there is a limited time when it is permitted to eat produce detached from the soil when the employee takes hold of the produce to eat it.

These lessons also discuss certain obligations of the employee regarding the eating in the field of the employer. Rabbi Yosef Karo in Shulchan Aruch also discusses a few other obligations of the employee to the employer, although not dealing with the eating of the produce of the employer. I have also included some of these laws.

It should be remembered that for many agricultural workers, the right to eat of the food they are handling is an economic benefit to them but it is also of benefit to the employer in that it obviates the necessity for the worker to take excessive time off from the job for meals.

I have added to the end of the next lesson a section called "Current Practice." The laws of these lessons are generally superseded by agreements or local practice; but where they are not so covered, or the parties want to be bound by the halacha, I have stated my own conclusions.

The Torah Command
The verses cited above contain three Torah commandments dealing with workers' rights to eat while working in a field of the employer: two negative commandments limiting the right of the employee, and a positive commandment requiring the employer to abide by these laws. The positive commandment compels the employer to permit the worker to eat while he is working in the fields. This commandment is similar to the commandment that is the topic of a future lesson, namely, not to muzzle one's ox as it threshes the grain. - continued IY"H next week

The subject matter of this lesson is more fully discussed in volume IX chapters 335 and 337 of A Restatement of Rabbinic Civil Law by E. Quint. Copies of all volumes can be purchased via email: orders@gefenpublishing.com and via website: www.israelbooks.com and at local Judaica bookstores. Questions to quint@inter.net.il

[The Parshat P'kudei Homepage]
[The TORAH tidbits Homepage] [How to use TORAH tidbits]
[About The OU/NCSY Israel Center] [About TORAH tidbits]
[www.ou.org]