Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/335

Paragraph 1- If one hires a worker for a specific job and it was completed halfway through the day and the employer has similar or lighter work from that job, the worker would perform that work. If the employer does not have that kind of work, he would pay him like an idle worker. If the employer wants to take work from another and give it to the worker, he may do so. There are those who say that if the employer wants to raise his salary, the worker must even do a job heavier than the original. If the worker was a digger or worked the land or anything similar where the practice is to work very hard and if he did not work then he would become ill, the employer must pay his full wage. This is only where he did not show the worker the job initially. If he showed him the job initially, however, and the worker saw that it was not a full-day job and did not make any condition, the employer would not have to pay him anything once the job was complete, as was discussed in the preceding paragraph, because in any case where both parties were aware, it is the duty of the worker to make the condition. If the employer hired him for one day without specification, he may change the job from a light one to a heavy one. The case of a teacher who became ill is discussed at the send of Siman 334. In a case where the employer suffers the loss he must pay the teacher’s entire wages and not like an idle worker because if he does not work he will become weak, even if he has other students he learns with, because talking to one is the same as talking to 100. The employer cannot provide him with another child to learn with. There are those who say the employer can give the teacher another child who is as smart and sharp as the first one, but not one who is more difficult. This seems to me like the appropriate way to rule. This that the employer must pay the teacher’s full salary is only where it appears to the court that the teacher benefits from teaching more than sitting idle. If it seems to the court that the teacher prefers sitting idle, however, he would only be paid like an idle worker. If one teaches another’s son without the father’s knowledge, there are those who say the father is required to pay like one who goes down to another’s field without permission, which is discussed later in Siman 375. There are those who disagree. If one tells a teacher to learn with his son but did not set up a salary, he must pay the amount others give. If an employer hired a teacher and told him to go to his relative as a test to see if he is able to learn with the child, and he did not go, and after the teacher began learning with the son he says he still needs to be tested, and a witness testifies that he does not know how to learn with him, the teacher is in the right because now that he knows how to learn we have a presumption that he already knew and he would swear to contradict the witness and collect. If a Rabbi was in the city for many years and ruled for the public, and they later set a salary for the future, he cannot make a claim on the past because he certainly waived to them. If a worker accepted responsibility for any unavoidable accident and an accident that was completely uncommon occurred, he is exempt, because he did not make the condition on such an occurrence. We find a similar incident in the Talmud in Chapter “Mi Sheachzu” where one rented a horse for eight days to travel to a certain place, and after two days he changed his mind and went back to his place, and they ruled that for those six days he can do whatever he wants with that horse in that city, including bring wood or other work that is horses do in that city, even though that work is heavier than the original, because the owner prefers his animal remain in the city and perform a heavy job than the horse go to a far location.

Paragraph 2- If one hired a worker to bring him something from one location to another, and he went but did not find it what he was supposed to bring, the employer must pay him in full because he performed his mission. If he sent the agent with a letter, however, and the agent found the recipient of the letter but he retracted, the agent would receive nothing unless the employer knew of the circumstances which caused him to retract and the agent did not, in which case the employer would suffer the loss, as was discussed above in Siman 334. If the item he was supposed to bring was heavy, we would deduct from his payment because one who comes loaded is not comparable to one who comes empty-handed, unless he is only of those people whose practice is to work hard.

Paragraph 3- If one hired a worker to bring apples to a sick person, and he went and discovered the sick person had died or was cured, the employer cannot tell him to take what he brought as payment. Rather, he must pay his full wages. The same applies to anything similar.