Community Magazine October 2014

46 Community magazine Jack and Molly were to be married on Tuesday, July 8, 2014 in the southern Israeli city of Ashdod. Just as the wedding ceremony began, sirens began blaring throughout the city as Ashdod came under the first of what would, unfortunately, be dozens of missile attacks from Gaza during operation “Protective Edge.” All the wedding guests ran for cover, and after hearing the explosions, they all rushed home to tend to their children and loved ones. The couple sadly returned home unmarried, contemplating rescheduling the wedding date. Thereafter, Jack and Molly asked the caterer to return their $15,000 payment for the reception which had been prepared for 500 people. The caterer rejected their request, claiming that all the food was cooked and ready to be served, and he should not have to incur a loss as a result of the unfortunate turn of events. In addition, David, the photographer, had been fully paid just five minutes before the attack, and was unwilling to return the money. Albert the florist, as well as the musicians, had also been prepaid, and they all refused to reimburse Jack and Molly. The question was sent to our Bet Din in Jerusalem. How should the Bet Din rule – in favor of Jack and Molly, or perhaps the caterer? Do David, Albert and the musicians need to return the funds they received, or may they keep their payment despite the fact that in the end they did not provide their services? According to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, an employee that is prevented from doing his job on account of an unforeseen occurrence is not entitled to collect his wages. The classic case described is a stream of water that unexpectedly dries up, preventing an employee from irrigating a field as he was hired to do. If an employee wishes to ensure that his wages will be paid even when unforeseen circumstances prevent him from doing his job, he must make a clear stipulation to this effect from the outset, when the terms of employment are set. This applies to all unexpected events which prevent employees from doing their jobs in a specific area. However, with regard to a large-scale disaster that strikes an entire city, preventing workers throughout the city from performing their jobs, leading halachic authorities debate the question of whether the employees are entitled to their wages. Numerous authorities have ruled that in the event of a large-scale calamity, employers are required to pay their workers’ wages, despite the fact that the work could not be performed. Since the disaster encompassed the entire city, the misfortune is seen as having befallen the employers, and they are thus responsible to provide payment for their hired employees. According to this view, if a large-scale calamity forced tenants to evacuate their homes, the homeowners are not entitled to collect rent. Likewise, if an unforeseen disaster prevented sharecroppers from meeting their quota of harvested produce, they are nevertheless entitled to their agreed-upon share. In short, according to this opinion, employers, homeowners, and property holders are to bear the burden of the loss in the event of a misfortune that befalls a city. However, several prominent halachic authorities disagree with this ruling, and exempt an employer from payment even in instances of wide-ranging calamities. The rationale behind this position is simple: since the employee did not labor, the employer is not responsible to pay. Furthermore, according to this opinion, even if the employer prepaid his worker, and due to a large-scale disaster the work could not be performed, the worker is obligated to return the payment that was advanced. As a general rule, in cases where the requirement to pay is subject to a debate among the halachic authorities, the defendant may withhold payment and rely on the halachic authorities who rule in his favor. Nevertheless, in regard to the debate discussed above, a Bet Din will arrange a compromise settlement between the litigants. Over the centuries, during which Jewish communities have, unfortunately, suffered calamities such as expulsions and pogroms, it became customary for employees and employers to share the loss of wages resulting from calamities that prevented work from being done. By force of this accepted practice, an employee who had been prepaid is required to return half of his wages in such situations. If payment had not been advanced, the employer is required to pay half of his workers’wages. Needless to say, this applies only to employed services, but not to the provision of goods. Once a product is legally purchased, the buyer must pay the seller even if he is ultimately unable to make use of the product. Hence, if a caterer under contract delivers food to a hall rented by the customer, the customer must pay for the food in full even if a large-scale calamity prevents him from using the food. However, if waiters were hired to serve the food, and the event was disrupted before they served, the customer is entitled to pay the caterer a discounted price. SAD WEDDING BELLS Rabbi Max Sutton, rosh bet din aram soba, Jerusalem, israel FROM THE FILES OF THE Bet Din Torah Law photo by: Abraham Amzalak The Case Verdict: THE AFTERMATH OF TERROR Unfortunately, this past summer was a difficult time for the residents of Israel, as missiles were fired on major cities like Tel Aviv, Ashkelon, Be’er Sheva and Ashdod. Terrorist attacks not only endanger thousands of lives, but also put a tremendous financial strain on innocent civilians. Therefore, in accordance with the legal precedents established throughout the centuries in cases of expulsion, pogrom and attacks, our Bet Din formulated a settlement between the parties, whereby the photographer and musicians were required to return half of the payment they received to Jack and Molly. It goes without saying that this past summer’s missile attacks on Israel halachically constitute a large-scale calamity, since by law, enforceable by the Israeli army, citizens are required to take shelter during a strike. As discussed, in cases of a national calamity preventing workers from doing their jobs, leading halachic authorities debate whether employees are entitled to their pay. Although the payment was already collected, nevertheless, just as the bride and groom were unable to marry that evening due to the missile attack, so were the musicians and photographers unable to provide their services. As for the caterer and florist, however, this ruling is not applicable. Since they already delivered their products and were paid in full, the transaction is viewed as final. Just as any consumer cannot renege after making payment and taking the product into his possession, the same applies to food and flowers which are prepaid and delivered to a rented hall. Nevertheless, a reduction of $2,000 of the caterer’s fee was made in consideration of the cost of waiters that never serviced that evening. Shulhan Aruch Hoshen Mishpat 334; Rama 321:1; Gra 321:7; Sema 321:6; Taz 321:1; Netivot 334:1; Pit’hei Hoshen 6:10:29 ( citing Hatam Sofer); Mahane Efrayim, sechirut 7; Maharasham 2:199. Endnotes: