- Sections
- P'ninat Mishpat
33
Ruling: If there was a commitment to providing these extra hours, is def bound to it when the situation changed (i.e., loss of eligibility) after the time of the commitment? Regarding a commitment to buy/sell, followed by a change in price, there are two opinions as to whether it is morally permitted to back out (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 204:11). The S’ma (ad loc.) says that the same is true for a commitment to employ.
However, when a worker starts the job, commitments become binding (Shulchan Aruch, CM 333:2). This is either based on the assumption that it is difficult to find a new job or based on obligation. Even if pl did not start working the extra hours, all of the employment, with all the stated conditions, form one unit.
Usually, if one is obligated toward a worker, but the worker does not end up needing to work, there is a reduction from the pay because of the benefit of the free time. The Rama (CM 335:1) says that this is not true of a Torah teacher, and two reasons are given: 1. it is a pleasure to teach Torah; 2. teachers do not enjoy time off. While in this case (a general studies teacher), there is a difference between the reasons, we accept both reasons as grounds to give full pay, especially in a case like this in which pl was more adamant about the teaching than the money.
The question thus is about what commitment was made. Def argued that pl should have understood that the extra hours were dependent on the special fund, but they never said that they told him so. Therefore, we cannot accept that the extra hours could be considered conditional, as conditions need to be stated, not understood. In general, we must criticize def’s policy of taking money given to them to pass on to certain teachers and making it conditional on extra work that the Department of Education did not require.

P'ninat Mishpat (772)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
569 - Too Slow to Meet a Non-Deadline
570 - Receiving Pay for Hours Not Taught
571 - Compensating for a Breach of Exclusivity Agreement
Load More

Disappointment with Arba Minim Sales Provisions – part III
based on ruling 74082 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Iyar 2 5782

P'ninat Mishpat: Spillover of Courtyard Dispute
based on ruling 81059 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Tevet 5784

P'ninat Mishpat: Unsuccessful Transfer of Yeshiva – part I
based on ruling 82138 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Adar 5784

A Will That Was Not Publicized
Rabbi Yoav Sternberg | Kislev 5768

Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit

Repercussions of a Sale That Turned Out Not Happening – part II
(based on ruling 83045 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
18 Sivan 5784

Raffle of Property in Eretz Yisrael for Tzedaka
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook: – #220
18 Sivan 5784

Departure of an Uncle to Eretz Yisrael
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook: Vol. I, #1 , p. 1-2 – part II
Tevet 21 5781

Limiting Exorbitant Lawyer’s Fees – part I
(Based on ruling 81120 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
Tishrei 29 5783

Salad at Meat and Milk Meals
Rabbi Daniel Mann | Tamuz 8 5780

Aaron, Moses, and the High Priesthood
Parashat Shmini
Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak HaLevi Kilav

Aaron, Moses, and the High Priesthood
Parashat Shmini
Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak HaLevi Kilav

“Ba’omer” or “La’omer”?
Rabbi Daniel Mann | Iyar 4 5777

Ask the Rabbi: Selecting Things to Use Later on Shabbat
Rabbi Daniel Mann | Iyar 5785
Daf Yomi Shevuot Daf 7
R' Eli Stefansky | 10 Iyar 5785
