Richard S. Rheins

also do not transgress the rabbinic decree until they have calculated with their workers.)

Hoshen Mishpat 339.10

An employer does not violate the prohibition against withholding his workers wages(Lev. 19:13) unless the worker has demanded his wages from him. But if the worker has not asked to be paid, the employer does not violate the prohibition. Even if the worker demands his wages, the employer is not guilty of the prohibition if he does not have enough money to pay the worker, or if he gave the worker an order to a money changer and the money changer agreed to pay him. In any case, if the worker wants to change his mind and demand his money directly from the employer instead of the money changer, he has permission.

(Isserles :“He is not entitled to change his mind once a valid act of acquisition was performed”).

Up to this point, we have reviewed examples of rabbinic legislation to limit or modify the workers’ rights. But lest we think that the rabbis relaxed the Torah laws always to the benefit of the employer, let us consider the case in which there is a dispute over payment. Halakhah has established the general principle that in a legal dispute, the defendant is permitted to deny a claim by the plaintiff by swearing an oath.** But in the case of a dispute over payment, the rabbis granted the worker, who is the plaintiff, to swear an oath and collect his claim.* This radical departure from the Torah law concerning plaintiffs and defendants and the sages of the Talmud and its commentators justified this“uprooting of the Torah ” as a necessary measure to protect the rights of the workers. The issue of the unique privilege of a worker’s oath is discussed in B. Baba Metzia 112b and elsewhere in the Talmud :*’