In the past two issues you addressed the question of how a camp owner lacking the necessary funds should pay his creditors and employees.

Q: Seemingly, the camp owner should be obligated to pay his employees before his other creditors due to the prohibition of bal talin — one should not pay an employee late. If this is correct why was this point not raised in your response?

A: You raise an important point. After presenting some related halachos we will explain why bal talin was not mentioned.

In a circumstance in which one owes money to an employee and another creditor, some authorities rule that one must pay the employee first due to the Torah prohibition of bal talin (Ahavas Chessed 10:11). Others maintain that one does not violate bal talin as long as he divides his available funds to pay his creditors in accordance with Halachah even though that leaves him without the resources to pay his employees, since bal talin is violated only when one has the means to pay his employees but chooses not to (Gidulei Shmuel, B.M. 111a; Erech Shai 339). An employer of two employees who gave all the money to one of the employees instead of splitting it between them as Halachah requires violates the prohibition of bal talin (Ahavas Chessed 9:8; Erech Shai, op.cit.; cf. Minchas Tzvi 2 [33]).

In the circumstance about which the original writer asked there are many reasons why bal talin is not relevant. In the original question he mentioned that his employees have not asked to be paid, and the halachah is that an employer does not violate bal talin unless his employees ask to be paid (C.M. 339:10). There is a dispute whether there is an obligation or even a mitzvah to pay employees who have not asked for remuneration. Some maintain that the obligation applies only once the employee asks for payment (Nachal Yitzchak 9). Others contend that although the prohibition (mitzvas lo saaseh) does not apply, nevertheless, he violates a positive command (mitzvas aseh — Divrei Chaim, Y.D. 11 and Ahavas Chessed 9:11).

Moreover, when an employee does not expect his employer to have funds to pay him until market day, the employer does not transgress bal talin if he does not pay the worker on the day he completes his job, even if the employer has the necessary funds. The reasoning is that the employee expected to have to wait until market day rather than receive remuneration upon completion of his job (C.M. 339:9).

Consequently, when a person takes a job with an employer who is not expected to be able to pay on time — e.g., he receives government funding — the employee realizes he will not be paid until funding comes through and thus the prohibition of bal talin does not apply. Since it is also common that camps do not have the funds to pay their employees until after camp is over, we did not discuss the issue of bal talin.

Additionally, the day after the job was completed, payment is no longer subject to bal talin (C.M. 339:8).

Finally, even when an employer does not violate bal talin, he may violate divrei kabbalah — the words of the Prophets — if he repeatedly tells his employees to come back another time for payment when he has the necessary funds to pay them (C.M. 339:7).