Don’t Sleep On It!

Rav Yaakov Shulman

It all began, Shmulik realized later, when he and his wife had suddenly resolved, almost on a whim, to go to Eretz Yisroel. They both could manage to arrange some time off now, and they so wanted to see their children in Yerushalaim. Though they planned to visit there over the summer, this was a leap year with an extra Adar; it just seemed so long, and they missed the grandchildren so much. Besides, his wife had found tickets at such a low price ... The decision made, they began frantically re-arranging their schedules to allow them to take 10 days in Eretz Yisroel.

In the headlong rush to get everything done before the trip, Shmulik had listed the people he must notify and the tasks he needed to accomplish. His Daf Yomi group, for whom he said the Shiur weekday mornings at 6:00 AM, had a well-established protocol for covering in his absence. The employees at the firm where he ran the payroll department would direct their calls to his long-time associate. The family van, which the mechanic had notified him just that morning needed extended front-end work, would probably need to remain at the shop until he returned, since the job would only be finished on the day he left. His wife's Yiddish-speaking cleaning lady, who came to the house each Wednesday afternoon, would need someone to lock up after her, because the taxi to the airport would leave before she was done. Finally, the taxi driver, a self-employed man who davened in their shul, had agreed to provide them with round-trip transportation to the airport. 

Now, sitting on the plane before takeoff, Shmulik reflected on the hasty, improbable, but fairly thorough arrangements that he had put in place. He scrolled through the notes on his cell phone, updating his to-do lists. Something was nagging at him; no, not the usual misgivings about whether he had locked all the windows or turned off the stove, but whether ... Hold on, what about the recycling cans? No, not that, they had been taken care of that morning, and anyway the cleaning lady would be bringing them around to the side of the house when she … Wait a minute, the cleaning lady!  He hadn't paid her! That was what was bothering him in the back of his mind. How could he have left without arranging to pay her? Asking the neighbor to lock up the house he hadn't forgotten, but paying his worker had slipped his mind?

The soft buzz of an incoming text message interrupted his reverie. It was the mechanic: “Car’s ready.” No mention of the price, thought Shmulik to himself; now there’s a mechanic for you, a man of few words. And now that we’re on the topic, thought Shmulik, what do I do about paying him for all those parts and the labor he put in while working on my car?

The Posuk says in Devarim (24:15), “On his day [when due] give him his wage, and do not let the sun set upon him,” implying that wages are to be paid during the day, while in Vayikra (19:13) we are told, “Do not keep overnight with you the wages of a hired worker until morning.”  This would imply an obligation to pay at night. The Gemara (Bava Metzia 110b) resolves the contradiction by explaining that the Torah gives an employer a time window in which to gather his funds and pay his workers: If they are day laborers working until dark, he has all night to pay them, and must not keep their wages until morning, as the Posuk in Vayikra instructs. The Posuk in Devarim, though, refers to a night shift employee, whose work ends daybreak. He must be paid during the ensuing day, prior to sunset. The unifying principle here is that the worker’s completion of the job sets the clock ticking: The employer must pay him before the next celestial event, whether sunrise or sunset.

Practically speaking, many hired people work for us only part of a day, e.g., a gardener or an evening tutor. In that case, we must pay them during the interval in which they completed their work: the gardener that same day, before Shki’ah, and the tutor that same night, before sunrise. In addition, aside from the prohibitions of delayed payment of wages, the first Posuk cited above includes the positive Mitzvah of paying on time.

To which payments do these Mitzvos apply? Essentially, to three types:

1) An employee’s wages. This is not only a contractual employee to whom you issue a W-2, but anyone you hire for their time: A waiter, babysitter, day laborer, etc.

2) A contractor’s pay. This is someone who performs work on an item you own: A dry cleaner, a roofer, plumber, mechanic, etc.

3) Rental payments. This includes a car lease and according to many Poskim an apartment lease.   

For each of these, we perform a Mitzvah when we pay them on time. There is a distinction, though, between an employee/worker (‘Po’ail’) paid for his time  and a contractor (‘Kablan’) paid by the job. With regard to the Po’ail, the end of his work-time signals the start of your obligation to pay his wages. You have only until the next sunset or sunrise before transgressing the Lav. With a Kablan, though, your obligation to pay starts strictly when you pick up the item. Until then, the payment clock does not begin, even if the item is ready. Thus, if according to your laundry ticket your shirts are ready on Tuesday, but you don’t pick them up until Thursday, you have not  transgressed either Lav enumerated above, and you fulfill the Mitzvah of paying on time when making payment that Thursday.

Briefly, there are a number of exceptions to the obligation of paying on the same day:

• When the employee does not claim the wages.
• When the employer has no funds available.
• When hiring through an agent. This would include a foreman hiring on behalf of a construction firm or an HR department hiring for a company.
• When the employer and employee agree on other arrangements. This is a widespread practice today, where employees typically agree  to be paid weekly, biweekly or monthly.

[In the first three exempt cases, there is a Midas Chasidus, or high level of piety, to attempt to pay on time when Halachically not obligated to do so, even to the extent of borrowing money to raise the necessary funds.]

Shmulik found himself glancing at the display in front of him. The little animated El Al characters on the screen were coming to life, demonstrating the safety features of the aircraft. He knew that within five minutes the instructions would come over the PA system to close all electronic devices; he had best put the remaining time to good use. His wife was just hanging up her cell phone, after saying goodbye to their daughter. He asked her if she would please call their next-door neighbor, Mrs. M___. “Why now, of all times,” wondered his wife. “Because you know that on Wednesday evenings, after finishing in our house, our cleaning lady Devoirah goes directly to our neighbor’s house for a few hours. In our rush to get to the airport, I forgot to pay Devoirah, who will definitely want to get paid, and we’re required to pay her on time. Please ask Mrs. M. to advance her the money; we can return it to her when we get back.”

As his wife dialed the neighbor, Shmulik reviewed to himself the other people awaiting payment. The auto mechanic was a Kablan, a contractor, who needs to get paid only upon pick-up of the work. Since that wouldn’t occur until he returned from the trip, he was safe there. This was true even though the work was complete and the car was ready. The employees at the Jewish firm where he worked would be paid in his absence, and in any event although he was the payroll manager, he was not the responsible party but merely an agent. The taxi driver, who had played his Chasidic music CD’s on the way to the airport at full blast, had insisted that he not be paid until he got them and their luggage safely home on their return trip. Moreover, he would say Tehilim for them each day for a safe trip; only when he got them to their doorstep would he want to be paid their agreed fee, plus a nice tip. Well, thought Shmulik, if that’s the case, I’m certainly not liable here; not only is he not claiming the wages, he’s refusing them too.

The expected announcement now came over the PA, first in Hebrew and then in somewhat fractured English: “All cell phones now be turned off. The FAA makes the rules that ...” For Shmulik, everything slowly tuned out. Buckled into his seat, sitting on the tarmac at JFK, waiting for takeoff, he realized that this trip to Yerushalaim was turning into an experience of Mitzva Go’reres Mitzva – one Mitzva draws another. He had successfully kept the Mitzvah of paying a worker on time, and had narrowly avoided transgressing Lo Salin: Don’t sleep on it! Now he was headed for another Mitzva: Visiting Yerushalaim, gaining the nachas of seeing his married children and their families, participating in their love of Torah and their deep commitment to learning. This filled him with a pride, too profound for words, that he allowed himself simply to sense and experience, as he felt the plane clear the runway and take off into the heavens.

PROMPT WAGES

There is a problem with the showerhead,” Mrs. Lerner said to her husband. “It’s leaking terribly.”

Mr. Lerner checked and saw that the showerhead had cracked. “The showerhead has to be replaced,” he said to his wife. “It’s not a big deal.”

Mr. Lerner got a wrench and tried to loosen the showerhead. However, it was stuck on very tightly. He applied some force, and the showerhead broke off with a small piece of pipe, which had corroded.

“The pipe cracked,” Mr. Lerner said to his wife. “I’m going to have to call Yossi, the plumber.”

“The pipe holding the showerhead broke and has to be fixed,” Mr. Lerner said to Yossi. “Would you be able to come by?”

“I can come by tomorrow morning,” Yossi replied. “Will somebody be home?”

“I’ll be at work, but the kids should be home,” said Mr. Lerner. “I’ll tell them to expect you.”

When Mr. Lerner left the following morning, he instructed his son, David: “Ask Yossi how much it is, and please pay him.”

When Yossi finished, David asked him, “How much is the job?”

“Thank you for asking,” said Yossi. “I’ll settle with your father later.”

Yossi sent an email to Mr. Lerner: “The shower is fixed. It comes to $100, when you have a chance.”

Mr. Lerner replied: “Thank you. Be”H, I will bring the money over later.”

Mr. Lerner returned home in the late afternoon. He looked at his watch. “What time is sunset?” he asked his children.

David checked the shul bulletin. “It’s in half an hour,” said David. “Why do you ask?”

“There is a mitzvah to pay the worker on that day,” answered Mr. Lerner.

“Yossi didn’t sound like he needed the money immediately,” David noted.

“That’s true,” replied Mr. Lerner. “He even wrote to me, ‘when you have a chance,’ but I wonder if there is a mitzvah regardless.”

“Maybe ask Rabbi Dayan?” suggested David.

Mr. Lerner called Rabbi Dayan. “A plumber fixed my shower today,” he said. “Is there a mitzvah to pay him before sunset if he said, ‘when you have a chance’?”

“There is both a positive command to pay a worker on time and a prohibition to delay his wages,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “The Torah states: ‘On that day you shall pay his wages; the sun should not set upon him’ (Devarim 24:15). However, the Mishnah (B.M.111a) lists certain situations in which one does not violate the prohibition.”

“What, for example?” asked Mr. Lerner.

“The employer does not violate the prohibition unless the worker requested his wages,” explained Rabbi Dayan. “Most authorities maintain that if he did not request the wages, the employer also is not neglectful of the positive command” (C.M.339:10; Pischei Choshen, Sechirus, 9:[35]).

“When the worker explicitly allowed you to pay later, presumably everyone would agree that there is no requirement to pay that day,” continued Rabbi Dayan.

“Furthermore, the employer is not required to bring the money to the worker, but to make it available. Nonetheless, if you do make the effort to pay that day, you merit fulfilling a mitzvah. The Zohar (3:85a), in particular, encourages this.” (Ahavas Chesed 9:[31]; Shulchan Aruch Harav, Sechirus §18).

“I don’t have any cash on hand,” said Mr. Lerner. “What about paying by check? Would that fulfill the mitzvah?”

“A check that can be deposited that day is like cash, and the employer fulfills the mitzvah,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “If the worker agrees to accept a postdated check, the employer does not violate the prohibition, but it is questionable whether he fulfills themitzvah” (P.C., Sechirus 9:[36]).

POSTPONED PAYCHECKS

Dovid Gold had been working comfortably for many years at Feldman Financial Company. On a monthly basis, like clockwork, his paycheck was direct-deposited into his bank account. With this salary, he paid his mortgage, tuition for his children, shopping, and the many other expenses of daily life.

The past year had been rough on the company. Fortunately he was not laid off, but his bonus was cancelled for the year, and there was even talk of reducing salaries. While disappointed, he took comfort in knowing that he still got his paycheck every first of the month.

Then it came...

Just before payday, a memo was circulated that salary payments would be postponed, due to the weakened fiscal state of the company.

A month later, a similar memo was sent out delaying payment of salaries again. Word leaked out that the company was setting aside money to make a vital investment for its continued operation.

Mr. Gold gently broke the news to his wife that evening. Having used up much of their available savings, how would they manage the coming month? They could borrow from relatives or sell some stocks (but who wants to sell with the market at its low?!); perhaps the kids couldn’t go to camp...

Most frustrating was the unspoken question, “Does the company have the right to postpone wages without first receiving the workers’ consent?”

He located the sugya in Bava Metzia (110b) that addresses the topic of timely payment of wages. He was amazed at the many laws detailed there.

He continued on to Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat #339) where the laws are codified. The opening lines were unequivocal: “It is a mitzvah to pay wages on time, and one who delays it violates a prohibition ... One who withholds a worker’s wages is like taking his soul...”

Mr. Gold decided to take up the issue with his boss. With trepidation, he approached Mr. Feldman and described the difficulties that the workers were likely to experience if the salaries would be delayed again, and what he had learned in the Gemara and Shulchan Aruch.

Mr. Feldman sympathized with the hardship, but underscored the vital nature of this step for the company. He was surprised, though, to hear of the severity of the issue, and promised to investigate the issue further.

He picked up the phone to call Rabbi Dayan and described the situation.

“Of course!” exclaimed Rabbi Dayan, “There is a clear mitzvah to pay wages promptly, and a severe prohibition to delay, if it is evident that the employee expects prompt payment.”

“Is it ever permitted to delay payment to one’s employees?” asked Mr. Feldman.

“Payment can be postponed only if there was a mutual understanding to that effect ahead of time, the employer does not have funds available, or the employee does not express interest in being paid promptly (C.M. 339:9,10),” replied Rabbi Dayan. “Even in these situations, it is still proper to pay on time (Pischei Teshuva #7, 8).”

Mr. Feldman thanked Rabbi Dayan for his time and slowly put the phone down, deep in thought.

He would have to make every effort to finance the investment some other way. If that would prove to be impossible, he would call a meeting of the employees to explain the long-term benefit of the projected investment for them and ask for their permission to delay salary payment so that the company could get back on its feet and ensure future timely payments.

When the news reached Mr. Gold, a sense of relief swept over him. He was sure his fellow employees felt the same.

As he shared the news with his wife, an incredible thought hit him. He was an employee - but wasn’t he also an employer? Did he not hire the appliance man to fix his air conditioner, the seamstress to alter his wife’s dress, the piano instructor to give music lessons, the girl next door to babysit, the young Kollel man to tutor his son... Wasn’t he also required to pay them immediately?

Sometimes they said, “Pay me later,” but at times he neglected to pay promptly and they seemed disappointed. He now began to appreciate what they felt. He would have to be more careful to keep a sum of cash on hand for them.

“It’s amazing how much there is to learn and be sensitive - on both sides,” he mused to himself.

Q: What are the mitzvos and prohibitions related to payment of wages?

A: Payment of wages is no less a mitzvah than payment of any other monetary obligation. Therefore, withholding due wages from a worker or employee is tantamount to stealing from him (C.M. 339:1-2, SM”A 339:4).

In addition, there are specific prohibitions that relate to withholding wages: “Lo sa’ashok es rei’acha - You shall not cheat [i.e. withhold wages from] your fellow (Vayikra 19:13).” If the employee is poor there is an additional prohibition, “Lo sa’ashok sachir ani v’evyon - You shall not cheat a hired person who is poor or destitute (Devarim 24:14).”

Furthermore, the prohibition does not relate only to withholding wages entirely. There is a mitzvah to pay wages in a timely manner and prohibitions against delaying payment: “B’yomo siten scharo, v’lo savo alav hashemesh - On that day you shall pay his hire; the sun shall not set upon it (Devarim 24:15)”; “Lo salin pe’ulas sachir itecha ad boker - A worker’s wage should not remain with you overnight (Vayikra 19:13).”

These many verses underscore the importance that the Torah attributes to proper payment of wages.

Q: I asked an appliance repairman on my block to check my faulty refrigerator. He immediately ascertained that the outlet was defective and simply plugged the fridge into another outlet. He left a bill for $50, explaining that his standard rate for an initial visit is $50. Must I pay the full amount of this bill, since he really did nothing?

A: You are required to pay this bill fully. By withholding payment of this bill you would be stealing from him, neglecting the mitzvah of paying wages, and violating the additional prohibitions mentioned last week (SM”A 339:4).

Although the repairman did not explicitly mention that he was going to charge you, if you asked him to come in a professional capacity he is entitled to charge payment. Only if there was a clear understanding or indication that he was coming as a neighborly favor is he unable to charge you (see Rama C.M. 246:17, 264:4).

It is always advisable to agree ahead of time with a worker what the charge will be, to avoid misunderstandings later (Ahavas Chesed, end of Part I).

Q: If someone did a job and the fee was not set beforehand, how much is owed?

A: We mentioned last week that it advisable to agree on wages before starting a job. If nothing was stipulated, but it is customary for the worker or employer to have a set fee scale, that amount is binding on the other party.

If the worker and employer do not have a set scale, the job has to be evaluated according to the going rate of such a job. This includes not only the actual wages, but also any benefits that are typically given for this job (C. M. 331:2). We must also take into consideration the quality of the job done and the professional training and qualifications of the employee (Pischei Choshen, Sechirus, ch. 8 ftnt. 11).

In the likely situation that the going rate has a range, the employee is entitled only to the lower end of the range, even if most workers charge more. This is based on the basic principle of monetary law that the party in possession of the money has the upper hand, even against the majority (Ketzos Hachoshen 331:3).

Q: I hired someone to paint four rooms. He gave me a bill for $1,200, but I remember the agreed-upon price as being $1,000. What do we do?

A: To avoid disagreements of this sort, it is advisable to get a written quote. In this case, however, there is no evidence to resolve the dispute. Since the painter claims $1,200 and the homeowner admits that he owes $1,000, the homeowner is modeh b’miktzat (he admits partially to the claim). The homeowner must pay $1,000 and take a severe oath in court that he does not owe the remaining $200 (SM”A 89:17). However, most batei din refrain from imposing oaths nowadays and encourage reaching a compromise instead. If the homeowner does not recall if he agreed to $1,000 or $1,200, he must pay $1,200. This is because he is unable to take the severe oath in which he is obligated (C.M. 75:13). However, if the homeowner already paid $1,000 or is prepared to pay immediately, the nature of the oath is subject to a dispute beyond the scope of this column (see C.M. 89:4 and Shach 89:10).

Furthermore, in this case, if the homeowner does not remember, he cannot be made to pay the extra $200 - but it is meritorious for him to do so (C.M. 75:9 and Shach 88:36).

Q: I served as a waiter at an affair. Before going home, I asked the caterer for my wages. He insisted that he had paid all the waiters, including me, an hour ago. Who is believed?

A: The general rule is that when the defendant denies the claim, the burden of the proof is on the plaintiff (hamotzi meichavero alav ha’reayah). However, Chazal instituted that on payment day, a worker is believed if he takes a severe oath that he was not paid. The reason is that the employer may be preoccupied with other employees or business interests and is liable to get confused, whereas the employee is focused on his own payment (C.M. 89:2).

However, if the dispute should arise later on, past the payday, we revert to the general rule, and the employer is believed with a simple oath (shevuas heses) (89:3). We mentioned in a previous issue that Beis Din usually refrains nowadays from administering oaths, and advocates a compromise.

This entire situation could be avoided if the caterer would pay by check or have each waiter sign a document when paid.

Q: When is considered “payment day” in halacha?

A: The proper time for payment depends on the terms of employment and the nature of the job. If a stipulated time was agreed upon, payment is due then. For regular employees, this typically means a weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly “pay day.” For contracted work, if the invoice allows 7, 14 or 30 days for payment of services, wages are due by then (C. M. 339:9-10). If the employment terms do not stipulate a time, but there is a clear local practice for that type of work, e.g., the first or last day of the month, payment is due then (C.M. 331:1-2). If the employment terms do not stipulate a time and there is no local custom, payment is due on the day or night that the services were completed (C.M. 339:3-4). Therefore, for a per-diem worker or plumber who did repairs during the day, payment is due that day; for a musician who performed at an evening bar mitzvah, payment is due that night.

If an employer doesn’t expect to pay immediately, he should clarify this beforehand with the worker.

Q: Due to an erratic schedule, I don’t remember the exact hours my babysitter worked and whether I paid her last week. What do I owe her now?

A: If the babysitter claims that she was not paid, you are obligated to pay her. Although the burden of the proof is generally on the plaintiff, in this case you definitely owed her the wages. Therefore, the status quo of this obligation bolsters her definite claim, despite your doubt (C. M. 75:9).

Regarding the hours, you must pay for the hours you remember. If the sitter claims additional hours and you question her reckoning, you are not obligated to pay for those additional hours if you are prepared to pay immediately for the hours you acknowledge (89:3). Nonetheless, it is meritorious to pay the amount she claims (75:9; Shach 88:36).

If the babysitter also does not remember whether she was paid, you are exempt. If she does not remember the hours, you only need to pay for the hours you are sure of. Some say that it is proper for you to reach a compromise with the babysitter (see 75:18; Shach 75:58; Taz 75:10; Pischei Teshuva 75:18).

Q: Who is included in the halachic requirement for timely payment of wages?

A: As mentioned in the beginning of this series, there is a mitzvah to pay wages in a timely manner and two prohibitions against delaying payment. The requirement to pay promptly and the prohibitions to delay apply to both regular employees and someone hired on a one-time basis. It does not make a difference whether the worker is paid by the hour or paid a flat fee for the job (C. M. 339:6). Furthermore, the requirement applies even to services rendered by a minor (e.g., babysitting, lawn mowing), and even if the wages amount to a small sum. It also applies regardless of whether the worker is poor or wealthy (Ahavas Chesed 9:3,5,8).

This requirement to pay promptly applies not only to wages, but also to rental fees. There is an opinion that the prohibition does not apply to property rental, but many authorities maintain that it applies also to real estate (C.M. 339:1; Ahavas Chesed 9:5). Therefore, a renter has to be especially careful to pay his rent bill promptly. The same is true for someone who leases an auto or other equipment.

Q: There is no cash available this month to cover payroll. May I delay payment of salaries?

A: There is a mitzvah to pay wages promptly. However, an employer does not violate the prohibition of delaying wages if he does not have funds to pay the employee (Choshen Mishpat 339:10).

If the employer does not have sufficient funds to cover the payroll entirely, he must still pay whatever amount he is able to. Furthermore, if the employer has accessible funds in the bank or entrusted with someone, he is required to procure them, even if it involves time and effort (Ahavas Chesed 9:7,10; Rama C.M. 104:4).

If the employer does not have funds, but has assets that can be sold, there is a dispute whether he is required to sell them in order to raise cash for payment of wages (see R. Akiva Eiger C.M. 339:10). If he can borrow money in order to pay promptly, it is proper that he do so (Pischei Teshuva 339:8; Ahavas Chesed 9:7).

In any case, a person should not hire a worker if he does not expect to be able to pay him promptly, unless the worker was told ahead of time and he agreed to receive payment later (Ahavas Chesed 10:12).

Q: My organization does not have sufficient funds to cover the entire payroll, other bills, and necessary purchases and orders. Is there a priority of payment?

A: A person is expected to pay all his monetary debts in a timely manner when he is able to. If he is unable to, covering the payroll takes a certain priority over other debts, since delaying payment of wages entails additional prohibitions. If utilizing all the available funds for payroll will cause penalties or further loss on other obligations, a Rav should be consulted, since the additional prohibitions may not apply in many organizational or corporate situations.If an employer has funds to cover the payroll only partially, there is a priority to pay a needy employee over a wealthy one, even if the wealthy employee approached the employer first for his salary. If both employees are of the same status, the employer should divide available funds fairly between the two. There is a dispute whether this means equally or by percent, proportional to the various salaries; the common local practice is also relevant. There is no priority given to an employee who is a relative, even though such a priority exists regarding distribution of charity (Ahavas Chesed 10:8-10; see C.M. 104:10 and Aruch Hashulchan 104:15).

Q: We returned home at 11:00 pm and owe the babysitter $30. If we don’t have enough cash, may we pay her later in the week?

A: Since the job finished during the night, payment is due then. Thus, there is a mitzvah to pay the babysitter that night and a prohibition to withhold payment to the next day against her will (C. M. 339:4). However, one only violates the prohibition if the employee asks for her wages. Therefore, if the babysitter is fully willing to receive payment afterwards, there is no violation. (Nonetheless, if you do pay that night you fulfill a mitzvah.) You should be careful, though, not to delay payment unnecessarily the following days, but to pay as soon as possible (C.M. 339:8-10).

If she wants payment that night, but is embarrassed or unable to ask, the Chofetz Chaim maintains that you may not delay payment (Ahavas Chesed, ch. 9 nt. 29,32).

Although a person does not violate if he does not have money available, if the babysitter wants payment that night and you are able to get money from an ATM, you are required to do so, even if inconvenient. If you have a $50 bill, you are required to give it to her and let her give you change when she can. Alternatively, you can write her a check, and, if she wants, let her return it when you have cash.

Q: When I asked my dentist about payment, he said, “We’ll bill you.” May I delay payment until I receive the bill? When I receive the bill, must I pay it immediately?

A: Shulchan Aruch rules that one only violates the prohibition of withholding wages if the worker asks for immediate payment. If a worker agrees to delay payment, one no longer violates the prohibition (C.M. 339:8-10). The Zohar, however, writes that it is improper to withhold wages even with the worker’s permission. Some also infer from the language of the Gemara and Shulchan Aruch that although one doesn’t violate if the worker doesn’t ask for pay, it is still proper to pay immediately (Pischei Teshuva 339:7; but see Erech Shai 339:10). When the bill arrives, although “bal talin” no longer applies, there is a rabbinic obligation to pay any due debt as soon as possible, based on the verse, “al tomar l’reiacha” – “Do not tell your neighbor, ‘Leave and come back; I will give tomorrow,’ when it is by you (Mishlei 3:28)”, but this obligation is more flexible, such as if the patient is very busy or low on cash (C.M. 339:7).

Thus, it is preferable to pay immediately, but it is acceptable to wait until the bill arrives. When you receive the bill, you should pay it as soon as feasible.

Q: I brought my car to a mechanic for repairs. He called in the afternoon to say that it was ready. Do I have to pay him that day if I will not pick up the car until morning?

A: When you give an item to a worker for repairs, you may delay payment as long as the item is in his hands. When he returns the item to you, you must pay that day (Choshen Mishpat 339:6). There are a number of explanations for this halacha. Some explain that as long as the car is in the mechanic’s hand, it serves as collateral to ensure payment (SM”A 339:10). Others explain that the job is not considered complete until the item is returned (Aruch Hashulchan 339:8; Ketzos 72:23). A third explanation is that by not returning the car, the mechanic indicates his willingness to wait for payment (Meiri B.M. 112a). If the mechanic explicitly asks you to pick up the car and pay that day, there is a dispute whether you can delay payment if you do not pick it up. The Chafetz Chaim maintains that you do not violate by waiting, whereas Aruch Hashulchan is of the opinion that you do violate. Everyone agrees that there is an obligation not to delay payment without reasonable cause (see Pischei Teshuva 339:2; Ahavas Chesed 10(2) and Biur Halacha O.C. 242 s.v. l’chabed; Aruch Hashulchan 339:8; C.M. 339:8).

Q: The contractor who renovated our house finished working and asked for payment of the final installment. However, we are dissatisfied with one of the cabinets and would like it replaced. Must we pay the bill now or can we withhold payment until he replaces the cabinet?

A: The halachic principle is: “ain sechirus mishtalemes ela l’vasof” – payment for labor is due only at the conclusion of the job (BM 110b; Rama C.M. 78:1). So long as the contractor has not finished his work, even if only a little bit is left, you are not obligated to pay him, unless the terms of the agreement state otherwise (Pischei Choshen, Sechirus, ch. 9 end of ftnt. 29).

Therefore, if the contractor agrees that the cabinet has to be replaced, you are not obligated to pay him the remaining balance yet. However, if he claims that the cabinet is adequate, you run the risk of violating the serious prohibition of “bal talin” by withholding his wages (see Pischei Choshen, Sechirus, ch. 9 ftnt. 1). An external professional must confirm that the cabinet is indeed deficient to justify withholding payment.

Q: We have a number of temps that were hired for us by an outside employment agency. Do the laws of prompt payment apply to them as well?

A: The Gemara (B.M. 110a-b) teaches that if someone hires an employee to work for another person, neither party violates the prohibition of “bal talin” if payment is delayed. The business owner does not violate, because he did not hire the worker, and the one who hired does not violate, because he is not withholding the wages. This is true even if the first person who hired the employee was an agent of the owner. However, there is a rabbinic obligation on the owner to pay as soon as possible, based on the verse, “al tomar l’reiacha” (C. M. 339:7).

If the agent who hired is also responsible for paying the worker, though, he would violate bal talin. Thus, if the temp is hired and paid through a human resources company, they would be in violation, since they are also withholding his pay (ibid). Similarly, if a business has a senior executive officer who has full authority for hiring and paying, he would be in violation (Ahavas Chesed 10:4).

OBLIGATION TO PAY WORKERS

Reuven contacted me to do the necessary construction on the store that he and his brother Shimon will be opening. We clarified all the details and agreed that I would be paid upon completion of the project. On the day I finished, Reuven paid me his half of my bill. Shimon, however, informed me that he could not pay me immediately since all of his funds were tied up in the business and would not be available for a couple of months.

Q: Am I allowed to contact Reuven and inform him that as a partner in the business, he is obligated to pay me the second half of the bill and if he doesn’t he will violate bal talin – the prohibition against not paying an employee on the day that he finished his job?

A: Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 77:1) rules that when two people borrow money or purchase something, each party is obligated to pay half of the cost and is an arev, a guarantor, for the other half of the bill. There are two categories of guarantors, the standard arev and the arev kablan. The main difference between them is that a creditor may not collect from a standard arev unless he demonstrates to beis din that he first attempted to collect from the borrower and was unsuccessful. In contrast, the creditor may seek to collect from an arev kablan without even attempting to collect from the borrower.

In the case of partners there is a dispute whether they are standard arevim for one another or whether they qualify as arev kablan for one another. In other words, can the creditor collect the full amount from one of the partners without even contacting the second partner (arev kablan)? Shulchan Aruch rules in accordance with the opinion that partners are standard arevim for one another, and the creditor cannot collect the full amount from one partner without first attempting to collect the second half from the second partner.

However, Poskim agree that the above is limited to circumstances in which each partner does not benefit from the full amount, e.g., each partner took half the amount [borrowed] and they did not share the profits that each one earned. When the money was given to the partnership and each partner benefited from the full amount, all opinions agree that the creditor may claim the full amount from either partner. The reason is that we look at each partner as though he borrowed the full amount (see Shach 77:3 and Tumim 77:3). 

In your case, since both partners benefitted from your work, it is considered as though you performed the entire project for each partner and you may claim the full amount from either one.

Regarding the prohibition of bal talin, if Shimon does not have the funds to pay his share of the bill he does not violate the prohibition, even if he has movable property and land (C.M. 339:10). Whether Reuven violates the prohibition is subject to the above parameters. If Reuven is a standard arev he would not violate bal talin since his obligation is to cover Shimon’s debt rather than pay you your wage. Even if beis din would obligate him to pay Shimon’s share, it would not be considered payment of your salary and thus is not subject to bal talin. 

However, since Reuven benefited from the entirety of your work, he is obligated as an arev kablan to pay the full amount and thus, if he has the means and refuses to pay, he would violate bal talin (see Rishonim cited in Ketzos 77:1).

PAYMENT FOR WORKERS — BAL TALIN

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 talinas 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).

CASH ON DELIVERY

I ordered cholent from a local caterer for a family simcha. When the caterer dropped off the cholent, he insisted on receiving full payment immediately. I had figured that he was going to send me a bill at the end of the month and I would pay at that time. He informed me that their policy was to take payment upon delivery and added smilingly that their policy will offer me an opportunity to fulfill the mitzvah of paying a worker on time. I didn’t have the time to argue with him, so I paid him.

Q: Was the caterer correct in his assertion?

A: The caterer is correct that there is an obligation to pay a contractor on the day that he finishes his job, but he was incorrect in his application of that halacha to your case. The Torah obligates an employer to pay his worker upon completion of the term of employment. If one finishes during the day, the employer must pay him before sunset (Devarim 24:15) and if the worker finishes at night, the employer must pay him before dawn (Vayikra 19:13). Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 339:6) writes that this obligation applies to contractors just as it applies to salaried employees. When the contractor delivers the final product, he must be paid either before sunset or before dawn, depending on when delivery was made. This obligation is limited to a contractor and does not apply to someone who sells a product. Thus, a salesman may not invoke the mitzvah of paying a worker on time in order to be paid for the product that he sold.

Using our example, is the caterer selling you the cholent or did you contract him to make a cholent for you? The answer to this question will determine whether there is a mitzvah for you to pay for the cholent on the day that it is delivered.

Ketzos Hachoshen (339:3) in the name of Mahar”a Sason explains that when the contractor supplies the materials, it is considered as though he is selling a product. When the contractor uses materials supplied by his employer, he is considered a contractor. Therefore, since your caterer bought the ingredients for the cholent and delivered the final product to you, it is considered a sale of cholent. As a salesman, the Biblical obligation to pay a worker on time does not apply.

THE WEDDING DRESS

A woman orders a dress from a dressmaker for a wedding, being very specific about the material, color, and style of the dress. At the first fitting, the woman is unhappy with the way the dress looks, although it is exactly as she ordered it. The dressmaker makes the requested alterations. After this scene repeats itself several times, the woman decides

to purchase a dress rather than have one custom-made. The dressmaker expects payment for the dress. The customer argues that she should not have to pay, since she isn’t taking the dress.

Q: Does the dressmaker have a halachic right to demand payment?

A: Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 333:8) presents this case: a person tells a craftsman, “Make for me an object and I will purchase it from you.” The item is created, and the customer decides not to make the purchase. Shulchan Aruch rules that although the customer no longer wants the object, he must pay the craftsman if refusing delivery of the item will generate a loss for the craftsman. Nesivos Hamishpat (333:15) questions why the customer is liable only when it will generate a loss for the craftsman. Shulchan Aruch elsewhere (336:2) rules that once a hired worker performs his task, he must be paid even if it turns out that he was hired to work with ownerless property. Accordingly, if the craftsman did his job by making the item, the customer should have to pay him regardless of whether there is a loss. Nesivos answers that there is a difference between hiring a worker and our case where the customer did not hire the craftsman; he merely committed himself to purchase the completed item. Since the craftsman was not working as an employee, he cannot expect to be paid for an object if it was not sold. He is to be reimbursed for his loss since it is categorized as garmi – indirect damage for which one is liable. Based on these concepts, the amount the dressmaker will be paid depends on the language used when she was hired. If she was an employee, she should be paid the full value of the work she performed. If she sewed the dress so that the woman would purchase it from her, she should only be reimbursed for her loss.

Payment By Check

I am a party planner. Generally I contact and book a hall, a caterer, a band, etc. The customer pays the providers and the providers pay our fee, usually a percentage of what they charged the customer. Occasionally it is easier for the customer to pay us and we then deduct our fee from that money and send the remaining amount to the provider.

Recently a customer dropped off an envelope, explaining that he wanted to pay that day to fulfill the mitzvah of paying a worker on the day he completes his employment (b’yomo titen secharo). To my surprise it contained two postdated checks, one for next month and the second for the following month.

Q: Was he obligated to pay in full that day? If one pays an employee with a check does he fulfill the mitzvah of paying that day, or is a check similar to an IOU and he does not fulfill the mitzvah?

A: The character of the obligation to make a payment depends on the circumstance. When paying for damages, he may even pay with objects of value (shaveh kesef) (C.M. 419:1). When repaying a loan one must use cash unless he does not have cash, in which case he may use objects of value (C.M. 101:1). When paying an employee, the standard method is cash. Even if the employer does not have cash, it is his responsibility to exert the necessary effort to obtain cash to pay his employee (C.M. 336:1;Pischei Teshuvah 1;see also Business Weekly #239/Hamodia, Dec. 24, 2014].A: Although paying with a postdated check does not fulfill the mitzvah of paying an employee on time, nevertheless the prohibition of delaying payment to an employee does not apply in your circumstance, as we shall explain.

An important principle is that common business practice is as binding as though it were explicitly stipulated between the two parties (C.M. 331:1). Therefore, according to most poskim, when common practice is to pay an employee by check or credit card, that method of payment fulfills the mitzvah. This is certainly true when merchants accept third-party checks as payment, and a check enables the employee to purchase his needs.

The allowance to pay an employee by check, however, has limitations. It is allowed only when the check is dated that day so that it can be used to make purchases. There is no custom to pay with a postdated check. Additionally, in industries where checks are not used for payment — for example, taxis — a check may not be used to pay an employee (see Sefer Hatchek B’Halachah 13:22-29, and note 132 that some poskim maintain that one never fulfills the mitzvah of paying an employee on time if he issues him a check).

In your situation, although the customer gave you postdated checks, he did not violate the prohibition of delaying payment of an employee’s wages. You are not an employee of the customer, you are an agent for the providers and paid by them. Furthermore, the customer does not violate the prohibition of delaying payment to the providers since an employer does not violate the prohibition if he hired the employee via an agent. Since you make the arrangements between the customer and the provider, it is considered as though the provider was hired via an agent.

Nevertheless, even when the prohibition of delaying payment to an employee does not apply, there is a prohibition (midivrei Kabbalah) against simply pushing off payment of an employee when one has the means to pay him (C.M. 339:7).

דיני שכירות פועלים

בל תלין (א)

המצוה

מצות עשה לשלם שכר שכיר בזמנו שנאמר 'ביומו תתן שכרו'[1], כלומר בזמנו[2], והיינו בסוף זמן השכירות, ששכירות אינה משתלמת אלא לבסוף[3]. כל החיובים שנאמרו בתשלומי שכיר נאמרו גם לשכיר קטן[4], או עשיר[5], ואף בפועל שחזר בו באמצע העבודה[6].

אסור לשכור פועל אם יודע בבירור שלא יוכל לשלם את כל שכרו בזמנו[7], דבסתמא דעתו שישלם לו בזמנו, דכתיב 'ואליו הוא נושא את נפשו'[8]. בהגיע הזמן חייב לשלם לו כל שכרו, ואם אין לו כל המעות ישלם עכ"פ מה שיש לו[9].

מתאחר לשלם

אם יש לו מעות ואיחר לשלם אפילו מקצת המעות[10] בזמן שקבעה התורה לשלם, מלבד שביטל המצות עשה עובר על לאו. התורה נתנה עונה לאחר שהגיע הזמן שהתחייב לשלם לתת עת להשתדל להשיג הכסף[11]. לפיכך, שכיר לילה שעובד עד עלות השחר, זמנו עד השקיעה של היום שאז הוא וודאי יום[12], ואם לא שילם, עובר על הלאו 'ולא תבוא עליו השמש'[13], שכיר יום שעובד עד שקיעת החמה[14], זמנו עד הבוקר ואם לא שילם, עובר על הלאו 'לא תלין פעולת שכיר עד בוקר'[15].

לא נשכר ליום או לילה אלא לשעות, או לתקופה כגון לשבוע או חודש, שנגמר זמן השכירות באמצע היום או לילה והתחייב אז לשלם, עובר המעביד בסוף העונה שכלתה השעה, אם כלה עבודתו באמצע היום חייב לשלם עד הערב, ואם כלה באמצע לילה חייב לשלם עד הבוקר[16]. כתב הרמ"א שבזמנינו לא נשכרים עד הלילה ודינו כשכרו לשעות, לפיכך בסתמא נשכר על דעת כן ולא נותנים למעביד עונה נוספת[17].

עבר הזמן

כיון שעבר הזמן שוב אינו עובר בבוקר השני[18], ועדיין חייב לשלם מיד שאם מתעכב עובר על לאו של דבריהם אל תאמר לרעך לך ושוב ומחר אתן[19].

באופנים שאינו חייב לשלם בזמן

גם באופנים שאינו עובר על בל תלין, אם יש בידו מעות לשלם עובר על הלאו של דבריהם וחייב לשלם מיד[20]. כגון אם מתחילה אמר לשכיר שלא ישלם בזמנו על דעת כן השכיר עצמו ואינו עובר על בל תלין[21], וכן כשידוע לפועל שמפני איזה סיבה לא יוכל המעביד לשלם בזמנו, כגון שאין לו תמיד מעות מזומנים, כבר מתחילה התייאש שישלם לו בזמנו ועל דעת כן נשכר, והמעביד שלא שילם בזמנו אינו עובר על בל תלין[22]. בכל אלה, כיון שבאו לידו מעות חייב לשלם מיד שלא יעבור על הלאו של דבריהם[23].

אינו זכות ממון

מצוה זו אינה זכות ממון, לפיכך אם מת הפועל לפני שעבר הזמן לא ירשו יורשיו זכויות המוריש לבל תלין, ואם איחר המעביד לשלם ליורשים אינו עובר[24]. ברם, במקום ספק אם עובר בבל תלין, חייב להחמיר כדין ספק איסורא לחומרא[25].

אינו משלם כלל

אם אינו בדעתו לשלם כל שכרו או אפילו רק לחסר פרוטה אחת[26], נאמרו בפרשה עוד שלושה לאווין, לא תעשוק את רעך[27], לא תגזול[28], לא תעשוק שכר עני ואביון[29], ועל זה אמרו חז"ל 'כל הכובש שכר שכיר כאילו נוטל נשמתו'[30]. ויש שכתב שכל שדוחה את חבירו עד שהלה מתייאש מהחוב, הוא בכלל לא תעשוק[31].

כתב הערוך השולחן 'ממידת חסידות לדקדק מאוד בתשלומי שכר שכיר בזמנו אפילו במקום שפטור מדינא, ולכן נהגו המדקדקים ללוות כשאין להם מעות ולשלם לפועל'[32].

בגליון הקודם[1] התבאר החיוב לשלם לשכיר בזמנו ('בל תלין')[2], והלאווין אם אינו משלם את שכר שכיר (עושק).

אינו זכות ממון

בל תלין אינו זכות ממון, לפיכך אם מת הפועל לפני שעבר הזמן לא ירשו יורשיו זכויות המוריש לבל תלין, ואם איחר המעביד לשלם ליורשים אינו עובר[3].

חומר האיסור, ובספק

כתבו הפוסקים שבמקום ספק אם עובר בבל תלין, חייב להחמיר כדין ספק איסורא לחומרא[4]. וכתב הערוך השולחן 'ממידת חסידות לדקדק מאוד בתשלומי שכר שכיר בזמנו אפילו במקום שפטור מדינא, ולכן נהגו המדקדקים ללוות כשאין להם מעות ולשלם לפועל'[5].

תביעה

חז"ל דרשו שאינו עובר על הלאו אא"כ תבעו השכיר שישלם[6] אבל אם לא תבעו בוודאי מתרצה שלא ישלם לו עדיין, לפיכך אם ניכר שמבקש שכרו כגון שאחר גמר מלאכתו בא לפני המעביד, כאילו תבעו בפירוש[7]. ברם, אם לא ידע לתבוע כגון ששכר כלים עד שיגמור מלאכתו בהם, שהמשכיר אינו יודע האם כלה מלאכתו, חייב השוכר לשלם בלי שהמשכיר תובע את דמי השכירות[8].

הפוסקים דנו האם השוכר עובר כשהשכיר תבעו ע"י שליח[9], ונראה שתביעה בכתב ע"י דואר וכדומה לכו"ע מחייב[10]. אף לאחר שתבעו אינו חייב להוליך המעות אחריו[11], אבל אם בעת שתבעו לא היה לו מעות ושוב השיג, אם השכיר לא ידע מזה כדי שיבוא ויטול, חייב להוליך לו המעות או להודיעו שיבוא ליטול[12].

כתבו הפוסקים שאע"פ שאינו עובר הלאו אם לא תבעו, צריך ליזהר לסלק את שכרו בזמנו[13].

שכרו על ידי שליח, אפוטרופוס ששכר

דרשו חז"ל שאם שכרו על ידי שליח השוכר אינו עובר על בל תלין הגם שהשכיר יודע שהשליח שכרו בעד השוכר ואף השליח אינו עובר שאין המלאכה שלו, אבל השוכר עובר על 'אל תאמר לרעך לך ושוב' אם אינו טרוד ומכוין לדחותם. אם השכיר סבור שנשכר בעד השליח או שאמר השליח שהוא אחראי לדמי השכירות ('שכרכם עלי') עובר השליח[14]. וכן הדין באפוטרופוס של יתומים או אישה שנושאת ונותנת וכן באופן כשמעשה ידיה שלה, ששכרו שעוברים על בל תלין[15].

המחהו אצל חנווני

אמר השוכר שישלם לו על ידי פלוני שקיבל עליו לשלם לשכיר ('המחהו אצל חנווני') , אינו עובר על בל תלין אפילו אם בסוף הפלוני לא ישלם, אבל ביד השכיר לחזור בו בכל עת ולבקש מהשוכר[16]. ודנו הפוסקים האם האמור הוא רק אם השכיר הסכים שהפלוני ישלם לו[17].

סוגי שכירות, קבלן, מטלטלין, בית וקרקע

דיני בל תלין נאמרו בכל סוגי שכירות ולא רק בשכירות פועל בסוף הזמן לאחר גמר השכירות שנשכר לו.

קבלן שקיבל עליו לעשות מלאכה בעד שכר, כגון לתקן כלי, כשמחזיר את הכלי לבעליו[18] חייב לשלם לו עד סוף הזמן, כגון שנתנו לו בחצי היום חייב לשלם לו עד שקיעת החמה[19]. ברם, כל זמן שהקבלן מחזיק בכלי אינו עובר גם אם הודיע למעביד שגמר ותובע שישלם לו שהרי תופס בידו כנגד שכרו[20], ויש שכתב שאפילו נותן לו בעל הכלי משכון בעד התשלום אינו עובר[21], ובזה יש שכתב שאפילו החזיר לו המשכון אינו עובר[22], אבל יש שכתבו שאם תובעו בפירוש עובר אפילו אם תופס כנגדו[23].

הפוסקים נחלקו האם מדובר בין בקבלן שמשלמים לו בעד מספר הפעולות שעושה ולא בעד מה שמשביח את הכלי או אפילו בקבלן שמשלמים לו רק בעד התיקון שמשביח את הכלי[24].

שכר את הקבלן שיעשה את הכלי מחומרים של הקבלן, לכו"ע אינו עובר על בל תלין, שזה כמוכר לו את הכלי[25].  

דיני בל תלין נאמרו אף בשכירות מטלטלין[26], שכירות בית[27], ויש אומרים אף בשכירות קרקע[28].

תשלום שכר עבודה לפועל בזמן הנכון, אינו רק עניין של נוהלי עבודה תקינים. התורה מצווה להתנהג ברגישות יתירה כלפי צרכי הפועלים, שהרי נאמר: "כי אליו הוא נושא את נפשו". פועל נותן את כל יומו לעבודה, ולפעמים אף מסכן את בריאותו כדי להרוויח את משכורתו. מפני כך חייבה התורה את המעסיק לתת לפועל את המגיע לו, ללא איחור.

תשלום שכר לפועל הוא מצוה מהתורה, שראוי לה להיעשות באותה התלהבות הקיימת בעת קיום שאר מצות, כגון, אכילת מצה או נטילת לולב[1]. החפץ חיים כותב[2] שכשמעסיק משלם לפועליו, יחשוב שהוא מקיים בכך מצוה דאורייתא. וכתב הפלא יועץ[3] שכדאי לשכור פועלים, רק כדי לקיים את מצוות ביומו תתן שכרו.

מצוה זו היא מן השכיחות ביותר מבין המצוות הנוגעות לממון. בכל פעם שאדם מזמין טכנאי לביתו, מסתפר או הולך לרופא, שייכת מצות ביומו תתן שכרו וכן איסור בל תלין. למרות זאת, הרבה אנשים אינם מודעים לכך שהם מקיימים מצוה בעת תשלום שכר לפועל, אינם מכירים את גדריה, ואינם מודעים למסגרת הזמן שבה אמור הפועל לקבל את שכרו.

א. מהו 'בל תלין'?

קיימת חובה לשלם כל חוב בזמן, אולם ישנה חומרה מיוחדת לשלם לפועל את שכרו בזמן, וכן נאמר הדין על תשלום דמי שכירות. התורה מצווה על כך בשתי מצוות לא תעשה ובמצות עשה אחת. שתי מצוות לא תעשה הן: "לא תלין פעולת שכיר איתך עד בוקר" (ויקרא י"ט י"ג) ו"לא תבוא עליו השמש" (דברים כ"ד ט"ו), והמצות עשה היא מה שהתורה אמרה: "ביומו תיתן שכרו" (דברים כד טו). המצוה היא שלא לאחר את תשלום שכר הפועל - גם אם בסופו של דבר הוא יקבל את שכרו[4].

ב. מסגרת הזמן

התורה דורשת ממעסיק לשלם לפועליו עד סוף היום או עד סוף הלילה שבו מסתיימת העבודה[5]. לפיכך, אם סיים הפועל את עבודתו במשך הלילה, התשלום צריך להתבצע לפני הזריחה. ואם העבודה הסתיימה מבעוד יום, יקבל הפועל את שכרו לפני רדת הלילה. ומפני שישנם ספקות בקשר לזמן המדוייק של רדת הלילה, אם הפועל גמר את עבודתו לפני השקיעה, על המעסיק לשלם לו לפני שקיעת החמה. אם גמר את עבודתו לאחר שקיעת החמה לפני צאת הכוכבים, ישלם לו את שכרו מיד[6].

אם העובדים שסיכמו עם מעסיקם על זמן קבלת השכר - הדין משתנה. אם סיכמו שיקבלו משכורת בסוף כל שבוע או בסוף כל חודש, הרי שעל אותו זמן יחול איסור בל תלין[7]. התשלום צריך להיות עד סוף היום או סוף הלילה שבו מסתיים השבוע או החודש.

ג. תביעתו של הפועל לקבל את שכרו

על הפועל לדרוש את שכרו מיד מעסיקו, שאם אינו עושה כן הוא מורה שאינו מקפיד על זכותו, והמעסיק אינו עובר על 'בל תלין'[8]. למרות זאת, כתוב בזוהר הקדוש[9] שעל המעסיק לשלם את שכר הפועל במועד - גם אם הלה ויתר על זכותו.

החפץ חיים[10] מוסיף שאם הפועל רוצה לקבל את שכרו במועד, אך הוא אנוס ואינו יכול להתקשר עם מעסיקו ולבקש את שכרו, איסור 'בל תלין' חל, שכן במקרה זה הפועל לא ויתר על זכותו.

ד. דחייה במתן שכר לפועל

עוברים על בל תלין רק בדחייה הראשונה של שכר הפועל. אם המעסיק ממשיך להשהות את מתן שכרו של הפועל, אינו עובר שוב על איסור בל  תלין. אולם יתכן שיעבור על איסור 'אל תאמר לרעך לך ושוב ולמחר אתן' - כפי שיבואר להלן.

גם במקרים שבהם ביום שבו הסתיימה העבודה, קיים פטור מאיסור בל תלין[11], האיסור לא יחול יותר - גם אם יאחר פעמים נוספות[12].

אם אדם מעסיק שני פועלים ושניהם סיימו את עבודתם; האחד סיים לעבוד היום, והאחר כבר סיים את עבודתו אתמול, ואין למעסיק די כסף לשלם לשניהם, עליו לשלם לפועל שסיים את עבודתו היום[13] ורק אח"כ ישיג כסף וישלם לפועל שסיים אתמול. טעם הדבר הוא מפני שהמעסיק כבר עבר על איסור בל תלין בנוגע לשכרו של הפועל הראשון, ואיחור נוסף אינו עבירה על בל תלין. אבל אם יאחר מלשלם את שכר הפועל השני, יעבור בכך על איסור בל תלין שכן היום הוא הזמן ומועד התשלום לפועל השני. לכן - כדי להימנע מלעבור על האיסור - על המעסיק להקדים לשלם לפועל השני[14].

ה. "   אל תאמר לרעך לך ושוב, ולמחר אתן"

קיים איסור נוסף בכל פעם שאדם, שחייב כסף, דוחה את החזר החוב ואינו משלם לנושהו[15]. איסור זה קיים בכל סוג של חוב[16] וחל בכל פעם שהנושה מבקש את כספו ואין החייב נותן לו.

איסור זה קיים רק אם החייב אינו משלם לנושהו בכוונה, אולם אם יש לו סיבה מוצדקת המונעת ממנו מלשלם, אינו עובר על האיסור[17].

ו. סוגי תשלומים הכלולים במצוה זו

איסור בל תלין חל על הלנת כל סוגי שכר פעולה, בין אם הפועל הוא שכיר, קבלן עצמאי או אומן העוסק במלאכתו[18]. האיסור שייך גם לתשלומים עבור שכירות, בין של מטלטלים ובין של נכסי דלא ניידי[19]. אבל אינו שייך לתשלום עבור מכר. לפיכך, מתן שכר לפועל קודם לתשלומי מכר. כלומר, אדם שקנה חפץ ובמקביל העסיק פועל, ויש בידו כסף המספיק כדי לשלם רק לאחד מהם, עליו לשלם לפועל תחילה, כי דחיית תשלום שכרו חמורה יותר מדחיית תשלום דמי המקח.

ז. שכירות בקרקע

לפי ההלכה, אין שכירות משתלמת אלא לבסוף. כלומר, החובה לשלם את דמי השכירות חלה רק בסוף תקופת השכירות, ולפיכך, הלכות 'בל תלין' קיימות רק אם השוכר דוחה את התשלום מאותו זמן ואילך.

כיום, נהוג לשלם את דמי השכירות בתחילת כל חודש. למרות שהמנהג מחייב את השוכר לשלם את דמי השכירות בתחילתו של החודש, הוא אינו עובר על 'בל תלין' אם מאחר לתת את דמי השכירות אחרי תחילת החודש, היות שמועד זה אינו המועד שקבעה ההלכה. אמנם, אם לא שילם עד שעבר החודש, יתכן שעובר על 'בל תלין' (וראה הערה[20]).

ח. תיקונים

אומן שתיקן חפץ בשכר, לאו דבל תלין חל רק לאחר שהחזיר את החפץ לבעליו[21]. גם אם גמר לתקן את החפץ מוקדם יותר, איסור בל תלין לא חל עד שיקבלו הבעלים את החפץ בחזרה לרשותם[22].

כל האמור הוא רק באומן שמתקן חפץ של הלקוח, ואולם, אומן שיוצר כלי או בגד מחומר השייך לו, והלקוח מעכב את שכרו, אינו עובר על בל תלין אף אם קיבל את החפץ לידו, כיון שזה נידון כמכר כמבואר בהערה[23].

ט. תשלום חלקי

איסור בל תלין חל גם במקרה של דחיית חלק מתשלום שכר הפועל, אם המעסיק שילם לפועל חלק משכרו ואפילו את רוב שכרו, והוא מעכב בידו חלק אחר של השכר, עובר המעסיק על איסור בל תלין. [24]

י. לעכב תשלום כאמצעי זהירות

קורה שאדם שוכר את שירותיו של קבלן, וכשמסיים הלה לעבוד, בעל הבית מעכב חלק מהתשלום בידו כדי שאם תקרנה תקלות בעתיד, יוכל להבטיח באופן זה את תיקון התקלות. מעשה זה הוא עבירה על 'בל תלין'. אמנם בטרם סיים הקבלן את העבודה לגמרי, אין חובה לשלם לו[25], אולם מכיוון שהוא כבר גמר את עבודתו, מגיע לו כל התשלום, ואסור לבעל הבית לעכב אפילו חלק משכרו.

אם בעל הבית רוצה להגן על עצמו, הוא רשאי להתנות מראש עם הקבלן שיעכב חלק משכרו, באופן זה לא יחול איסור 'בל תלין'.

יא. במקרה שאין כסף למעסיק

אם אין למעסיק כסף לשלם את שכר הפועל, הוא אינו עובר על איסור בל תלין[26]. דין זה קיים רק אם אין בידו כסף כלל, אך אם יש בידו כסף, אלא שהוא צריך לשלם לספקי סחורה או לסוחרים אחרים, עליו להקדים את תשלומי שכר הפועל לפני התשלומים האחרים שהוא חייב.

אם יש לבעל הבית סחורה המזומנת למכירה, עליו לעשות כל מאמץ למוכרה ואפילו בהפסד מועט, כדי שיהיה לו כסף מזומן לתת לפועל[27]. כמו כן, אם חייבים לו כסף, ובידו לגבות את החוב, מחוייב הוא לעשות כן, כדי לשלם לפועל ולהימנע מאיסור בל תלין[28].

ראוי אף ללוות כסף כדי לשלם לפועל במועד[29].

יב. סכום מדוייק

קיים מקרה שכיח שבו אפשר להיכשל באיסור בל תלין והוא, כאשר למעסיק יש את הכסף, אבל אין לו את הסכום המדוייק, כגון ששכר הפועל הוא חמישים שקלים ויש ביד המעסיק שטר של מאה שקלים, ומחמת זה אינו משלם לפועל. החפץ חיים[30] כותב שמחובתו של המעסיק לדאוג לפרוט בתוך הזמן את השטר שבידו, גם אם הדבר כרוך באי נוחות או בהפסד מועט.

יג. לקבוע תנאים מראש

אם מעסיק צופה שיהיו לו קשיים לשלם לפועליו במועד, עליו להודיעם מראש כי יתכן שישלם את משכורתם באיחור. אם הסכימו הפועלים לכך, לא חל איסור 'בל תלין'[31]. במקומות עבודה רבים מקובל לשלם לעובדים בתחילת כל חודש על עבודת החודש שעבר. למרות שמצד ההלכה, העובדים זכאים לקבל את משכורתם בסוף החודש שבו עבדו, כיון שכך המנהג, אין בזה איסור של 'בל תלין', שהרי הפועלים הסכימו לכך מראש.

יד. מצות עשה ומצות לא תעשה

ישנה מצות עשה "ביומו תתן שכרו" לשלם את שכר הפועל בזמן, מלבד איסור לא תעשה על איחור תשלום השכר. חשוב לציין  שבכל המקרים, המבוארים לעיל, שבהם אין המעסיק עובר על בל תלין – הוא אמנם לא עבר על הלאווים, אך הפסיד את קיום מצות עשה של 'ביומו תתן שכרו'. ראוי לעשות מאמץ ולהימנע ממימוש המחילה של העובד על זכויותיו, ובכך יקיים המעסיק מצוה זו.

טו. כסף מזומן או צ'ק?

לפי ההלכה, תשלום משכורת לעובד צריך להיות בכסף מזומן[32]. אין לשלם לו את שכרו בסחורה, וכמו כן, אין אפשרות להעביר לו בעלות על חוב שאדם אחר חייב למעסיק - כתשלום משכורת.

צ'ק, אין לו ערך עצמי, הוא רק מאפשר לנושאו למשוך כסף מחשבון הבנק של כותב הצ'ק. לפיכך מן הדין, עובד יכול לדרוש לקבל את משכורתו בכסף מזומן ולא בהמחאת צ'ק.

אולם ברוב המקומות, מקובל לתת את המשכורת בהמחאת צ'ק, ולפיכך, מי שאינו מתנה שרצונו במזומן בלבד, הרי זה כאילו קיבל את תנאי העבודה המקובלים באותו מקום ומחל על זכותו לדרוש כסף מזומן. לעומת זאת, במקצועות שאין רגילות לשלם לעובדים בצ'ק, העובד רשאי לדרוש תשלום בכסף מזומן.

כמובן שאין איסור 'בל תלין' במקרה שעובד הסכים[33] לקבל את שכרו בצ'ק, אולם לא ברור שהמעסיק קיים באופן זה את מצות 'ביומו תיתן שכרו', והדבר תלוי במעמד ההלכתי של צ'ק[34].

טז. פועל שהושכר למלאכתו על ידי שליח

איסור בל תלין חל רק כאשר המעסיק שכר באופן ישיר את הפועל. אך אם הפועל נשכר על ידי שליח, והמעסיק איחר לשלם את שכר הפועל, אינו עובר על איסור בל תלין[35]. כגון, אדם שיש לו חברה גדולה המעסיקה עובדים הרבה, ויש לחברה אגף מיוחד שמטפל בשכירת העובדים. היות והעובד נשכר על ידי שליחו של בעל החברה, כלומר, על ידי האדם שעומד בראש האגף להשכרת עובדים, הלכות בל תלין לא חלים במקרה זה[36].

בגמרא[37] מובא שאמימר ומר זוטרא היו שוכרים פועלים, אחד בשביל השני. הם חששו שמא יאחרו לתת את שכר הפועלים, וכדי להימנע מאיסור בל תלין[38] נהגו לעשות כן. הדבר מראה עד כמה חמור הוא איסור 'בל תלין'.

יז. חברה מסחרית

לגבי חברות מסחריות יש לדון מי - מבחינה הלכתית - נחשב אחראי על תשלום המשכורות בזמן, והוא זה שיעבור על איסור בל תלין, במקרה שהמשכורות לא ישולמו בזמן. האם הנהלת החברה או שמא בעלי החברה, דהיינו בעלי המניות? וכפי שנפרט:

בעלי המניות

בעלי המניות של החברה אינם עוברים על איסור בל תלין, מפני שהם לא שכרו את עובדי החברה באופן ישיר. הנהלת החברה היא זו ששוכרת את העובדים, והם נידונים כפועל שנשכר על ידי שליח[39].

הנהלת החברה

הפוסקים דנים האם מנהל החברה יעבור על איסור בל תלין. הן אמנם שהוא שוכר את העובדים באופן ישיר, אבל הוא אישית אינו משלם את משכורתם, שכן הכסף מגיע מקופת החברה - השייכת לבעלי המניות. במשנת ר' אהרן[40] כתוב שהאיסור של בל תלין הוא רק כשהמעסיק מעכב את הכסף לעצמו. ולכן, כיון שכשמנהל חברה מסחרית מאחר בתשלום המשכורות, הוא אינו משאיר את הכסף לעצמו, שכן הכסף נשאר בקופת החברה השייכת לבעליה, הוא לא יעבור איסור על בל תלין. בנוסף, המנהל עצמו הוא שכיר ואינו אחראי לתשלום המשכורות.

אך, נראה מדברי החפץ חיים[41] שחולק על האמור. הוא כותב שכשאפוטרופוס הממונה על נכסי יתומים שוכר עובדים, והדבר מובן שהוא אחראי לכך שמשכורותיהם ישולמו בזמן, הלכות בל תלין חלות עליו. ומ"מ, המנהל יעבור על בל תלין רק אם יש כסף מזומן בקופת החברה, כמבואר לעיל שעוברים על איסור רק כאשאר למעביד יש כסף מזומן. אם אין כסף בנמצא, הוא אינו מחוייב לשלם לעובדים מכיסו הפרטי.

יח. תשלום מראש

יש פוסקים [42] הסוברים שכאשר המעסיק משלם לעובד תשלום מראש על עבודתו, הוא אינו מקיים את מצות העשה של 'ביומו תיתן שכרו'. טעם הדבר הוא שהמצוה מתקיימת רק כשמעסיק משלם את השכר בזמן שהוא מחוייב בו, ומכיוון שזמן החיוב מהתורה, הוא בסיום העבודה, הוא אינו מקיים את המצוה בתשלום מראש.

יש שחולקים[43] על שיטה זו, הם סוברים שהמצוה היא להבטיח שהעובד יקבל את שכרו לפני המועד האחרון - מבחינת התורה, וכיון שתשלום מראש הוא בודאי לפני מועד זה, הוא מקיים בכך את המצוה.