Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/334

Paragraph 1- If one hires a worker to irrigate a field from a specific river, and the river dried up halfway through the day and its practice is generally that it does not dry up, or even if its practice was to dry up but the worker knew of the practice, the worker will suffer the loss and the employer would not pay him anything, even if the employer also knew the river’s practice. If the worker did not know the practice of the river, but the employer did, however, the employer must pay him like an idle worker. The same applies to any unavoidable accident that occurred to the workers, regardless of whether both knew it was typical for the accident to occur or neither knew, and the worker would suffer the loss. If the employer knew and the worker did not, however, the employer would suffer the loss. If it was a communal plague, see above in Siman 321. If one rented a house to live in and died within the rental period, he would only have to pay for the amount he lived there because the owner is like a worker and he should have made the condition. There are those who disagree, however. Thus, if the owner already received the full rental payment, he would not have to return anything. This seems to me like the correct way to rule. If the employer fled because of a change in the air, it is like any other unavoidable accident and the worker or schoolteacher would suffer the loss.

Paragraph 2- If one hired a worker to irrigate his field and it rained at night in a way that the employer no longer needs the worker, he would not pay him anything. Similarly, if rained halfway through the day, he would not pay him anything from the halfway point and on. If a river came, however, he must pay for all their wages. They were assisted from the heavens. If one hired workers to dig his field and it rained at night in a way that they can no longer dig, and the workers did not see the land, the employer would suffer the loss because he should have told them not to come. There are those who say that if the employer investigated the work at night and saw workers were needed, he would be exempt in all cases. See above 333:1-2. There are those who say that this that we said that if an unavoidable accident occurred then the workers would suffer the loss, is only where he hired them for a specific job. If he hired them without specification, however, the worker can say give me another job like this one.

Paragraph 3- When is this true? In the case of a worker. If one made an arrangement with his sharecropper, however, that if he were to irrigate this field four times a day then he would receive half the fruits, and all sharecroppers that irrigate twice a day only receive ¼, and it rained and the sharecropper did not need to draw water and irrigate, he would still take ½ the fruits as was agreed on because a sharecropper is like a partner and not a worker.

Paragraph 4- If one hires a teacher for his son, and the student became ill and it is not a typical illness for him- the same would be true if the child died- or even if it was typical but the teacher is from this city and is aware of the illness, the teacher would suffer the loss. If the student typically suffers from this illness and the teacher is unaware, however, such as where he is not from this city, the employer would suffer the loss and must pay his complete wages because all those who teach Torah prefer teaching over being idle. See later Siman 335. Some of the laws of teaching are discussed in Yoreh Deah Siman 245. See Yoreh Deah 248:5 regarding whether a husband can object to a woman who hired a teacher for her son. See above 81:1 and 81:7 regarding one who tells another to learn with the son of a friend and whether he is required to pay. See above at the end of Siman 237 regarding whether there is a concept of encroaching on another’s territory with respect to a teacher. See above Siman 333 for many laws regarding a teacher.