by Rabbi Yair Hoffman for the Five Towns Jewish Times

IT HAPPENS EVERY SO OFTEN. A teacher or principal works very hard to plan a Shabbatone, an event, a learning experience, or a Yom Iyun. The theme is carefully developed with each element coming together beautifully. A guest speaker is also hired –to speak about the topic that will bring it all together.

So what’s the problem?

At times, the guest speaker will change the topic that was discussed – without informing the hard-working teacher. The question is what does Halacha say about it?

DOES HE OR SHE HAVE THE RIGHT?

There are, it seems, three issues involved here. The first is whether the speaker has the right to make the switch in the first place. There is a concept called, “Mi Shepara” which is a type of mini-curse invoked when someone reneges on an agreement to do something he was engaged to do (See BM 48b). There is a Nesivus Yerushalayim (Bava Metziah fourth chapter page 43) which states that the idea of Mi Shepara applies also to a sale where one item is given instead of the other item that was promised. It would seem the same would apply to the content of a speech.

PAYMENT

The second issue is the matter of payment. Does the teacher have the right to refuse payment to the speaker or to lessen the amount to be given?

The fact is that the students did benefit from the instruction that was given. It was not what they had ordered, and the first transaction can be nullified through the principle of Mekach Ta’us. There is, however, another transaction that is taking place here. The Gemorah Bava Metziah (101a) tells us that if Reuvain enters Shimon field and does work that he was not contracted for, he must still be paid as long as Reuvain received some sort of benefit from it. The only caveat is that “Yado al HaTachtona” – Reuvain’s hand is to the bottom. In other words, he may only charge an amount equivalent to the lowest price that is generally paid for such work. So, for example, if the speaker normally charges $500 for a 40 minute speech, but there are guest speakers who charge as low as $125, it is possible to only pay the $125 amount. This is the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch as well.

SHALOM

The third issue is whether the teacher should lessen the amount to be paid, even if they are in full right to do so. There is a fascinating story cited in a footnote to Rav Tzvi Yechezkel Michalson’s hakdama to the sefer “Ein Habdolach” of Rav Yisroel Yonah Landau, published in Russia in 1901. Rav Landau was such remarkable persona, that Rabbi Akiva Eiger used to request kamiyos written by him and referred to him as “Ner Yisroel, pe’er hador v’amud yemini.”

The story occurred some two hundred and twenty years ago, in Rav Landau’s town of Kepno in the district of Posen, where they needed a new chazzan. A certain chazzan named Shimon did come to town – one who had a remarkably beautiful voice. The problem was that Shimon wasn’t particularly careful with what he ate. In fact, he is described as an individual who kept all the essin in the Torah “es hanivailo v’es hatraifo…” (A takeoff on the Yiddish word es – to eat) but when he came to es Hashem Elokecho tirah – fear of Hashem – he would move away.

Still, the kehillah was so enamored with Shimon’s voice that they wanted to hire him. Rav Landau and his supporters refused. A veritable war was on the brink of ensuing. Rav Landau decided to send the shailo to Rav Yoseph Hatzadik of Posen, the son-in-law of the Nodah BiYehudah. The startling answer came back “Mutav le’haamid Tzelem b’haichal v’al yarbe machlokes b’yisroel “- it is better to put an idol in the Temple than to cause machlokes.

So we see that the idea of causing Machlokes is something that we should stay away from as much as possible. In this situation, it is probably best to pay the speaker the amount, but to inform him or her that this was not what was initially agreed upon.

[As a parenthetic note, Rav Landau did not give up and tried to remedy the situation without Machlokes. After they had hired the chazzan, the Rav tried to befriend and influence him. He would take him into his room after davening and offer him a l’chaim and speak to him with warmth trying to convince him to change his behavior. When that did not work, he encouraged him to drink enough l’chaims so that he ultimately would walk around the town drunk. The members of the shul decided it wasn’t pauss for them to have a drunkard for a chazzan. Consequently, they decided to fire him. (The moral of the story- You have to do what you have to, but do it in a way that there should be no machlokes).

It is also interesting to note that the idea of “Mutav le’haamid Tzelem b’haichal v’al yarbe machlokes b’yisroel” appears nowhere as a maamar Chazal.

One of this author’s Rebbeim was Rav Dovid Kviat zt”l. He actually provided a possible source from a daas zkainim regarding the chait haegel – the sin of the golden calf. The Daas zekainim addresses the issue of why Aharon just did not appoint another leader instead of Moshe? It is possible that the Noda Biyehuda’s son in law was learning Yirmiyahu and came upon the radak in lamed aleph yud daled.

It is possible that he learned it from Rochel who let in her tzarah, co wife – Laya – in order not to cause machlokes. Rachel compares that as equal to tzelem behaichal..If it’s not equal then Rochel would not have won the argument.]

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, we see that the speaker should not unilaterally change the topic of the speech, the teacher has a right to cut the payment to the minimum charge of a speech, but ultimately doing so may cause needless machlokes and should be avoided.

The author can be reached at [email protected]