- Sections
- P'ninat Mishpat
758
Ruling: [As we have discussed several times in the past,] the practice of severance pay is not a Torah law but is based on the precedent of the parting presents a Jewish servant received upon being set free. It is considered binding based on local practice in many parts of the Jewish world, including by the Israeli law, in the case of reaching retirement age and upon one being fired. It seems to be an example of forcing one to pay money lifnim mishurat hadin (above the letter of the law), but according to many poskim one cannot force such a payment (see Rama, Choshen Mishpat 12:2). Therefore it must be based on custom, which is binding in many areas of monetary law, certainly including the laws of workers.
One major outcome of the fact that this practice is based on custom is that it should follow to the end the guidelines of the custom, as the Rivash (477) posited, on a general basis, regarding monetary customs. Although the Rivash says that the idea of being linked fully to the custom does not apply to customs that are based on natural morality, Acharonim assume that it applies to all customs. Therefore, the statute of limitation should apply here. We should also point out that statute of limitation has a logical basis that is similar to a Talmudic concept. The issue is that one is required to keep financial records for up to seven years and no more. Thus, it is possible that def, or others in parallel cases, had proof of payment that are no longer available. This is similar to the halacha that since one preserves his purchase contracts for up to three years, one who has occupied a field for longer than that can say that he had proof of purchase that is no longer available (Bava Batra 29a).
Def also claims that pl quit and was not fired, and thus does not deserve severance pay. If there were a full obligation, we would not say that the fact that he did not make the claim is a clear sign that the debt no longer exists, as it is possible that, for example, there was a contract that was lost and later found (Rosh, cited by S’ma 69:19). However, regarding a case like this, where there never was a contract, there are grounds for suspecting that the fact that pl made the claim so many years late, even though the practice of severance is a known one and pl is the type of person who is aware of his rights, shows that he was never owed. Therefore, there are also grounds to suspect that he indeed quit and does not deserve severance pay, which is thus another reason to deny his claim.

P'ninat Mishpat (771)
Various Rabbis
165 - Refusing to Vote on a Ruling to Which One Objects
166 - A Claim for Severance Pay After Many Years
167 - Forcing Someone With a Rare Blood Type to Donate
Load More

Partnership in a Corporate Venture
Various Rabbis | 5 Adar I 5768

Buying a Driving School Car
Various Rabbis | 6 Av 5767

Muncipal Dues in a Yishuv
Various Rabbis | Elul 27 5778

Ending Rental Due to Extenuating Circumstances
Various Rabbis | Tevet 5768

What Bracha Do I Make Before Smelling the Shavuos Flowers?
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff | 5772

seudat hodaya
Rabbi Daniel Mann | 5772

The Laws of Bar Metzra on Seats in Shul
Various Rabbis | Elul 8 5775
Laws Pertaining to Tzitzit and Tefillin for Shacharit
Chapter twelve-part three
Rabbi Eliezer Melamed | 5775

P'ninat Mishpat: Rental of an Apartment that Was Not Quite Ready – part I
based on ruling 82031 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Nisan 5784
Daf Yomi Makkot Daf 14
R' Eli Stefansky | 24 Nisan 5785

The Solution to 'Risky' Intellectual Topics
Ayn Aya, Shabbat v, 72
Rabbi Ari Shvat | Nisan 5785
