Preschools that raised prices mid-year only for those who had not yet paid | Interest on loans | Ask the Rabbi - SHEILOT.COM

Preschools that raised prices mid-year only for those who had not yet paid

This question and answer were automatically translated using our trained AI and have not yet been reviewed by a qualified rabbi. Please treat this translation with caution.
Go to original →

Question

Shalom.

Payment for a preschool was made at the beginning of the year in advance for the entire year. In the middle of the year, the network raised the price for everyone who had not yet paid, while for those who had already paid they kept the original price. Is there any problem with this? And are the parents obligated to add payment according to the updated price?

Answer

Shalom u’vracha.

This is permitted, and they do not need to add any payment.

Source

Payment for a preschool is considered like payment to a hired worker, and in Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah, siman 176, se’if 8, it states that it is permitted to pay a worker’s wage in advance from the beginning of the work, or to give him his wage at the end of the work with an additional amount, and this is not considered interest (ribbit). The Gemara explains that rental of labor is only paid at the end ("sechirut eina mishtalemet ella le‑vasof"), and what is paid at the beginning of the work is not regarded as a loan, since the beginning of the work is also a time of payment, as is its end, and therefore there is no loan here at all.
However, some wanted to claim that in an institution that employs workers under it, and one pays the institution which undertakes to provide the workers (this includes any network of kindergartens, Talmud Torah, seminaries, or, by way of comparison, dental clinics where the doctors are salaried workers, etc.), this leniency of a hired worker does not apply. The institution that undertakes the obligation is not itself a worker, but rather sells the service of supplying workers, and there is no direct connection or mutual obligation between the payer and the worker. Nevertheless, in practice it appears that here too the leniency of a hired worker applies, since the one who undertakes the obligation is also, in effect, a worker to provide me with other workers, and this is not a sale. Likewise, the nature of the contractual relationship is defined by the action (service), even if there is an intermediary who acts as a go‑between.

Comments

Have an additional question on this topic or need clarification? Leave your comment below. (Please note that the comment will not be published but will be sent directly to the answering Rabbi for review and a private response)

Please sign up or log in to submit your comment