Parshas Bamidbar - Chag HaShavuos 5785
- Torah Tavlin
- May 29
- 3 min read
Monetary, Interpersonal Laws and Din Torah (32)
Halachic Consideration of Ona’ah. Last week, we began analyzing a halachic situation where a cab driver in Israel overcharged a gullible tourist in the amount of 700 NIS for a ride to the airport, a ride that should have normally cost 300 NIS, and it was paid for by credit card. Soon after the ride, the tourist realized that he was duped and canceled the charge on his card. Of course, the driver was wrong and did an aveira of Ona’ah (overcharging a customer by sales and rentals) but what is the halacha in this specific case - or in a case where he paid in cash rather than credit card - to get back the 400 shekel overcharge? The Beis Din that was consulted ruled that had he paid in cash he could not get his money back, but if he did not yet pay, or as in this case, he canceled the payment, he does not have to give more than the correct price of 300 NIS. Let us examine why.
The driver claimed that the passenger agreed to his quote of 700 NIS so he must pay the full amount. That claim is not valid because it was clearly a misunderstanding of the passenger so he is not at fault.
The driver also claimed that the price for rides is not finite and monitored, and each driver can charge at his will. That is also not a valid reason because even items that don’t have exact prices do have limits that are clearly out of the normal price range for such an item, see Shevet Halevi (1).
There is, however, a reason to help the driver. There are certain items that are excluded from monetary obligations that stem from overcharging, namely real estate, servants and documents (2), and even one who was overcharged more than a sixth for these items, cannot void the sale or get his money back. If there was an overcharge of more than double, there are two opinions in halacha (3) if it invalidates the sale. If one hires a worker “by the hour” who is somewhat like a servant for the hours he works, the Shulchan Aruch (4) considers him as a servant, where there is no ona’ah and it would go into the above-mentioned question of an overcharge more than double.
Whenever there is pay for a worker [where there is no ona’ah] and his equipment [whose rental does have ona’ah], the RMA (5) writes that the portion of the labor has no ona’ah and the Machane Ephraim (6) says that there is no ona’ah on the entire amount because it is all considered work.
A worker that is paid by the job and can work when he wants, is not like a servant in any way and the implications of ona’ah apply (7). In a case where he is hired to complete a full job for a certain rate, but has to do his work during specific hours due to the nature of the job, there is a debate if he is considered like a servant or not. The RMA does not consider him a servant and ona’ah does apply while the Nesivos (8) disagrees.
Due to all these doubts, Beis Din gave the above-mentioned ruling that the muchzak [the one holding the money] wins, which in this case is the passenger who canceled the credit card transaction. However, had he already paid the entire fare of 700 NIS in cash, the driver would not have to give it back.
(1) שו"ת שבט הלוי ה:ריח (2) בבא מציעא נו: (3) חושן משפט רכז:כט (4) רכז:לג (5) שם (6) מחנה אפרים, הל' גזילה י"א (7) חו"מ שם:לו (8) נתיבות המשפט רסד:ח