If the employer transfers sick pay money to the employee, the injured party will pay the sabbatical pay to the employer.
Sources: Here it is clear that the employee does not receive Shabbat payments together with the sickness payments, since he is not exempt from the financial income he is currently receiving, and he was appointed as a Kishoin guard who already paid him his wages and his wages and appointed him as an idle laborer, etc., but if he actually earns exactly the same At the moment there is no reason according to Halacha to pay Shabbat to an employee on sick days.
But it is necessary to discuss Shabbat payments to the employer, whether the employer can demand this, since according to the standard the employer should have received work at that time and paid for it, and in practice he is paying normal wages without actually receiving work, and all of this was caused by the tortfeasor, and there was room to discuss the arguments of Physical in such a way that the damage is certain if you defined it as physical according to the definitions of physical explained in the arbitrators.
However, there is a place to bring a rai' different from the law of a Hebrew slave who harms his body, he pays Shabbat to his Lord [Bk 16:11] and if you say because a Hebrew slave his body is bought [Kiddoshin 16:11] MM, then also with regard to his daughter I say In the B.C. there [Paz 12] the person who has the bond pays Shabbat to her father, and it is also ruled in the Shoah C. Takhd 66 [ACP in the way that the deeds of her hands belong to her father] and the reason is because the deeds of her hands belong to her father According to Parash'i there, and not because of his right to be known [Ya'oi' there in the Gm that it is proven that it is not because of her right to be known, since the sentence there is also for the days between girlhood and matriculation, and it is also proven from the sentence in the Rama'a in Houm there in a way that is not close to the sending of Her father, since God is in his hand for the known, and yet I have run out of other works of hands, and also for such things, evidence must be brought from what the law is also in this 7, and who is Yaoi' Kiddoshin 4 12 and Dok, however the above evidence is clear that what vindicates The Shabbat for her father is his right for her handiwork], so it turns out that the person who pre-purchased another person's handiwork for a period of time and then harmed that worker, the harming person will have to pay Shabbat to the employer and pay for it.
And I looked at the book Pethai Hoshen 11:10, Damages, Chapter 11, Section 10, and in the comment there and brought up there several sides and options in the form of payment, but the main points of his words are as I wrote that the tortfeasor shall pay the employer for the damage he caused, and when the tortfeasor directly pays the Shabbat payments to the employee, the employer shall pay The employee only has the difference in this, and in his conclusion it seems to him that the main thing is that it is like an insurance company that the employer pays the salary to the employee as insurance premiums and the injured party pays the employer what they damaged as they decide on an insurance matter and we were like that.
מק"ט התשובה הוא: 6542 והקישור הישיר של התשובה הוא: shchiche.com/6542
