YeshivaThe torah world Gateway
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
The plaintiff (=pl) stopped renovating his home due to dissatisfaction with his contractor. The defendant (=def) introduced pl to Reuven (=Reu), whom he recommended to finish the job. Reu gave an estimate of 90,000 shekels; he ended up charging 124,000 shekels. Pl sued Reu in beit din for overcharging, but Reu won. Now, pl is suing def in a different beit din for giving damaging advice. He adds that def indicated he would negotiate Reu down from the 90,000 shekels. Not only did he not do that, but the price became even higher because pl relied on def to handle the issues. Def responded that the first beit din already rejected the claim of overpricing. He denies promising to handle monetary issues and admits only to recommending and introducing.
Ruling: The gemara (Bava Batra 138b) says that beit din does not look into a matter that another beit din ruled on (see S’ma 19:2). However, since the first case was between pl and Reu and this one is between pl and def, it is not the problematic rehashing of the same claim. Also, the Chatam Sofer (Likutim 50) says that when the second beit din knows the basis of the first beit din’s ruling and disagrees, they can follow their own understanding. After receiving the reports of appraisers and interviewing Reu and other professionals, beit din concluded that even the estimate was exaggerated, not to mention the final price. On the other hand, pl knew that and did not argue with Reu. Although he hoped that def would lower Reu’s price, he did not say anything to Reu.
The Rama (Choshen Mishpat 129:2) says that if Levi falsely tells Yehuda that Shimon is safe to loan money to, which he then did and did not recover the money, Levi must pay because it is as if he became a cosigner. Similarly, the Rama (CM 14:5) says, regarding one who told his friend to go somewhere because the former would follow and he did not, that he has to pay expenses. The Gra (14:31) explains the latter halacha is based on garmi (payment for semi-direct damage). The Netivot Hamishpat (232:2) says that it is an implied self-obligation, along the lines of a cosigner.
One of the differences between the explanations is that garmi requires negligence, whereas a cosigner can be obligated by an honest mistake. In this case, the recommendation of Reu, a respectable professional, was not negligent. Regarding the price charged, if def said that he would see to the matter, there would be grounds to obligate him. On one hand, def denies this. On the other hand, from his response to questioning in beit din, it is unclear whether he accepted responsibility. Beit din cannot obligate him to pay, but there is room for pl to have taromet (grievances) against def, and it is proper for def to monetarily appease pl until he forgives the damage he was caused.
P'ninat Mishpat (832)
Various Rabbis
93 - A Sale with out a Signed Agreement
94 - Responsibility for Giving Advice
95 - Damage Payment for One Who Hit Another
Load More
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Late and Flawed Apartment
based on ruling 82174 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Did Any Furniture Go to the Buyer? – part II
based on ruling 84093 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Problematic Lights?
based on appeal of ruling 84085 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Tuition Payment after Withdrawing Student
based on ruling 85142 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Rabbis in Midrash
Lessons
fast navigation
Shoftim TESHUVA IN COURT OF LAW?
Parshat Shoftim-Chodesh Elul
Why does parshat Shoftim always come out during Elul? This innovative and central explanation is an eye-opener regarding many aspects of Judaism.
The Month of Elul TESHUVA IS THE ANSWER
The month of Elul serves as a vital time for self-reflection and personal accountability to prepare for true repentance.
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Realtor’s Fee on Large Commercial Building – part I
(based on ruling 85031 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
(based on ruling 85031 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
P'ninat Mishpat Complaints about Contractor’s Work – part II
(based on ruling 83037.1 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
(based on ruling 83037.1 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
Chemdat Yamim Moreshet Shaul: The Goal of an Agricultural Yeshiva – part I
Based on Siach Shaul, Pirkei Machshava V’Hadracha p. 263 (address at the laying of the cornerstone of the Yeshiva Chakla’it in Kfar Haroeh)
Based on Siach Shaul, Pirkei Machshava V’Hadracha p. 263 (address at the laying of the cornerstone of the Yeshiva Chakla’it in Kfar Haroeh)
Chemdat Yamim The Goal of an Agricultural Yeshiva – part II
Based on Siach Shaul, Pirkei Machshava V’Hadracha p. 263 (address at the cornerstone laying for the Yeshiva Chakla’it in Kfar Haroeh – 1938)
Based on Siach Shaul, Pirkei Machshava V’Hadracha p. 263 (address at the cornerstone laying for the Yeshiva Chakla’it in Kfar Haroeh – 1938)
Re'e NEVER EXTREME EXCEPT ISRAEL
Parshat Re'eh
Judaism is against extremism, so how can we understand the seemingly extreme statements found in our sages in favor of living in the Land of Israel and against living in Chutz laAretz? The article deals with the seeming contradiction between the strength of Free-Will and the strength of being influenced by our surroundings.
Ekev DANCE FOR ISRAEL- FOR YOUR BENEFIT
Parshat Eikev
Description: The 7 Haftarot we read after Tisha B'Av ("Shiva D'Nichemta") surely get us excited that they're coming TRUE, and awaken us to yearn, dance & join the return to Zion! The short article also deals with the problems and solutions facing the American Jewish community as discussed at a recent panel, as well as the question why Jews come from America to Israel to help when we face problems, but Israelis don't come to aid Jews in America when they face anti-Semitism.
