- Sections
- P'ninat Mishpat
Responsibility for Collateral
[Last time we introduced the Rosh as a (very important) halachic authority and author but did not describe his responsa. The most unique element to the sefer is the arrangement of its responsa, which was done posthumously by his students, perhaps including some of his sons. Shut Harosh is the one book of responsa that is broken up into sections (klalim) and subsection (simanim), where all the responsa in one klal belong to one general topic. While many later volumes of responsa follow the order of the Shulchan Aruch, the Shut Harosh’s arrangement is unique.]
Reuven gave a house to Shimon as collateral for a loan before going abroad. When Reuven returned and wanted to pay his loan and claim back his house, he found that the partitions between his part of the property and his partner’s property were missing. Shimon said that he received the property without partitions and that if there were partitions, he didn’t want them because he was afraid the non-Jewish inhabitants would destroy them. He added that if there were partitions, it was Shimon’s father who had installed them.
The various contradictory claims that Shimon presented regarding the existence of partitions or lack thereof prove that one cannot take any of them seriously. His main claim is that he did not receive the partitions, which he supports by the fact that the document that stipulates the details of the collateral arrangement do not mention them. However, since partitions that are part of a property are considered part and parcel of the property, they are included unless the document explicitly states that they are excluded (witnesses to an oral stipulation would not suffice).
It is also not clear why the presence of non-Jews in the property is relevant to Shimon’s refusal to accept the partitions because even if the non-Jews would cause damage to the property, Shimon would not bear responsibility for them, if indeed it was Reuven who brought them in as tenants. Rather Shimon would just have to return the materials of the now broken partition to Reuven. If, though, it was Shimon who brought the non-Jewish tenants to live in the house, then he is responsible for the damage they caused, as he should have known they would be dangerous [Ed. Note- presumably, in those times, it was not feasible for a Jew to sue a non-Jew for damage he caused.] Certainly, if Shimon is the one who took down the partition, he is obligated to rebuild it.
Reuven gave a house to Shimon as collateral for a loan before going abroad. When Reuven returned and wanted to pay his loan and claim back his house, he found that the partitions between his part of the property and his partner’s property were missing. Shimon said that he received the property without partitions and that if there were partitions, he didn’t want them because he was afraid the non-Jewish inhabitants would destroy them. He added that if there were partitions, it was Shimon’s father who had installed them.
The various contradictory claims that Shimon presented regarding the existence of partitions or lack thereof prove that one cannot take any of them seriously. His main claim is that he did not receive the partitions, which he supports by the fact that the document that stipulates the details of the collateral arrangement do not mention them. However, since partitions that are part of a property are considered part and parcel of the property, they are included unless the document explicitly states that they are excluded (witnesses to an oral stipulation would not suffice).
It is also not clear why the presence of non-Jews in the property is relevant to Shimon’s refusal to accept the partitions because even if the non-Jews would cause damage to the property, Shimon would not bear responsibility for them, if indeed it was Reuven who brought them in as tenants. Rather Shimon would just have to return the materials of the now broken partition to Reuven. If, though, it was Shimon who brought the non-Jewish tenants to live in the house, then he is responsible for the damage they caused, as he should have known they would be dangerous [Ed. Note- presumably, in those times, it was not feasible for a Jew to sue a non-Jew for damage he caused.] Certainly, if Shimon is the one who took down the partition, he is obligated to rebuild it.

P'ninat Mishpat (687)
Various Rabbis
282 - Responsibility for Collateral
283 - The Right to Rent in 16th Century Turkey
284 - A Donation That “Destroys” a Shul
Load More

Historical View of Rav Mordechai Yaakov Breish (Chelkat Yaakov)
Various Rabbis | 5775

Buying a Driving School Car
Various Rabbis | 6 Av 5767

Agent who Did Not Set Agent’s Fee
Based on ruling 82141 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Iyar 5783

Disputes Between Neighbors over Rights in a Building
Various Rabbis | Nisan 6 5778

Various Rabbis
Various Rabbis including those of of Yeshivat Bet El, such as Rabbi Chaim Katz, Rabbi Binyamin Bamberger and Rabbi Yitzchak Greenblat and others.

Support for Sons Not Living With Their Father
5770

A Husband’s Obligation in His Wife’s Loan
5775

Four Prototypes of Service of Hashem
5774

Buying Looted Seforim from the Slovakians
Iyar 21 5775

Double Wrapping Food in a Treif Oven
Rabbi Daniel Mann | Kislev 4 5777

The Measure Of Long Life
Rabbi Stewart Weiss | Elul 12 5775

Curious Kiddush Shaylos
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff | Shvat 18 5782

Firstfruits of the Wheat Harvest
Rabbi Adin Even-Yisrael (Steinsaltz) | 5764

For Shavuot: "Rav Kook on The Necessity for Humility to Learn Torah"
Rabbi Ari Shvat | Iyar 20 5783

Rav Kook on the Importance of the Flag
Rabbi Ari Shvat | 27 Iyar 5783

Conversion and the Giving of the Torah
Rabbi Yossef Carmel | Iyar 20 5783
