Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Case: Beit din appointed Reuven as a guardian to assist orphans, with instructions to do his best with the funds they inherited, including securing payment of debts to the deceased. Reuven worked hard to receive payment from debtors, and then lent out the money to reliable people with liens on real estate, loan contracts, and collateral. However, he lent out 25 gold coins to Shimon just based on a loan contract because he considered Shimon particularly reliable and G-d-fearing, and Reuven had his own successful business dealings with Shimon. Reuven reaped some profits on behalf of the orphans from Shimon but left the principle in his hands. One day, Shimon went on a mission ofmitzva, along with significant cash to buy merchandise for subsequent sale, and he has not been heard from since then. It is unclear whether he died or was captured by bandits, etc. The orphans’ relatives are now suing Reuven for investing the money without proper collateral. Reuven responds that he did not want the orphans’ money "sitting idly" and that he had acted with their money as he had with his own. They responded that he should have been more careful with orphans’ money.
Ruling: If beit din explicitly said that Reuven can do as he sees fit with the orphan’s money, then even if the regular halacha is that a guardian needs to take very safe collateral (see Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 290:8), Reuven is still exempt. If there was not explicit broad authority, then Reuven would be obligated. Reuven cannot exempt himself based on the Ramban’s minority opinion that a guardian is exempt from payment even if he was negligent. That is because lending money without proper collateral is not called negligence but active damage since he actually gave money to someone to whom he should not have. This may depend on the different opinions (Rama, CM 301:1) whether a watchman who gave to another watchman is viewed as negligence or is worse than that. It is hard to understand, though, how to invoke the Ramban, who did not say his opinion in the case of a beit din-appointed guardian. There is no halachic logic to distinguish between individual guardians based on the likelihood that they would refrain from the appointment if they are financially liable.
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Various Rabbis
353 - A Woman who Relinquished Rights to her Ketuba
354 - Responsibility of a Guardian
355 - Delay in Return of Rented Horse Due to Predictable Flooding
Load More
The guardian certainly does not have a right to demand a salary since the matter was not discussed, and the value of reputation of beingbeit din appointed is sufficient.
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: How Many Dayanim?
based on ruling 84139-1 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Multiple Agreements and Parties – part IV
based on final ruling of 80082 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Undoing a Problematic Partnership – part I
based on ruling 84061 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Did Any Furniture Go to the Buyer? – part I
based on ruling 84093 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Rabbis in Midrash
Lessons
fast navigation
Various Events FOR WHOM NOT TO VOTE
Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook stressed that Israeli politics is G-dly, so I have no problem answering this common question on a Torani blog. Also, Free-Will is a G-d-given right and obligation, to "destine one's fate" (R. Soloveichik, Kol Dodi Dofek, 67), so I obviously don't tell others how to vote. But once not a few (especially young) have already asked, a couple of personal words from experience and thoughts from chazal & Rav Kook which may be of help to others, mainly for whom NOT to vote.
P'ninat Mishpat Fallout from Failure to Install Elevator – part II
based on ruling 85007 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
