Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: The gemara (Bava Kama 48a) says that if two people enter an area and collided, if one acted with permission and one acted without permission, the former is exempt and the latter is obligated. If either both entered with permission or both without permission – if they "damage each other" they are obligated to pay, but if they "are damaged by each other," they are exempt. Rashi says that the latter is referring to indirect damage. The Rambam (Chovel 6:8) distinguishes between whether the damage was done on purpose or by accident. The Acharonim dispute like whom the Shulchan Aruch (CM 378:16) rules.
In our days, poskim assume that the governmental laws of driving have an impact on the halachic laws of damage payments. Therefore, someone who breaks the law in regard to driving is categorized as one who "went without permission" (see Pitchei Choshen, Nezikin 1:(71)). The Chashukei Chemed (Bava Kama 31a) goes further, saying that if, according to the law, someone is obligated to pay for an accident, this becomes the halacha as well. For example, according to the gemara if someone stops suddenly and someone else collides from behind, the one who stopped is obligated for damages. However, since the law/society has accepted that the person behind must leave enough space to react and stop, and that if he does not, he has to pay, this becomes binding (see Bava Batra 8b). This is especially true regarding cars where failure to leave space before the car ahead can bring death.
Going through the different driving laws, we find that one should back out into a street only if necessary and only after ascertaining that there are no cars in the vicinity. On the other hand, one may go into the lane of ongoing traffic only if he checks that he has time to get back without danger. So both pl and def violated the law. However, def also violated the law of not giving precedence to the person who was driving straight as opposed to the one turning. Therefore, he is more responsible and must pay. Since much of the damage to pl’s car was from his failure to stop immediately, we rule based on compromise that he will receive only 1,000 NIS.
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
585 - Losses from Financially (and Morally) Bad Loans – part III
586 - Who Drove Worse?
587 - The Mouse Guarding the Cheese? – part I
Load More
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
P'ninat Mishpat Limits of Interest Rate for Loan with Heter Iska – part II
based on ruling 80033 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat Profits from Formerly Joint Swimming Pool – part
(based on ruling 81110 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
Igrot Hare’aya Connecting Disciplines in Torah Study
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook 103 – part III
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: A Seller with Questionable Rights to the Property – part II
based on ruling 84062 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)
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
