Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: Since def is a paid service provider, his obligation to pay for loss/damage is like a shomer sachar (paid watchman), who is obligated when the object is lost or stolen (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 306:1). However, that is when it is accepted that it was lost or stolen, whereas here, def claimed he returned everything for which he had taken responsibility.
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
737 - Disagreements over Renovations – part II
738 - Damages of Movers
739 - Conditions of the Leasing of a Community Supermarket
Load More
The problem with def’s claim of return is that he does not really know what he returned but only that he believes that he must have returned everything he received. However, the gemara (Shvuot 42b) posits that if a watchman received a collection of objects without knowing exactly what they were, his claim that he gave back the entire contents is considered a complete claim that he returned all. The Rama (CM 298:2) rules that this is so even if the shomer says that he does not know if anything was stolen.
On the other hand, here def admits that he has to pay for some of the items he watched due to the damages, and a partial admission makes it necessary to swear on that which he denies, as long as they are part of one claim (see Shulchan Aruch, CM 88:12). In lieu of the oath, which we do not administer in our times, batei din rule based on compromise.
Beit din does not accept the claim that def is exempt due to the furniture’s age. This is because the damages are unrelated to age and because def knew what he was moving and did not demand an exemption in advance.
Although usually one can fix what he damaged, here def had an opportunity to do so and did not take advantage of it. Even if def gave a reasonable explanation as to why he did not fix it yet, pl is still not required to wait long, as he has a right to expect to get his objects in working order.
Based on compromise, beit din obligated def to pay pl 3,000 NIS.
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
Igrot Hare’aya Trying to Arrange Purchase of Land in Eretz Yisrael
#222 Date and Place: 2 Elul 5669 (1909), Rechovot
Igrot Hare’aya Connecting Disciplines in Torah Study
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook #103 – part II
P'ninat Mishpat Payments after a Gradual End of Employment
(Based on ruling 82024 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat Who Breached the Contract? – part IV
Based on ruling 81087 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
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)
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Dividing Parents’ Resources when Mother Still Alive
based on ruling 82017 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Agricultural Water Rights – part II
based on ruling 84122 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
