Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: While rarely does Halacha hold an employer responsible for damage done by a worker, it is common practice nowadays that the employer takes responsibility. However, that practice does not extend to cases where the damage is totally unrelated to the work (here, clw is suspected of passing on information, not during the time he was working).
Pl cannot be held culpable for creating a dangerous situation vis a vis theft (see opinions in Rama, Choshen Mishpat 388:2), because that would require def to warn him about the situation, which he did not. Bringing in a dangerous worker could not create an obligation based on garmi in a case where the danger is unclear and certainly unintentional. (Consider that it was more likely for clw to steal from pl).
Can def make pl compensate because ru turned out to be an unsafe place to live? He cannot. For one, while this could be grounds to make pl improve security or possibly lower the rent, it would not require pl to forgo thousands of NIS, which could only be stolen because def decided to leave an unusual amount of cash unprotected in ru. More fundamentally, def decided to renew contracts at ru for fourteen years after knowing that there were often cleaners with the same profile as clw (often, his brother), and he did not even complain. Therefore, def cannot claim that conditions were not to standards he could accept.
Therefore, beit din will not obligate pl to reduce the money def owes him. However, beit din suggests to pl, who expressed the desire to be totally vindicated for his behavior, to voluntary relieve def of up to 1,000 NIS, for the following reason. Many Israelis believe that workers with clw’s profile, not infrequently steal sums of money (12,000 NIS is rare). Still, they employ them because enough money is saved by their low price to put up with occasional theft. In this case, then, it seems unfair that pl saved money on cheap labor, whereas loss due to theft went to def instead of pl.
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
774 - P'ninat Mishpat: A Used Car with a Tendency for Engine Problems
775 - P'ninat Mishpat: Can the Tenant Take Off for Theft?
776 - P'ninat Mishpat:Amounts and Conditions of Payment to an Architect – part I
Load More
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
P'ninat Mishpat A Commercial Rental for a Closed Business – part II
based on ruling 80047 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Igrot Hare’aya Connecting Disciplines in Torah Study
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook #103 – part II
P'ninat Mishpat Repercussions of a Sale That Turned Out Not Happening – part II
(based on ruling 83045 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
Igrot Hare’aya Semi-solicited Advice to Calm Down Petach Tikva
#227 Date and Place: 8 Tishrei 5669, Yafo
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Sharing in Plumbing Expenses – part II
based on ruling 85013 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
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
