Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: Should pl’s partial payment for the food he did not receive, without the wrongdoing of either side, stand? The type of oness (extenuating circumstance) here (a war) is a makat medina, a problem that affects a broad spectrum of people. The difference between a makat medina and standard oness is that generally we can attribute the oness to the affected individual’s mazal, whereas here the war affected a whole community in the same way.
The Rama (Choshen Mishpat 312:17) rules: "If the whole city burned down, it is a makat medina and [the renter] reduces the rent corresponding to the time he did not live in it, whether he prepaid or not." The Taz and Shach (to CM 334:1) say that the exemption of the renter due to makat medina applies even when use of the home was interrupted by the need to flee from the city due to a plague (not just when the problem was with the house), and the same applies to wartime restrictions. One explanation is that there is an implied condition that the agreement applies only if it is possible to carry it out. The Machaneh Ephrayim (Sechirut 7) argues that if a renter gave a down payment before the continuation of the rental became impossible, the renter is unable to get the payment back. Other poskim agree with him, and it is unclear if there is a consensus on the matter (see Shut Minchat Asher II, p. 408; Mishpat Hasechirut II, p. 1022). However, in our case the Machaneh Ephrayim probably would award pl a refund because def did not give pl the option of receiving the food. The Aruch Hashulchan (CM 334:2) rules that as long as the one who paid is not at fault, if the worker is a kablan (paid by the job, as def is), he gets the money back. The Netivot Hamishpat (230:1) adds another reason to refund that applies here – when the makat medina prevented any benefit at all, there should not be payment.
In cases of makat medina, our beit din likes to make compromises, because of the existence of different opinions and distinctions. One of the factors that plays a role is whether the government compensates the proprietor on the loss of business, and def confirmed that he received help.
These factors will affect the final ruling, which will be shared in the next installment.
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
790 - P'ninat Mishpat: Return of Down Payment Due to War – part I
791 - P'ninat Mishpat: Return of Down Payment Due to War – part II
792 - P'ninat Mishpat: Return of Down Payment Due to War – part III
Load More
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 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 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
