- Sections
- P'ninat Mishpat
849
The gemara (ibid.) discusses what is broad enough to qualify as a makkat medina? Rav Yehuda says that rubba d’ba’agi (the majority of the valley region) has to be blighted. Ulla says that it suffices for the fields around the one in question to be affected. Rav Yehuda’s opinion was accepted as halacha (Shulchan Aruch, CM 322:2). The Rishonim argued how to define rubba d’ba’agi. Rashi holds that it is within a certain valley region. The Rambam (Sechirut 8:5) says that it refers to most of the fields of the city. In any case, in regard to snow, it rarely makes a difference, as entire regions are generally covered similarly by snow, making it a makkat medina.
The mishna (Bava Metzia 103b) says that if a person rented out a field for produce and its wellspring dried up, the renter cannot reduce the amount he owes even though the field is now more difficult to cultivate. The gemara says that it is talking about a case that only a small artery in the area’s water dried up, and it is not a makkat medina because the renter can still bring water to the field by pail. Based on this, the Rama (CM 321:1) says that if one can fix the problem that arose even with difficulty, he does not reduce his obligations.
The Rama (ibid.) brings two opinions as to how to apportion the loss in the case of a makkat medina. The first is the Maharam, in regard to a teacher, when the government forbade teaching Torah, who says that the employer absorbs the loss. He cites a second opinion that at that time, the employer can back out of his commitment when the matter becomes known, and the employee gets paid only for what was done until then. The S’ma (ad loc.: 6) says that the Rama brought the Maharam incorrectly, as he meant that the two share the loss equally. The Taz agrees with the Rama, as we say that the employer’s "fortune" is that which caused the loss. The Netivot Hamishpat (321:1) accepts the Rama’s second opinion. The Avnei Shayish points out that even according to the Maharam, the worker is paid as a po’el batel (we subtract for the benefit of having vacation).

P'ninat Mishpat (773)
Various Rabbis
49 - A Father’s Rights in His Children’s Monetary Assets
50 - Workers Who Could Not Work Due to Snow
51 - Incompatibility Between a Lawyer and a Dayan
Load More

P'ninat Mishpat: Counter Claims – part II (Child Care, Foundations)
based on ruling 81059 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Tevet 5784

P'ninat Mishpat: A Flawed Used Car – part II
based on ruling 82171 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Elul 5784

P'ninat Mishpat: Spillover of Courtyard Dispute
based on ruling 81059 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Tevet 5784

Conditions of the Leasing of a Community Supermarket
(based on ruling 83035 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | 10 Tammuz 5784
Birkot HaShachar – The Morning Blessings
Chapter nine-part one
Rabbi Eliezer Melamed | 5775

"The Torah is light"
Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak HaLevi Kilav | 5764

Let’s Talk Turkey - ...and Prairie Chicken and Muscovy Duck.
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff | 5770

Doing Tevilat Keilim Before Giving Present
Rabbi Daniel Mann | Tamuuz 4 5776
Daf Yomi Shevuot Daf 10
R' Eli Stefansky | 13 Iyar 5785

Parashat Hashavua: Kedoshim Teh’yu, Goy Kadosh – Are They Related?
Rabbi Yossef Carmel | Iyar 5785
