375
edits
Abiding by Civilian Law: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
==Examples== | ==Examples== | ||
#If a person or company went bankrupt they | #If a person or company went bankrupt they do not have an enduring obligation to pay off their debt because bankruptcy laws are established and reasonable laws of the government.<ref>Igrot Moshe CM 2:62, Halachos of Other People’s Money p. 34 fnt. 71. Rav Moshe explains that since the bankruptcy laws are for the betterment of society which the Rama 369:8 writes is binding.</ref> | ||
#If there’s a civil law to hand in a lost object that is found to a government official one must oblige because of Dina Dmalchuta Dina.<ref>Rama 259:7, Pitchei Choshen Aveidah 2:22</ref> See [https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lost_property common law on Cornell.edu]. | #If there’s a civil law to hand in a lost object that is found to a government official one must oblige because of Dina Dmalchuta Dina.<ref>Rama 259:7, Pitchei Choshen Aveidah 2:22</ref> See [https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lost_property common law on Cornell.edu]. | ||
#Some write that if a person has a contract with a penalty that is an asmachta even though it is binding in a secular court dina dmalchuta doesn’t make it binding between two Jews.<ref>Emek Mishpat v. 1 p. 260 writes that one should not assume that dina dmalchuta obligates a person to pay a contractual penalty. He explains that they are an asmachta and dina dmalchuta doesn't apply in Israel (Ran Nedarim 28a, Darkei Moshe 369:3, Gra 369:35). Also, he adds that Mishpat Shalom 207:15 writes that dina dmaclhuta doesn't make an asmachta binding. Also, Chazon Ish CM likkutim 16:11 writes that dina dmalchuta isn't applicable for a contractual penalty since dina dmalchuta doesn’t apply between two Jews.</ref> | #Some write that if a person has a contract with a penalty that is an asmachta even though it is binding in a secular court dina dmalchuta doesn’t make it binding between two Jews.<ref>Emek Mishpat v. 1 p. 260 writes that one should not assume that dina dmalchuta obligates a person to pay a contractual penalty. He explains that they are an asmachta and dina dmalchuta doesn't apply in Israel (Ran Nedarim 28a, Darkei Moshe 369:3, Gra 369:35). Also, he adds that Mishpat Shalom 207:15 writes that dina dmaclhuta doesn't make an asmachta binding. Also, Chazon Ish CM likkutim 16:11 writes that dina dmalchuta isn't applicable for a contractual penalty since dina dmalchuta doesn’t apply between two Jews.</ref> | ||
