Beit Din and Dayanim: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Background
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
===Withholding Wages Due to Theft=== | ===Withholding Wages Due to Theft=== | ||
====Background==== | ====Background==== | ||
<p>One time Rav Huna had many barrels of wine that soured. He asked his colleagues to help him introspect. They concluded that it was a punishment for his withholding wages from his field workers. Rav Huna explained that he Rav Huna his workers stole his grape vines and so he couldn’t pay them properly. The rabbis rebuked Rav Huna that nonetheless, if you steal from a thief you’ll be drawn after theft, and Rav Huna repented and corrected his ways. Immediately, the price of vinegar increased so that his barrels of vinegar were worth more than wine or that the soured wine turned back into wine. That implies that it is forbidden to withhold wages when suspecting a worker of stealing. (Brachot 5b)</p> | <p class="indent">One time Rav Huna had many barrels of wine that soured. He asked his colleagues to help him introspect. They concluded that it was a punishment for his withholding wages from his field workers. Rav Huna explained that he Rav Huna his workers stole his grape vines and so he couldn’t pay them properly. The rabbis rebuked Rav Huna that nonetheless, if you steal from a thief you’ll be drawn after theft, and Rav Huna repented and corrected his ways. Immediately, the price of vinegar increased so that his barrels of vinegar were worth more than wine or that the soured wine turned back into wine. That implies that it is forbidden to withhold wages when suspecting a worker of stealing. (Brachot 5b)</p> | ||
<p>Several rishonim and achronim ask why Rav Huna wasn’t justified considering that he was just covering his loss. Indeed, there is a concept in Bava Kama 27b of ''Avid Inish Dina Lnafshey'' (Heb. עביד אניש דיניה לנפשיה; lit. a person can make a judgement for himself) a person can serve justice. The only dispute is whether it is applicable only if there is a loss or even if there’s no loss but it is desirable to serve justice immediately instead of having to resort to the cumbersome judicial process. Rav Yehuda held that it is only permitted if there’s irrecoverable loss, while Rav Nachman allows whether or not there is a loss, since a person would prefer to deal with the issue without having to go to Bet Din. The halacha follows Rav Nachman.</p> | <p class="indent">Several rishonim and achronim ask why Rav Huna wasn’t justified considering that he was just covering his loss. Indeed, there is a concept in Bava Kama 27b of ''Avid Inish Dina Lnafshey'' (Heb. עביד אניש דיניה לנפשיה; lit. a person can make a judgement for himself) a person can serve justice. The only dispute is whether it is applicable only if there is a loss or even if there’s no loss but it is desirable to serve justice immediately instead of having to resort to the cumbersome judicial process. Rav Yehuda held that it is only permitted if there’s irrecoverable loss, while Rav Nachman allows whether or not there is a loss, since a person would prefer to deal with the issue without having to go to Bet Din. The halacha follows Rav Nachman.</p> | ||
To address the story with Rav Huna in Gemara Brachot, | To address the story with Rav Huna in Gemara Brachot, | ||
#Some say that really Rav Huna was permitted to withhold wages but was punished and rebuked because of his righteous status and should not have been involved with seemingly scandalous behavior even if it was justified. However, most rishonim and achronim reject this theory.<Ref> Yabia Omer CM 6:1:3 cites this approach from Shoel Umishiv 1:371 but rejects it.</ref> | #Some say that really Rav Huna was permitted to withhold wages but was punished and rebuked because of his righteous status and should not have been involved with seemingly scandalous behavior even if it was justified. However, most rishonim and achronim reject this theory.<Ref> Yabia Omer CM 6:1:3 cites this approach from Shoel Umishiv 1:371 but rejects it.</ref> | ||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
#Rav Kolunimus and the Maharam (Mordechai Bava Kama 3:30, cited by Bet Yosef 4:1) answer that it was forbidden for Rav Huna to withhold wages because it is only forbidden to steal back the item that was stolen from you but not to take another item in its place. | #Rav Kolunimus and the Maharam (Mordechai Bava Kama 3:30, cited by Bet Yosef 4:1) answer that it was forbidden for Rav Huna to withhold wages because it is only forbidden to steal back the item that was stolen from you but not to take another item in its place. | ||
#One approach is that Rav Huna had suspicions about the workers stealing but it wasn’t verified sufficiently and therefore, it was improper to withhold wages.<ref> Maharash YD 9 s.v. vli in his second answer, Meromei Sadeh Brachot 5b, Kesef Kedoshim CM 4</ref> | #One approach is that Rav Huna had suspicions about the workers stealing but it wasn’t verified sufficiently and therefore, it was improper to withhold wages.<ref> Maharash YD 9 s.v. vli in his second answer, Meromei Sadeh Brachot 5b, Kesef Kedoshim CM 4</ref> | ||
====Halacha==== | ====Halacha==== | ||
#In conclusion, before we take justice into our own hands, many conditions need to be met. Holding onto someone else’s money that was given to you in a permitted manner, can be kept under three conditions:<ref>Rav Poalim CM 3:5</ref> | #In conclusion, before we take justice into our own hands, many conditions need to be met. Holding onto someone else’s money that was given to you in a permitted manner, can be kept under three conditions:<ref>Rav Poalim CM 3:5</ref> | ||
