Bots, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Suppressors, Administrators, wiki-admin, wiki-controller, wiki-editor, wiki-reader
1,190
edits
Unfair Competition: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Stealing Someone Else's Free Item
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
#If someone has made an effort to acquire a free item, some say it is wrong for someone else to beat him to it and "steal it."<ref>Rashi Kiddushin 59a s.v. ani, Ramban Bava Batra 54b. See also Rashbam Bava Batra 54b</ref> Others permit this if there's only one of the kind of that free item.<ref>Tosfot Kiddushin 59a s.v. ani</ref> | #If someone has made an effort to acquire a free item, some say it is wrong for someone else to beat him to it and "steal it."<ref>Rashi Kiddushin 59a s.v. ani, Ramban Bava Batra 54b. See also Rashbam Bava Batra 54b</ref> Others permit this if there's only one of the kind of that free item.<ref>Tosfot Kiddushin 59a s.v. ani</ref> | ||
#Everyone agrees if the first person put in effort<ref>Masat Binyamin 27 writes that the amount of effort necessary for it to be considered forbidden for the second to take the free item is only if the first person anticipated that he would certainly get it. See Chatom Sofer 79.</ref> to acquire the free item and he anticipated getting it the second one may not take it from him.<ref>Mordechai Kiddushin 524, Ritva Kiddushin 59a</ref> | #Everyone agrees if the first person put in effort<ref>Masat Binyamin 27 writes that the amount of effort necessary for it to be considered forbidden for the second to take the free item is only if the first person anticipated that he would certainly get it. See Chatom Sofer 79.</ref> to acquire the free item and he anticipated getting it the second one may not take it from him.<ref>Mordechai Kiddushin 524, Ritva Kiddushin 59a</ref> | ||
#Sephardim hold that the second person shouldn’t even take a free item,<ref>Shulchan Aruch CM 237:1 quotes Rashi and Rabbenu Tam and Rabbenu Tam as second. Mishpat Shlomo 4:28 rules like Rashi for Sephardim because Shulchan Aruch quotes him second. He also quotes Divrei Binyahu agrees with this. Rav Ovadia Toledano (Mishpat Hakinyan v. 4 p. 77) writes that Sephardim are strict for Rashi, but the primary halacha is like Rabbenu Tam even for Sephardim. Those who think that Shulchan Aruch held like Rashi: Bet Yehuda CM 52, Erech Hashulchan 237, and Zichronot Eliyahu (Ayin p. 161). However, many think that Shulchan Aruch held like Rabbenu Tam since in C.M. 237:2 he quotes the Ri who is said on Rabbenu Tam. This point is made by Sma 237:8, Netivot Mishpat 237:2, and Paamonei Zahav 237. He also cites Maharam Elshiech 67, Rama Mpano 67, and Rav Chaim Palagi (Chafetz Chaim 45) who hold like Rabbenu Tam. However, theoretically it is possible to distinguish between CM 237:1 and 237:2 and only in a case of mitzvah Shulchan Aruch is lenient, as Aruch Hashulchan writes. Mishpat Shlomo cites Yam Shel Shlomo (Kiddushin 58b) who says a logic like this as well. Chatom Sofer CM 118 and Aruch Hashulchan EH 35:39 note that Rambam Ishut 9 agrees with Rashi and Rashbam. | #Sephardim hold that the second person shouldn’t even take a free item,<ref>Shulchan Aruch CM 237:1 quotes Rashi and Rabbenu Tam and Rabbenu Tam as second. Mishpat Shlomo 4:28 rules like Rashi for Sephardim because Shulchan Aruch quotes him second. He also quotes Divrei Binyahu agrees with this. Rav Ovadia Toledano (Mishpat Hakinyan v. 4 p. 77) writes that Sephardim are strict for Rashi, but the primary halacha is like Rabbenu Tam even for Sephardim. Those who think that Shulchan Aruch held like Rashi: Bet Yehuda CM 52, Erech Hashulchan 237, and Zichronot Eliyahu (Ayin p. 161). However, many think that Shulchan Aruch held like Rabbenu Tam since in C.M. 237:2 he quotes the Ri who is said on Rabbenu Tam. This point is made by Sma 237:8, Netivot Mishpat 237:2, and Paamonei Zahav 237. He also cites Maharam Elshiech 67, Rama Mpano 67, and Rav Chaim Palagi (Chafetz Chaim 45) who hold like Rabbenu Tam. However, theoretically it is possible to distinguish between CM 237:1 and 237:2 and only in a case of mitzvah Shulchan Aruch is lenient, as Aruch Hashulchan writes. Mishpat Shlomo cites Yam Shel Shlomo (Kiddushin 58b) who says a logic like this as well. Chatom Sofer CM 118 and Aruch Hashulchan EH 35:39 note that Rambam Ishut 9:17 agrees with Rashi and Rashbam. However, Igrot Moshe EH 1:91 s.v. lama argues that Rambam agrees with Rabbenu Tam. </ref> while Ashkenazim hold that the second person could take a free item and the principle of ''Ani Hamehapech Bcharara'' only applies to sales or rentals.<ref>Rama CM 237:1 side with Rabbenu Tam. Igrot Moshe EH 1:91 s.v. yatza writes that a yireh shamayim should be strict for Rashi. Piskei Din Harabbanayim v. 6 p. 202 writes that even Ashkenazim should try to be strict for Rashi. Also, Maharsham 2:25 writes that initially bet din should stop someone from following Rabbenu Tam and stealing a deal from someone else. </ref> | ||
##If someone already bought a property that someone else was already trying to buy, even if some poskim hold that is improper, bet din cannot force a person to return it.<ref>Rav Ben Tzion Abba Shaul (Kiddushin v. 3 p. 15) writes that it is possible to apply kim li to this topic after someone already did buy something that someone else was trying to buy. He explains that it isn't considered isur. The isur is only because of mamon and we apply kim li to gezel. However, Mishpat Hakinyan (v. 4 p. 78) quotes Mahariv Angel who writes that bet din can force the person to return it and kim li does not apply to ani hamehapech bcharara.</ref> | ##If someone already bought a property that someone else was already trying to buy, even if some poskim hold that is improper, bet din cannot force a person to return it.<ref>Rav Ben Tzion Abba Shaul (Kiddushin v. 3 p. 15) writes that it is possible to apply kim li to this topic after someone already did buy something that someone else was trying to buy. He explains that it isn't considered isur. The isur is only because of mamon and we apply kim li to gezel. However, Mishpat Hakinyan (v. 4 p. 78) quotes Mahariv Angel who writes that bet din can force the person to return it and kim li does not apply to ani hamehapech bcharara.</ref> | ||
#According to Sephardim it is only relevant once the first person already put in effort to acquire the free item and not just if he saw it.<ref>Pitchei Choshen Geneva ch. 9 fnt. 30</ref> | #According to Sephardim, it is only relevant once the first person already put in effort to acquire the free item and not just if he saw it.<ref>Pitchei Choshen Geneva ch. 9 fnt. 30</ref> | ||
#Even according to Ashkenazim, there is a principle of the second person not stealing the free opportunity from the first person if he already put in an effort and was confident that he would acquire it.<ref>Pitchei Choshen Geneva 9:13 based on Rosh</ref> | #Even according to Ashkenazim, there is a principle of the second person not stealing the free opportunity from the first person if he already put in an effort and was confident that he would acquire it.<ref>Pitchei Choshen Geneva 9:13 based on Rosh</ref> | ||
