It’s fun and it’s not lacking.
Peace and blessings
Explained in the G.M. B.K. 20. A doubt regarding a person who benefits from his neighbor’s house without his knowledge. In the event that he benefits and it is not lacking, is he obligated to pay? The G.M. does not cite any verse or source that states that a person who benefits from another’s property is obligated. And yet it is satisfied. And apparently, what is the doubt? It is theft or theft of a daily wage in a yard that is not sustainable for collection. And therefore I was satisfied. Is this a doubt according to the Rabbi’s explanation in the Torah of the Haspast? Is it not necessary to be satisfied? Is it logical that in a world like ours, where people ask for rent for renting a house, the law will exempt him because he did not violate any section of the Torah?
thanks
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I know the controversy, but under what law does one commit to paying? What does it matter if your money is returned after he uses it? So what is he paying for?
The wealth he has is not the yard but the use of it. The fruits of the yard. In the situation of the roots of Lia, it is his wealth that has increased because he did not have to spend on housing or food.
Where does the Rabbi come from that it is said that he ate at the expense of the owner of the yard? The verse explicitly states that the dairy and the dairies in the yard of his friend are nothing more than that. The verse discusses whether he loses rent to the owner, but here the dairy is unsustainable for the Agra.
I didn't mean the fruits of the “Creator of the fruit of the tree”. 🙂 The fruits of the garden, meaning its uses. A body for the fruits.
In the legal world, this is related to the issue of wealth creation, not in law.
And yet, even if he made a profit, he did not lose anything to the owner, and there is no law that forbids making a profit. The Rabbi does not think that this is related to the above principle.
Of course, there is no prohibition on making a profit, but if the profit comes from my property, then it is mine.
This is not a net profit from the field because he grew there, but because I received the place for free. I earned it. I didn't take anything from the field, because I'm not renting out the field.
True. This is the argument of those who believe that the profit is exempt. But for those who believe that the profit is due, the mere fact that the profit is made from my yard means that the profit is mine.
This is exactly the argument, because there is really no room for legal liability here, so the whole dispute is in the space of not being.
That's completely fair. I'll take care of you.
As explained above, this is not a net profit from the field because he grew there, but because I received the place for free. I made a profit, I did not take anything from the field, because I am not renting the field.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
