Kanya Darba
Greetings to His Excellency, Your Excellency, Your Eminence, Your Eminence, Your Eminence (if the syntax is incorrect, then you can castrate and demand it),
My soul is asking a question and I would like to know what Maran thinks. In the case of Kanya Darba (Nedrim 25), the plaintiff broke the defendant’s reed. And I was asked by someone who supposedly knew what the punishment for the reed that was broken would be? Will the plaintiff who broke it out of anger be liable for it?
The questioner claimed that by breaking what he broke (even though he did not know that breaking it would buy him back his money), he earned his money back, so why should he pay for the restitution?
I would love to know what the rabbi thinks and if it is possible to detail the explanation so that I can understand, agree with, and stand behind Maran Shlita’s claim. thanks.
I didn’t understand why the lender wouldn’t pay. He broke the borrower’s money. The fact that the borrower was happy that he broke it doesn’t matter. It would have been more happy for him to open it without breaking it.
Thanks for the answer. Not from Niha Lia, but Suss he took out the money in the only way it was possible to take it out – by breaking the vessel. So it is true that from the beginning we would not have told him to do so, and he did not do it with the intention of taking the money out, but after he took it out in this way that is the only way that will allow him to receive his money – why should he pay for it? (After all, he did not know that the money was hidden inside the kanya).
Perhaps we can cite a source for this from Din Abid Inish Dinah La Nafshiya – there, as soon as my only possibility to receive the money is to take action for myself and not wait for the judge – that is permissible. So here too, the person took action for himself, and indeed this turned out to be the case retroactively and was not the case from the beginning – but Suss is what was done here.
Why is this the only way? Just as the money was put in, it can also come out. As I wrote, there was a way to open it without breaking it.
Possibly. But this horse would never have been discovered. The man broke it and that's how he got his money. Why would he pay for it? In Abid Inish Dinah for his own sake, it's clear that we would say that if this was the only way to do it (since we wouldn't know otherwise that the money was hidden, and he himself swore and was exempt from paying) – that he could do it. So why would he pay?
I'd love to understand more. Thank you.
I answered
I apologize, but I didn't get to understand the answer that well. Let's ask it differently: Assuming that this was the only way to get the money (and the borrower would not have been able to get his money back in any other way), what would the rabbi say?
If this were the only way, the law of a person taking justice for himself must be discussed. Whether or not he died when he did so unintentionally. And this must be discussed from several angles. There are jurists who wrote regarding a sin for the sake of God that the exemption is only if he did so intentionally for the sake of God (although I previously wrote here that I do not agree). Similarly, on the issue of gechin and whalish (223), the Rishonim discussed whether or not a person falsely creates evidence for himself in order to extract money that he is entitled to under the law of a slave and his money is given to him.
And all this before we get into the conditions set by the Gemara and the jurists for taking justice for himself. Some wrote that he must have the ability to prove this in court. Others wrote that it must be a situation in which taking justice is necessary (he does not have time to get to court to sue).
Ultimately, the matter requires great ingenuity and prudence.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
