Why doesn’t a robber pay rent?
A thief stole a cup, drank from it for a whole year, then was caught and returned it. Why doesn’t he pay rent? Where is the justice?
In the Book of Common Prayer, it is explained that a usurper does not pay a fee for use. This is in contrast to a user who did not intend to usurp. This is what was ruled in the Shulchan Shulchan HaMosh 1993 (1993 and 1995). The Rema wrote there that if the person rented it to others, he is obligated to pay the owner. I would like to point out that this entire discussion is only based on the assumption that the object is for rent (sustainable for rent), otherwise even a regular user who is legally exempt benefits from it and this is not lacking.
The commentators disagreed on the question of why this is so. The Sama’a Hom Si’ Shaseg Sag wrote that according to the principle of the law, he is indeed obligated to pay and exempted him because of the rule of the return. From this he also explains the difference of the Rama (that the rule of the return does not allow him to rent to others). But the Shach in the Sikhah there disagreed with him and wrote that he is exempt from the principle of the law because he has usurped property and is considered to be incompetent for everything except the obligation to return it. This is apparently the approach of the B’I there, which disagreed with the Rama and in his opinion is exempt even if he rented it to others.
I will note that Rabbi Shmuel, in his Chiddushei B.K. 12:3, wrote a different way on behalf of Rabbi Shkop: He is exempt from paying for the use because he himself created the use and therefore his blood is purchased for him, in the name of Rabbi Shkop. It should be discussed whether this is consistent even with the difference of the Rema.
In passing, I will note that the owners of the stolen property themselves are apparently part of the responsibility for the thief, and therefore they were actually fixed in favor of the thief. The price is that the thief will not receive the usage fees.
I liked the explanation. There is no way for the sages to circumvent the consequences of the plundered property (only the bad ones, of course), which we have fundamentally severed in favor of the plundered, as you say, and this comes at the cost of exempting the plunderer from usage fees, which is actually a consequence that is to the detriment of the plundered and to stymie the plunderer from all sides? (It is clear to me that Gali Bahar Rabbi Meera would have managed to exempt this scoundrel and square the circle that would produce the appropriate result that would, on the one hand, give all the rights to the plundered and, on the other hand, give all the duties to the plunderer in a legal arrangement of words and slogans. I was reminded again of what you wrote that there is also thinking of the Law of Returns, and therefore it is possible that there is a true and calculated fair balance here. Was this what you intended in your above answer? Mikhi
They have a way. It is a fact that they left the obligation of restitution even though the usurper is the owner. But the model must be consistent, even at the cost of a certain injustice.
Regarding Gali Baharav Miyara, this is true for all sides. Everyone is biased and juggling interpretations in favor of their agenda.
Is money considered viable for agra? Does a person who stole a thousand shekels pay at least the interest that can be obtained in a kosher manner?
Thank you for the quick response (in the meantime I managed to thread the morning prayer by skipping the verses of Dzimra except for Baruch who said Asheri and Yishtashach so that I wouldn't waste time praying) and along the way I managed to add a new word to my narrow vocabulary (probably due to a lack of core studies) which is "consistent" and for that alone everything was worth it, as the sages said about fish that return to the water and rejoice at every new drop of rain.
Aaron,
Of course not. Money is not viable for agra because it is forbidden to rent money. This is a prohibition of interest (agare neter). The increase and decrease in the value of things is a discussion in the Gemara itself (and it was ruled that the robber pays at the time of the robbery, because of the owners of the robbery).
Why do we need a model, that is, why do we need consistency? Perhaps in Torah we understand that there is a metaphysical model of phenomena with laws, which are identified with halakhic intuition and are probably related to some extent to the laws of everyday physics, as you wrote before, and the sages are also a kind of Torah Tikkun?
Or perhaps the abductive model was created by Chazal as a means to allow future generations to draw conclusions about new cases based on the model?
The sages did not create an abductive model. The abduction is done by my analysis here. They just performed a line and that's it.
I think the rationale is that a legal system is supposed to be consistent otherwise one can derive from it one thing and its opposite, or basically nothing.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
