THE JERUSALEM INSTITUTE OF JEWISH LAW - Rabbi Emanuel Quint, Dean

Lesson # 312 (part two) • Laws of Informers

In the last lesson we began the laws of informers. In this lesson we conclude this topic.

In the previous lesson it was stated that if a brigand threatens Reuven even with physical harm to disclose his own assets and he shows the brigand Shimon’s assets, Reuven, the informer, is liable to Shimon. There is a dissent that holds that if Reuven is coerced by threat it does not matter whether Reuven actually physically touches Shimon’s assets or if he only tells the brigand where it is located, either way Reuven is not liable.

When Reuven is liable to Shimon, he is liable:

(a) for the entire loss caused by him being an informer; Reuven is the proximate cause of the loss to Shimon. Reuven's mere words make him liable.

(b) in spite of the fact that he did not touch the property (real or personal) or money, or have any contact with Shimon regarding the property or money;

(c) whether he actually pointed to the property or money, or merely stated where the property or money was located and the brigand seized the property or money from that place;

(d) to make payment from IDIT (the best of his real estate) if he pays from real property. Halacha divides real estate into three categories regarding payment of debts. If the debt arose from a tort and Reuven, the tort-feasor, does not have money to pay compensation, Shimon, the victim, can levy on Reuven's real estate for payment. Assuming that Reuven has all three types of real estate, the Torah stipulates that the payment must be from the IDIT. If payment is made in kind from Reuven's personal property any kind of such property may be paid.

Oath of the victim
Assume that there is no question that Reuven did inform against Shimon to a brigand, causing Shimon damages; but there is a question as to the amount of the damages. Shimon must prove his damages in Beth Din. The informing and the damages can be proven either by witnesses or by Reuven's admission.

Assume the witnesses testify as to the amount that the brigand seized from Shimon and Reuven admits that the brigand took that amount. However, Reuven also alleges that part of it was for a debt due from Shimon to the brigand; or that there is some sort of conspiracy between Shimon and the brigand to extract money from Reuven by their pleas; or that Shimon could have transferred less money to the brigand and the brigand would have been satisfied. Shimon may take an oath that he had no debt to the brigand, that he could not have settled with the brigand for a lesser amount, and that there was no plot between the brigand and himself. If Shimon takes such an oath he will obtain a judgment against Reuven for the full amount lost.

Assume that there are no witnesses to help Shimon prove his case against Reuven, the informer, regarding the amount of the damages. There is a difference of opinion as to whether Shimon can take an oath determining the damage that he suffered as a result of Reuven's informing on him. One view holds that Reuven's plea is to be considered. If Reuven denies the amount of damage then Shimon must prove his case. However, if Reuven pleads that he does not know the amount of damage then Shimon may take an oath and wins the lawsuit. A second view holds that in all events Shimon must prove his case and he cannot avail himself of the oath to win the lawsuit.

This dispute concerns monetary losses suffered by Shimon. However, if Shimon suffers physical injuries resulting from Reuven's informing on him and Shimon has no witnesses to prove his case, then he can rely on taking the oath to win the lawsuit.

Oath of the informer
Shimon has no witnesses as to being informed on and Reuven denies that he informed against Shimon. Reuven takes a HESSET oath and wins the lawsuit. If Reuven admits to part of Shimon's claim and denies the balance, he must pay the amount to which he has admitted. Reuven takes a HESSET oath as to the balance and obtains judgment regarding the balance. The same holds true if Reuven admits to part of Shimon's claim but denies having knowledge of the balance; Shimon takes a HESSET oath as to the balance and wins the lawsuit. There is a dissent that Reuven takes a Torah oath as do all those who admit part of a claim and deny the balance, or when there is one witness who testifies as to the defendant's liability. The reason for the view held by the majority is that Reuven takes only a HESSET oath because the essence of a claim against an informer does not involve money; the money issue only arises from the words of the informer.

There is authority that when Reuven takes the HESSET oath it must be in the presence of Shimon. It may be that Shimon's presence will embarrass Reuven thereby encouraging him to tell the truth. If Shimon pleads that he does not know who informed on him and he produces one witness who claims that it was Reuven, Reuven may take a HESSET oath of denial and the complaint against him will be dismissed. The one witness produced by Shimon may even be a Gentile who is known to be trustworthy.

Assume that the role of Reuven is performed by more than one person. Reuven and Levi, for example, informed on Shimon resulting in a brigand seizing assets from Shimon. Both Reuven and Levi are liable to Shimon. He may collect the entire amount in any way possible; if Reuven or Levi pays more than his half share to Shimon, the one who did so may seek restitution from the other.

If after Reuven informs a brigand, causing Shimon damages, Levi also informs the brigand about Shimon, Reuven must compensate for the entire damages, except if as a result of Levi's informing Shimon lost more than he would have lost had only Reuven informed the brigand. In this latter event, Levi must pay the overage. Ina situation in which Levi does not have to make forced payment to Shimon, he is still classified as a wicked person; Levi must undergo the same penance as Reuven.

If Reuven, the informer, dies, Shimon can collect the damages he suffered from Reuven's heirs to the extent that the heirs have inherited real estate from Reuven. There is an opinion that holds that Shimon can collect in this manner provided he had sued Reuven while Reuven was still alive.

Assume that a woman informs against Shimon. A woman's assets are given to her husband to use during their marriage. If she causes damages, the victim generally has to wait until she or her husband dies. If her husband dies first the victim can collect from her ketuba. If she dies first the husband must pay the victim out of the assets that he inherited from her.

The subject matter of this lesson is more fully discussed in volume X chapter 388 of A Restatement of Rabbinic Civil Law by E. Quint. Copies of all volumes can be purchased via email: orders@gefenpublishing.com and via website: www.israelbooks.com and at local Judaica bookstores. Questions to quint@inter.net.il