Lesson # 430 (part two) Informers We concluded the last lesson by showing that the informer is not liable to the victim of the informing in two situations. One such situation was shown there and now we are up to the second situation. Shimon seeks to flee paying his debts to his creditors. Reuven informs his creditors who then stop Shimon. Reuven is not an informer since Shimon is indebted to his creditors. However, if as a result of Reuven informing the creditors Shimon pays more than his debts, Reuven must compensate Shimon for such loss. Some codes speak of the practice of Beit Din or community leaders to advise merchants regarding those who seek to purchase on credit and do not pay their bills or borrow and do not repay their loans. This extends to all types of business practices, naming those who adulterate company products or those who pass off gold plate for solid gold. The codes speak of this as a commendable practice to be instituted in all communities. It is maintained that when the Gentiles observe such practices they will respect Jewish beliefs. Reuven is liable to Shimon for the value of the property or money seized under the following circumstances: 1. Reuven voluntarily informs about Shimon's assets without being threatened with physical harm to disclose Shimon's assets. 2. As a result of Reuven's actions the brigands know of Shimon's assets. For example, Shimon retains Reuven to sell a precious stone for him. Reuven decides not to sell the stone and returns the stone to Shimon in front of a brigand. The brigand then forcibly takes the stone from Shimon. Reuven should have returned the precious stone privately. Another example is if two partners, Reuven and Shimon, loan money to the ruler of the state. The ruler forces Reuven to forgive the entire debt, which he does. In this case Reuven is free of liability to Shimon for his half of the debt. 3. A brigand threatens Reuven with monetary loss if he does not disclose where Shimon is and/or where Shimon has his assets. Reuven is liable to Shimon for the value of the assets and he is liable to Shimon for all of Shimon's suffering. 4. If a brigand threatens Reuven even with physical harm to disclose his own assets, and he shows the brigand Shimon's assets or if he shows the brigand both his own and Shimon's assets. 5. If the brigand threatens Reuven even with physical harm, to bring him provisions, without specifying Shimon's provisions, and Reuven tells the brigand that Shimon has such provisions; the brigand takes Shimon's provisions. 6. Reuven physically touches the assets that he hands over to a brigand. This applies even if he was forced by the brigand to do so. For example, Reuven and Shimon are in dispute as to ownership of property, real or personal, each one claiming sole ownership. Reuven turns the property over to a brigand or governmental official. Beit Din will compel Reuven to retrieve the property that he handed over and Beit Din will determine the ownership. However, technically Reuven is not an informer, since he had not intended that the brigand would keep the property but would only hold it to preserve it for Reuven. There is authority that Reuven is deemed to be an informer in this situation and is therefore liable to Shimon for the loss. This assumes that Shimon is willing to go to Beit Din to have the matter of ownership adjudicated. If Shimon refuses, even according to the dissent Reuven is not an informer. There is a dissent regarding this rule. It holds that if Reuven is coerced by threat it does not matter whether he actually physically touches Shimon's assets or if he only tells the brigand where it is located. Either way Reuven is not liable. In none of the six situations listed above is Reuven threatened with physical harm to disclose Shimon's assets. 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. In a previous lesson we discussed when the proximate cause is liable for the damages or injuries that he caused; (IYH we will discuss this phase of halacha more fully in the future.) (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 the 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. (Reuven's mere words make him liable.) (d) to make the payment from his higher quality property (IDIT), if he pays from real property. In a past lesson we discussed the various grades of real estate that the halacha recognizes. If the debt arose from a from a tort and Reuven the tortfeasor does not have money to pay for compensation, Shimon the victim can levy on Reuven's real estate for payment. Assuming that Reuven has different quality parcels of real estate the Torah stipulates that the payment must be made out of the best of Reuven's real estate. From the IDIT. To pay ordinary debts when the debtor does not have the cash the payment is made from the BEINONIT real estate. Real estate is classified into three categories, as follows: IDIT, the highest quality; BEINONIT, the medium quality; and ZIBURIT, the lowest quality. They are classified according to production per acre. The highest quality cost more per acre than does the medium quality land which in turn costs more than the same acreage of lowest quality land. For the same price one would obtain a smaller area of highest quality land than he would have had he purchased medium quality land. The greatest area for the same price would be if he purchased the lowest quality land. These distinctions will IYH be discussed in a future lesson The subject matter of this lesson is more fully discussed in A Restatement of Rabbinic Civil Law by E. Quint. Copies of all volumes can be purchased at local Judaica bookstores. Questions to quint@inter.net.il [The Parshat Sh'lach Homepage]
|
