Об этом документе

Torah & Horaah — rabbi fleischman-vayikro - damaged bifocals of one who no longer required them — Vayikra 5786

Выпуск: Torah & Horaah — rabbi fleischman-vayikro - damaged bifocals of one who no longer required them — Vayikra 5786. Темы: relationships_shalom_bayit. Поисковые термины: шалом байт, брак, отношения, shalom bayit, marriage, שלום בית, זוגיות. D iN our site: WWW.dinonline.org.il THE TORAH& INTETNATIONAL BEIS HORAA The Institute for Dayanim HORAAH And under the auspices of Beis Horaah in memory of Baruch and Bracha Gross Vayikro 5786 372  Question in Choshen Mishpot  By Rabbi Yosef Fleischman Damaged Bifocals of One who no Longer Required Them Question I was careless and as a result I broke a person's glasses. However, the Gemoro rules that if The source of the issue is an explanation A sells his property to four individuals, B of the Nesivos (148, 1) in the case of can no longer traverse anyone's property person B whose field was surrounded on because each can say that perhaps B's path all four sides by neighbor A's field. certain that the interior neighbor, B, had a Tosafos asks why A does not have to pay 1 Questions in all areas of halacha can be submitted to the rabbanim of our Beis Horaah at www.dinonline.org B for his path, since he certainly received the liability of X who was negligent in his money from one of his customers for B's duty to watch Y's passport which resulted path, wherever it was. He cites the Nesivos but asks In order to answer this question, the that the Gemoro (Gittin 53A) rules that a Nesivos postulates that in the case of the person who damages the korbon of another Gemara, B did not own a path on A’s land, person is liable even though the Gemoro but just had a non-transferable right to (Pesachim 89B) rules that the owner of a korbon cannot sell his korbon. actual damage but because he caused the Since B did not own a path in A’s property, korbon's owner an expense since he needs A did not receive any money for selling to buy a new korbon and this causative B's property because B did not own any damage is classified as garmi. Therefore, according to the see in the ensuing that his explanation Nesivos, the claim that B can perhaps have is inconsistent with the explanations of against A is not that A received money Rashi and the Rambam.) from the sale of B's path but rather that by selling his land to various people, A Based on this Nesivos, he ruled that if the rendered unusable a right that B owned owner of the passport needed th

Издание

Torah & Horaah

Дата

20 марта 2026 г.

Страниц

4

Темы: relationships_shalom_bayit