1

Generally הודעת בעל דין כמאה עדים דמי, MiGzeiras Hakosuv. However, in a case of שחב לאחרים, where his admission to debt or the like would cause others some loss, the baal din still has Neemonus, unless there is a חשש קנוניא, a suspicion that the Tovea and the Nitba have colluded together to gain money of לקוחות.

I am trying to grasp the definition of חשש קנוניא. Is that simply a situation which would permit the possibility of a קנוניא, thus automatically the Baal Din cannot be Modeh anymore, or conversely, is it just a situation which the Bes Din has solid rational to believe that they may be plotting, but generally without reason to suspect them, even if the case could allow a possibility of plotting, but Min Hastam without any based suspicion he is believed?

Reuven, amongst others, invested money into Shimons project, which לקוחות baught into. The project reached some diffulties and did not see through. Reuven wants to claim his money back from Shimon, and shimon, is Modeh to Reuvens claim, and least from some of the money. However, Reuven getting his money back would mean it being collected from לקוחות that the money was invested into.

That case could be a possibility of colluding, but the Bes Din has no basis to suspect them of such. Is Shimons Hodoah that he indeed owes Reuven money, automatically invalid due to such a possibility, and it is regarded by the Bes Din as חשש קנוניא, or not.

I would appreciate any sources to do with the above question or case. Many thanks in advance!

5
  • Welcome to MY! Please consider reading this post: judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1606/15256 Jul 11, 2021 at 13:13
  • 1
    Can we assume your referring to the sugya in Bava Metzia 13a? In that case, we have to assume that your case is referring to someone who has a contract, because without one they can't take anything from the buyers. However even with a contract, the suspicion of collaboration should be brought up by bais din on behalf of the buyers (taninan). So regardless of the basis of suspicion, we would tayna on their behalf and prevent them from collecting.
    – Chatzkel
    Jul 11, 2021 at 14:20
  • In regards to the specifics in the case you mentioned, it would seem that the project is a building or development of some sort. In such a case, usually, the original investor put in the money before the property was developed and made available for sale. Therefore, the buyers would only be buying something that Shimon acquired after the initial investment. Since he didn't own it at the time of the loan and sold it before the time of payment, then Reuven would not be able to collect from such buyers.
    – Chatzkel
    Jul 12, 2021 at 3:18
  • The Chidushei HaRim (Gittin 13b) writes: אך באמת קי"ל בש"ע (סי' קה סע' ג) דאף דתופס לבע"ח במקום שחב לאחרים לא קנה מ"מ היכא שלוה עצמו נותן לו לתפוס שפיר זכה בשבילו אף שחב לאחרים דדוקא כשתופס שלא ברצון הלוה לא קנה כו' ע"ש, וא"כ ממילא לא שייך מ"ש דאם יאמר לו זכי יהיה שפיר מהני אף שחב לאחרים. Meaning seemingly that where the lender is readily giving over by himself, that it does work to take from the buyers?
    – Reb Moishe
    Jul 20, 2021 at 4:23
  • Hoda'as baal din is a hanhagah, not a ne'emanus, because he does not have any. Therefore in a case where it is chav le'acherim (possibly) the hanhagah does not apply because the affected parties are not responsible for his hanhagah.
    – pcoz
    Dec 9, 2021 at 0:18

1 Answer 1

0

At least according to the Rambam (Hilchos Gzeilah Vaaveidah 18:13), seems like it's anytime there's even a possibility of a plot. He says:

וְאִם הָיָה הַחַיָּב מוֹדֶה וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁהוֹדָה כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת קְנוּנְיָא עַד שֶׁיַּפְסִיד אֶת הַלּוֹקֵחַ אוֹ מְקַבֵּל מַתָּנָה שֶׁלְּקָחוֹ אַחַר זְמַן הַשְּׁטָר כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּפְרְעוּ מִיָּדָם שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יַחְזִיר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם מוֹדִים. וְכָל שְׁטָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ צַד לַחֲשָׁשׁ לֹא לְפֵרָעוֹן וְלֹא לִקְנוּנְיָא יַחְזִיר לִבְעָלָיו:

Even when the debtor admits that the debt is outstanding, if it is possible that he is making that admission to deceive a purchaser or a recipient of a present who acquired the debtor's property after the date mentioned on the document, so that the creditor could expropriate the property from them dishonestly, the document should not be returned although both the creditor and the debtor acknowledge the debt.

When, however, there is no reason to suspect that a monetary obligation has been repaid or that deception is being perpetrated, a legal document should be returned.

Also note that if the dayanim have specific reasons to believe that a party to the case is arguing fraudulently, then in principle* they can override the normal rules of evidence anyway (Hilchos Sanhedrin ch. 24). So if the concerns about קנוניא were only when there's reason to suspect fraud, there wouldn't have to be general rules set out for it.

* Though he goes on to say that in post-Talmudic times that's not applied in practice.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .