Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
There was a certain schul that I hate and I rented a dragon to devour the rabbi and the congregants.
When the dragon returned from its reign of terror, I find out that it didn't eat all the people, it only ate the Rov!
Is eating the rov considered like eating the whole thing or can I claim some of the money back from the lessor?
It is obvious in halacha that Rov is equivalent to the whole, for linguistic (רובא ככולא) and philosophical reasons (תלמוד תורה כנגד כולם and כבוד התורה חמירא).
However, it could be argued that in reality the Rabbi's whole role is to serve the people and therefore he is secondary to the congregation and if they weren't eaten, then it cannot be claimed that the dragon did its job. The proof that a rabbi is subservient to the people (besides for פוק חזי) iS that Rabbi (רב) has the numerical value of 202 which is numerically equivalent to "עבד עבדים" (a slave of slaves). this reveals that the rabbi is nothing in and of himself, but is wholly secondary to his congregation.
Since we have equally compelling arguments to support paying the dragon renter and not paying, we conclude המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה (the money stays where it is) in this case since the dragon-master already has the money, you have no right to demand it back.
I may be mistaken so correct me if I'm wrong, but from memory I believe there's a shita in gemara (I think Bava Basra perek yesh nochalin, but can't remember offhand), that if a shechiv mera (someone on his deathbed) writes over his property to his wife and his sons, he has equated the wife to all the sons, so the wife gets 1/2 and the sons split the other half. (The other shita holds the wife is just an apotropos for the property.)
Thus, since you hired the dragon to "devour the rabbi and the congregants", you have equated the rabbi to all the congregants, and the principle of "rubo k'kulo" does not apply since it has only fulfilled exactly half the contract.
Additionally, in Bava Metziah (somewhere towards the end, maybe perek hasocher es haumnin?) there is a rule that if contracted workers back out part way through the job, the ruling depends -- if there are other workers to finish the job, "ein alav elah tarumos," i.e. the employer has no legal recourse (but you would not need to pay for the full job). If there are no other workers, the employer is allowed to deceive them, i.e. claim to pay them more for finishing the job, but not actually give more in the end.
So the ruling here depends on whether there are other workers to finish the job. If so, you must hire others, if not, you can deceive the dragon with a promise of higher wages.
While רובו ככולו would not normally apply to contract law, in this case one might say that it does because dragon attacks are understood to leave some survivors. However, on a closer reading of the terms of your contract with the dragon it appears that the dragon cannot claim רובו ככולו because the contract specifies both the Rov and the congregation. Thus in order to fulfill his terms, the dragon must eat a majority of the congregation in addition to the Rov.
All that being said, having a din torah with someone is no excuse for rudeness. Dragons are intelligent beings and are hired, not rented like cattle.
