13

In the Talmud, it is stated that if you lose something that you know cannot be returned to you (e.g., if a river overflows or if it had no identifiers), even though you know it's yours, you lose all hope of getting it back and therefore, it's as good as gone. If I find something like that, I could safely assume that the owner lost hope of getting it back ...


11

Thanks to Reddit user Bar Kappara (by way of @Isaac Moses) for this answer: Devarim Rabba 3:3: It is told of Rabbi Shimon ben Shetach that he once purchased an ass from an Ishmaelite. When his disciples came, they found a jewel suspended from its neck and said, "Master, 'The blessing of Hashem, it makes rich.'" [Proverbs 10:22] Rabbi Simon ben Shetach ...


11

There's a famous analysis of the two stamp question attributed to R. Chaim Soloveitchik - it's cited here, albeit without any source. Reb Chaim Soloveitchik raised the following question regarding this scenario - there only exists two of a certain type of stamp and they both belong to one individual. Since two of these stamps exist, they are each ...


11

The difference is discussed extensively in the eighth perek of Ketubot. נכסי מלוג refers to assets that a woman brings into the marriage, or which falls to her as either an inheritance or as a gift after she has married, but which are not included in the value of the ketubah. The word melog comes from the Aramaic מליגה, which means "plucking": her husband ...


10

I would think that the normal assumption for an employee discount would that it would be for the personal use of the employee and not for his friends and not for him to do business with. I am supported in this by this article about the Original Employee Discount. He quotes: “When you come [to work] in your neighbor’s vineyard, then you may eat the ...


10

There's a whole article by Rabbi Yaacov Feit about this in the Journal of Beth Din of America, vol. I called, unsurprisingly, "The Prohibition Against Going to Secular Courts." It begins: The Torah states (Exodus 21:1), “Ve’eleh ha-mishpatim asher tasim lifneihem,” “And these are the statutes which you shall place before them.” The Talmud (Gittin 88b), ...


10

Tosafot on Sanhedrin 36a s.v. dinei nefashot is bothered by your question as to why we're not concerned that junior judges can't argue on the senior judge in monetary cases. They suggest two possible resolutions: A junior judge is always allowed to argue on the senior judge b'derech she'elah (through asking leading questions, rather than directly ...


10

I understand that this Halacha reflects the economic realities of the Mishna, where pretty much everyone was producing small handicraft and traded them. It could reasonably be assumed that you could sell the black wool as easily as raw wool or red wool, so it has a definite increase in value. While you may not have any interest in dealing with it, the wool ...


9

The Talmud in Bava Kama 91a talks about inducing panic in someone -- "our courts can't charge the person, but Heaven will take him to task." I would assume the same would apply here, at first glance. (I'm not well-read on the halachic literature on the subject.) The classical examples of charging for embarrassment involve physical actions such as spitting ...


9

No. Deceiving anyone including a non-Jew is strictly forbidden. Even if the non-Jew suffers no loss.And even if the deception is not explicit lying. The Gemora (Chullin 94A)says: “Shmuel says, it is forbidden to deceive people, even non-Jews One practical example given there is sending non-kosher food to a non-Jew who thinks it is kosher. Although it ...


8

Encyclopedia Talmudit discusses this question, at the entry "הפקר בית דין," section ד. Some ראשונים hold1, based on the gemara Gittin 36b, that הפקר בית דין can only be done with a בית דין of the caliber of that of רב אמי and רב אסי, and hence it cannot be done today. Others posit that the comparison to רב אמי ורב אסי is not literal, but is really meant ...


8

The sefer Shaarei Daas on Bava Kama says that to destroy one shoe is not considered as damage to the other shoe, for the lack of one shoe does not destroy or maintain the viability of the second shoe. Rather, that one is unable to use the second shoe, but that is not called damage that one is culpable to pay damages for, rather the damager must pay for just ...


8

According to R Tzvi Spitz in his book, Cases in Monetary Halacha, yes you do. He brings the following points Just as there is a mitzvah to return lost objects to their owner, so it is obligatory to save a fellow Jew from incurring a loss of any kind if one is able to do so One acting in this manner has fulfilled a Torah commandment and, conversely, if he ...


8

When you purchase a DVD like you are describing, there is a 'terms of use' agreement, a 'terms and conditions' of sale and multiple copyrights (often in compliance with different jurisdictions around the globe). They all must be agreed to in order to purchase the product legally. There are also follow up warnings of those agreements and conditions that come ...


8

Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De’ah 16:6 writes that as soon as one sells an animal, he may not slaughter its offspring/parent that day, as the sale is done with the intent that the purchaser may slaughter the animal he has bought immediately. שמיד כשמכר לראשון לא היה יכול לשחוט את שנשאר בידו שהלוקח לקח על מנת לשחוט מיד Thus, the first right to slaughter resides ...


7

Chatam Sofer Yoreh De'ah 134 writes pretty definitively that paper money is considered money for virtually all purposes: אבל גדר המטבע הוא שגזר המלך עליו שתצא ומי שממאן מלמכר וליקח באותו המטבע יחייב ראשו למלכות ... ואין חילוק אם יהי' זהב או כסף או נייר The definition of a coin is that which the king has decreed to be legal tender such that anyone who ...


7

See here for an interesting point on this. However, the facts remain: the laws of ribbit are found in Yoreh Deah (which deals with what is permitted and what is forbidden), whereas ona’ah is discussed in Choshen Mishpat (which deals with monetary matters). Ribbit is about the prohibition of lending/borrowing, and not that concerned with returning such ...


7

No. One who borrows an item without permission from the owner is conidered a gazlan (שואל שלא מדעת גזלן), and like all cases of stealing, must return the item (והשיב את הגזילה אשר גזל). He is not required to purchase the item or to pay for the usage. If any damage was caused, however, he must pay the full value of the product, not just the amount the item ...


6

R. Asher Weiss addresses this question in his responsa Minchat Asher (siman 111, p. 378). Here is my paraphrase: A person may have an item which is worth a great deal to him for sentimental reasons, such as an object that he inherited from his ancestors, or a picture of his parents or a family album, even though these items have no value on the market, they ...


6

Rav Asher Weiss has a teshuvah about use of paper money for pidyon ha-ben. The basis for the question is that the Gemara (Bechoros 51a) states that one may not use shtaros for pidyon ha-ben because they are not "themselves money" (gufan mamon). He cites four views about the status of paper money today: הנה נחלקו האחרונים בדין כסף בזה"ז אם הוי גופו ממון ...


6

According to Beth Din of America, Reuvain can end up with Shimon in Beit Din in three ways: Parties may end up before a beth din either: under a preexisting contractual provision that requires the resolution of a dispute before that beth din, after they have mutually agreed to have that beth din decide a dispute or because they have ...


6

There is a grest deal of Jewish literature on Business Ethics. But to the point of your question see this article at Jewish Law from where I abstracted this quote under HONESTY IN THE MARKETPLACE. Any type of deceptive act or practice, including deceptive advertisements and deceptive packaging, would also be a violation of the Biblical ...


6

This is an argument in Rishonim. The answer is not directly stated anywhere in the Talmud. The Sefer Yereim in Siman 178 says that it is comparable to the fifth added to Teruma, where it is paid to the Beis Din to distribute to whomever they want. However, he isn't certain about it. The other option is that it is paid to the initially accused. The תועפות ...


6

Yoreh Deah siman 159 is the halacha that it is permitted to loan to a non-Jew with interest. This is there, because it is following on the heels of other halachos related to how we treat non-Jews. In siman 160, the Tur starts by saying רבית הואיל ואתא לידן נימא ביה מלתא As long as we've mentioned interest, let's talk about it a little bit. Both the Bach ...


6

Tosefta, Chulin 5 (quoted by Rashi, Chulin 82a לענין; and quoted in Riff): הלוקח מבעל הבית הוא קודם לבעל הבית שמתחלה לא לקחו אלא על מנת כן One who purchases a cow from someone may be the first to slaughter, for that was his intention in buying it.


6

There are a lot of details about this depending exactly what kind of mistake it was and who was harmed how and how easy it is to get the money back if possible. See Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat 25. Broadly speaking, if the rabbi is an expert and the petitioner accepted him as their decisor in this matter then the rabbi is exempt since he unintentionally ...


5

I cannot provide the name of a posek allowing the use of pirated software. Most Internet references to rabbanim allowing this are anonymous and along the lines of "a friend has told me", "I heard from", etc. @thepoosh cites R Dov Lior as allowing it but it is not at all clear that the laws of asheivat aveida (lost objects) apply to this case as the ...


5

Journal of the Beth Din of America 1:1, page 32: -3. Non- Jews: Tashbetz assumes that, technically speaking, the prohibition against litigating in secular court would apply even in the context of a non-Jewish adversary. However, one may assume that a non-Jew will not willingly appear before a beit din, and accordingly one may bring the non-Jew before ...


5

Good question. A freed slave did not go to another master. He obtained the status of a full-fledged Jew. (In fact, many of the laws pertaining to converts in the Talmud are actually phrased as "converts and freed slaves.")


5

It is indeed a problem to "give" the lulav to a minor for the reasons you have stated. Lending somebody a lulav does indeed mean that they have not performed the mitzvah as they must own it. However as a minor does not perform mitzvot anyway and you only give the lulav to him for practice, you can "lend" him the lulav so he can learn to perform the mitzvah ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible