S E P H A R D I C Family, Business, & Jewish Life Through the Prism of Halacha VOLUME 5779 • ISSUE XVI • PARASHAT BESHALAH • A PUBLICATION OF THE SEPHARDIC HALACHA CENTER somewhat of a stretch, being that if the fire THE caused damage far away from the original place where it started there is almost certain- and CALIFORNIA ly some obstructions in between, and it is un- likely that all the damage caused by the fire WILDFIRES: was done through a direct path. Part 2: More on who is responsible to Another factor that we need to keep in A Parashat Beshalah Audio Shiur Summary by Dayan Shlomo Cohen pay for wildfires and for what? mind is that one is only liable for the dam- age caused by his fire if then fire was spread Rabbi Yosef Greenwald The Hametz Index: Owning Shares through a “Ruah Metzuyah” – lit. common of Companies Dealing in Hametz ELECTRICAL FIRE: wind – or, anticipatable force. If the fire only We are not allowed to own any Hametz over In Part 1 of this series, we stated that if spread because it came into contact with Pessah. The custom in most communities to- someone lights a fire in a way that it should a “Ruah She’eina Metzuyah”, uncommon technically have been stopped before reach- day is to sell the Hametz in our possession to a wind, the igniter would not be liable because ing his friend’s property – for example, a wall non-Jew over Pessah. What happens if you own separated the two fields – all opinions would there is no reason to think that such a wind shares in companies that deal with Hametz? agree that the fire has the status of Mamon will suddenly appear and he is therefore not HaMazik (damaging via one’s “property”, considered negligent. Let us explain how corporations work. According as opposed to damaging in person) and, to law, a corporation is considered to be a sep- therefore, the exemption of Tamun (hidden In California, wind gusts that are strong arate entity, apart from the shareholders. That’s objects) would apply. However, if there was enough to cause large forest fires may not why it is also has limited liability, meaning that it nothing obstructing the path of the fire, Ribbi be everyday occurrences; however, they do Yohanan, whose view we follow, holds that is not liable for more than the value of its assets, occur sporadically and are certainly not un- the fire has the status of Adam HaMazik while its shareholders are exempt. Is such a type (damaging in person), in which case the igniter heard of. Does this satisfy the criteria of Ruah of ownership a problem of owning Hametz? is liable for all damages. Metzuyah? There are two types of corporations: a private Regarding electrical fires, there are several The Hazon Ish1 understands this to be the corporation, in which the shareholders have a variables to take into account. subject of a disagreement between Tosafot2 say and power to influence the company’s de- and Rabbenu Peretz3, who disagree whether If the electrical system was set up negligent- cisions. Such a company would be viewed by a wind that is not the norm but is not com- ly, which caused a spark to shoot out of the Halacha as a partnership and – although there pletely out of the realm of normalcy is con- faulty mechanism that led to a fire, this would would be a limited liability according to Hala- sidered a Ruah Metzuyah or not. Since the seemingly fall under the category of a fire cha – there would still be a problem of Halacha is in doubt, a contemporary Bet Din that should technically have been stopped. owning its Hametz. This is because the spark cannot cause dam- cannot obligate someone to pay compen- However, with regards to a age on its own and only creates a fire if it lands sation for a fire that only spread because of public company with on something flammable. Therefore, there is such an uncommon – but not unheard of – millions of shares, al- much room to say that everyone would agree gust of wind. though they may spotlight that such a case would fall under the catego- IS THE FIRESTARTER A MURDERER? have some ry of Mamon HaMazik, and would be subject It is clear that according to all opinions – even “voting” Even Ha’Ezer to the exemption of Tamun. Habura meets attorneys according to Resh Lakish, that Esh (damage (continued However, if someone installed wiring that via fire) is usually Mishum Mamono (and not One of the challenges inherent on back) in providing Even Haezer services, was so faulty that the entire mechanism considered as a person’s direct act) – that if is ensuring that all agreements are both went up in flames, which led to a large infer- Halachically and legally binding. To this no, this could theoretically fall under the cat- end, the Even Ha’Ezer Habura recently hosted 1 Bava Kama 5:2 Mr. John Panzer Esq. and Mr. Jeff Epstein, Esq., for a egory of Adam HaMazik and be considered 2 Bava Kama 59 presentation on the relevant legal issues. a direct result of his actions. However, this is 3 Cited in Shita Mekubetzet, ibid (continued on back) Don’t miss our upcoming Business Halacha Journal topic on Ribbit. Don’t yet receive it? Visit www.TheSHC.org, call us at 732.9300.SHC (742) or email [email protected] (continued from front pg.) someone would actually kill someone else by bat. throwing a firebomb at him, he would be la- We see from the Nimuke Yosef that on a con- The beled a murderer and would be Biblically liable ceptual level, the burning of the fire that one for the death penalty. We may ask, however, lit is considered a direct action done by him, in what the Halacha would be according to Rib- which seemingly would make him liable if the bi Yohanan if someone would light a fire that fire kills someone. This is the view of Tosafot. spread through a direct path and ultimately The Ran, though, disagrees. Bring the Daf to Life! killed somebody. Would this be categorized an Bet Din today does not mete out capital pun- act of murder? מסכת חולין ishment. What is applicable is the rule of “Kim This would seem to be a disagreement between Leh Bid’Rabbah Mineh”, which means that in 4 Tosafot and the Ran , who argue whether one a case where someone causes a loss of life – can be liable to capital punishment for death be it intentional or accidental – the Torah tells This Week's Topics caused through such an act of Adam HaMazik. us that he is not liable for monetary damages We find a similar discussion regarding the that occurred as a result of the same action. RAV YEHOSHUA GRUNWALD Hilchot Shabbat. The Nimuke Yosef famously For instance, if someone causes a car accident DAYAN, BAIS HAVAAD LAKEWOOD asks how it is permitted to put food up to cook that kills another driver and also damages his RAV YOSEF GREENWALD on a fire before the onset of Shabbat. If lighting car, Bet Din cannot hold the driver account- DAYAN, BAIS HAVAAD YERUSHALAYIM a fire burning is akin to a direct action done by able for the monetary damage. Thus, if some- RAV ELIEZER COHEN the lighter (Isho Mishum Hitzo), then when the one firebombs someone else’s house, thereby ROV OF BAIS MEDRASH TIFERES ELIEZER fire cooks food on Shabbat, it should be consid- causing a loss of life, Bet Din cannot pursue the ered as if the lighter is cooking directly on Shab- financial damages done to the house. KITNIYOS: CONCEPTS & HALACHOS דף נ"ב bat. How is this permitted? However, if the victim has some recourse, for QUESTIONABLE TREIFOS דף נ"ג He answers that, indeed, it is considered as if he example he is a business partner with the cooked on Shabbat; however, it is only forbid- fire starter and is able to be “Tofes”, hold onto, PLEASE RISE: STANDING UP FOR A CHOSSON דף נ"ד den to do an act of Melacha on Shabbat itself, funds that belong to the perpetrator, he would AND KALLA whereas this individual did no action on Shab- be allowed to keep that money5. RABBINICAL MEASURES: TO BE STRICT OR דף נ"ה LENIENT? 4 Sanhedrin 77 5 Hoshen Mishpat, Siman 4 ?TREIFOS: HAVE TIMES CHANGED דף נ"ו ?SEEING IS BELIEVING דף נ"ז (continued from front pg.) rights, they shares this may be a problem. INSPECTING FOR INSECTS דף נ"ח cannot exert This logic would also permit one to own stocks and any influence in companies that are: dealing in non-Kosher as to the run- items; open on Shabbat or lending with inter- ning of the est. The Minhat Yitzhak argues on Rav Moshe company. Rav Moshe Feinstein points to this and forbids owning even minimal amounts own any stocks, due to the other transgressions fact and permits one to own shares in such of stock. Thus, the Sale of Hametz contract involved. companies, even though they own Hametz in many places includes selling one’s stocks Pension funds also invest in stocks, and would (he understands that owning a share is merely (which would raise an issue with regards to div- be included in this issue according to the Minhat buying a portion of the profits of the compa- idends given on Pessah). According to the Min- Yitzhak. Some say that the Minhat Yitzhak would ny).