- This topic has 19 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Do you still have an obligation to pay money owed to Jewish people or vendors if declaring Bankruptcy?
In Jewish law there is no concept of Bankruptcy or Statute of Limitations. Yesh din v’yesh dayan.
but in dini momoinois minhag hamedina takes precedence over halacha.
If you are asking for a halachic answer, I have no idea. If you are asking for the purpose of discussion I would say that dinei d’malchusa dina is by dinei momones, so maybe not.
Tzvi, In one word: Yes.
deiyezooger, Dinei momoinus takes precedences over dina d’malchusa.
n dini momoinois minhag hamedina takes precedence over halacha
im sure you phrased that incorrectly, but of course nothing takes precedence over Halachah.
if dinai mamonis follows the minhag medina then that is becuse that is the Halacha
There is concept of “mesadrin l’baal chov”. The idea is that we let him keep certain things.
If I remember correctly, it is a machlokes whether the concept exists. I only saw it mentioned once in a tosfos; I don’t remember where, but I think it was an amud beis.
In Jewish law there is no concept of Bankruptcy or Statute of Limitations.
Well, there is shmita…
The Wolf
im sure you phrased that incorrectly, but of course nothing takes precedence over Halachah.
if dinai mamonis follows the minhag medina then that is becuse that is the Halacha
That, my friend, is either a tautology or, perhaps, a version of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.
That’s not to say that it’s wrong, mind you…
The Wolf
but in dini momoinois minhag hamedina takes precedence over halacha.
Not really true. It does in examples where the item sold is unknown (like Mocher Shor, or Tzemed), but will not wave chovos.
I think what you mean is Dina D’Malchusa. And even there, I believe it is questionable at best if DDM will apply.
Ask your LOR.
I once asked my father this he replied absolutely not!
your debt stays forever
in fact when there were dayonim mumchin when they were able to judge kenosoys you would be sold as an eved (in certain cercumstances) if you couldn’t pay. there was no bankrupcy
I dont think “ddd” will pater up someone from paying.
Actually, there is likely room for bankruptcy law and statutes of limitations in halacha.
Statutes of limitations are discussed expressly in at least one Teshuv cited by the Pischei Teshuva in the early simanim of Choshen Mishpat (I can’t find the exact place right now, I will continue looking). Statute of limitations may be imposed as a communal enactment for the same reasons statutes of limitations exist in secular law systems – to provide defendants with security, to encourage plaintiff’s to bring their claims early while evidence is fresh, ect. The statute of limitations only binds those in the community in which it is enacted. Thus, if Reuvain from New York (which enacted a statute of limitations) brings a suit against Shimon in Lakewood (which has not statute of limitations), Shimon may not be able to claim the benefit of the New York statute of limitations (though this might depend on which city’s Beis Din the case is brought in).
As for bankruptcy law, it is true, there is always a chiyuv to repay money that is owed. However, Halachah does allow local communities to prioritize which creditors of an insolvent debtor will be paid in what order. For example, a community may decide that a bankrupt’s unpaid school tuition and shul membership dues must be paid first, while loans taken from individuals are paid second, loans from banks or businesses third, and unpaid tzedaka pledges last. Hakol l’fi minhag hamakom.
Pischei Choshen, Dinei Halva’ah, 2nd Perek says clearly that dina d’malchusa dina does not apply to bankruptcy law. Based upon the inability to identify the purposes of bankruptcy law and to explain why these polices are, or are not, for the benefit of the people of the land. There is also a difference between Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 protection as far as to how badly a person is trampling on the Shulchan Aruch.
In any event, a Jew would still halachically owe the money and Jewish debtors are still owed their money regardless of what protection a person might file.
http://www.torah.org/advanced/weekly-halacha/5765/bamidbar.html
QUESTION: In the U.S. and other countries, the law allows one to declare personal bankruptcy which frees him from the obligation of paying back his debts. Does the halachah, too, recognize the concept of personal bankruptcy?
DISCUSSION: No, it does not. While one who declares personal bankruptcy is not legally obligated to pay back his debts, he is still obligated to pay them back under Torah law. Thus one who avoids paying his debts because he has declared bankruptcy violates the Torah prohibition against stealing. (11) Even if one filed for bankruptcy years back and he has all but forgotten about his debts since he was legally exempt from paying them, he is still obligated to make every effort to pay back all of his debts, either to his creditors or, if they are no longer alive, to their estate. The legal concept of “statute of limitations” is not recognized by the halachah.(12)
11 See Koveitz ha-Poskim 26, pg. 221; Minchas Yitzchak 3:134; Pischei Choshen, Halvahah 2, note 63; Koveitz Meishiv ba-Halachah 9:129 and 10:141.
12 Pischei Choshen, Halvahah 2, note 72.
I’m not sure I understand the question. M’dinei Shamayim, you should repay money you owe, even if it can’t be collected in court or by a Beis Din.
If the lender/vendor wants to take you to Beis Din, the Beis Din will figure out whether or not at the time the debt was incurred, you intended to make the debt dependent on American law, which you would have been entitled to do.
Wouldn’t it depend on whether either (or parties) believe they were entering into a contract that would be governed by halacha, or one governed by American law. For example, American law allows sometimes outrageous interest, but allows the debtor not to pay. American law affords a very liberal share of estates to widows, but only if the estate is solvent, whereas any business dealing under halacha assumes that if the other party dies, his wife will get her share before the other creditors get paid. American law clearly allows parties to enter into a bargain that the contract is to be based on halacha, so does halacha allow the same amount of freedom of contract?
“In Jewish law there is no concept of Bankruptcy or Statute of Limitations. “
What of “Lo tonu et reiecha?” What of shmitat ksafim? How about minhag hashuk? and as has been pointed out minhag hamedina?
To be a “No True Scotsman” fallacy the last line would have had to have been something like “No true dinim take precedence over halacha”
I would say its “Begging the Question (petitio principii)”, because the second point is only true if you assume the first point is true.
There also may be a difference between a business loan that was interest bearing and a personal loan.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.