Dinei Torah vs. Dinei Shomayim

Home Forums Bais Medrash Dinei Torah vs. Dinei Shomayim

  • This topic has 7 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by Sam2.
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
  • #591939

    Reuven fired Shimon for NO cause. Shimon NEVER brought Reuvein to a Din Torah, but has made it clear that he has a hakpadah against Reuvein. Shimon has worked for eight years but hasn’t made as much money as when he was in his desired field.

    1] If Shimon brings Reuven to Din Torah is the residual affects of Reuven’s actions (8 years of salary losses) admissable and factored into the psak din, or can Bais Din say mazlach garma?

    2] If Shimon NEVER brings Reuvein to din Torah, is Reuven off the hook medinei shomayim even though he caused damages?

    3] If YES, can Reuven bring Shimon to a din Torah to force him to accept payment in order to free himself medinei shomayim?


    Shimon isn’t entitled to a job with Reuven, or if he has a job he isn’t entitled to perpetual employment with Reuven.

    Reuven doesn’t need cause to discontinue employing Shimon. Employment is “at will”. Reuven can one day wake up and decide he no longer wants to pay someone to fill the position Shimon is currently filling. Or he can wake up one day and decide he wants to give the job to his son rather than continue Shimon in it. This is fully within the scope of halacha (and incidentally secular law.)

    Shimon isn’t entitled to have Reuven pay him “to make as much money as when he was in his desired field.”

    1] Shimon has no case against Reuven in Beis Din.

    2] Reuven didn’t wrong Shimon to be liable in Beis Din shel Maaleh or Beis Din shel Mateh.

    3] Reuven never caused Shimon damages and thus there are no damages due.


    that sounds wrong


    i agree. what halacha in shulchan aruch says mr. A has to hire or keep hired mr. B?



    i never understood these questions.

    it sounds like it happened to you, pick up the phone call a rav, or toyan and see if you have a case instead of getting advice from a coffee room.


    Employment is “at will” in secular law, but not necessarily in halachah. For example, a synagogue can’t simply fire a rabbi for no reason. And in some cases, a father’s job can be inherited by his son. This is one more example where the laissez-faire capitalism we observe in secular law is not consistent with Torah law.


    Charlie: A Rov’s job protection and ability to pass his rabbinical position to his son is a special halacha for that position. It is not the normative halacha for all employees.


    Joseph: R’ Moshe disagrees with you. He seems to think employees have a Chazakah on their jobs and can’t be fired without cause.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.