L' Kavod the jerk who stole my step ladder that was saving my parking spot that i spent four hours digging out of...it's the return of...
mordy
I plan on giving a shiur this week on the propriety of saving parking
spots on public streets/ stealing a spot that has been saved with
chairs etc./ exacting revenge on people who steal your spot (minhag
hamakom in chicago)
I presented the question to the CJF rabbinic responsa resource (or
rCUBE) and Rabbi Flug responded with a blog post he wrote a few weeks
back ) (looking for other mekoros if anyone has 'em...jake "yadin
yadin" lewin i'm looking in your direction)
Can One Acquire a Public Parking Space by Digging out the Space?
In certain cities there is a “minhag” that if you dig the snow out of
a parking space, it is yours for a certain amount of time. (http://
www.nytimes.com/2010/12/29/us/29boston.html?_r=1&src=mv). In the wake
of the recent snowstorm in the NY Metro area, there are those in NYC
who are saving parking spaces that they dug out. This is a great
topic for a shiur and perhaps we will add it to the shiur outline
schedule. In the meantime, here is one observation. The Gemara, Baba
Basra 21b, states that if someone places a net to catch fish, the
other fishermen must distance themselves from the net because the
original fisherman has exclusive rights to those fish. Tosafos,
Kiddushin, 59a, s.v. Ani, discuss why nobody else is allowed to catch
those fish, especially in light of Rabbeinu Tam’s opinion that
anything that is hefker is open to anyone, even if someone else is
known to be pursuing it. Tosafos initially suggest that the case of
the fish is unique in that we are dealing with someone’s livelihood-
something that cannot be said about a parking spot. However, Tosafos
then quote, Rabbeinu Meir, Rabbeinu Tam’s father, who was of the
opinion that the fisherman has exclusive rights to the fish because he
is the one who put in the effort that caused the fish to gravitate
towards his net. Rabbeinu Meir might advocate the digger’s right to
the parking spot.
Another factor to consider is how long the digger would retain rights
to the spot. He certainly does not retain it forever. The NYT times
article references a forty-eight hour rule that is accepted in
Boston. However, in a place where there is no “minhag,” there
certainly is no forty-eight hour rule. Perhaps, following the idea of
Rabbeinu Meir, the spot belongs to the digger as long as parking there
is only possible due to the efforts of the digger. Once the snow
starts to melt and it is possible to park there regardless of the
original effort, the digger has lost his zechus.
If you have further questions, or you are looking to explore a
specific angle, please let me know.
Kol Tuv,
Josh Flug
Isaac Rice
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "iChabura" group.
To post to this group, send email to cha...@googlegroups.com
Any questions, email iChabur...@gmail.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
chabura+u...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/chabura?hl=en
Jacob Lewin
In Shulchan Aruch (CM 273:12), he says that public property, like an ocean or desert, cannot be acquired, although contents within can be acquired as they are hefker. The difference is that one cannot be zoche and acquire something which is attached/considered ground. Something movable, however, can be acquired as hefker. Additionally, the concept of "acquisition through effort" (like the ani w/ olives case) is only allows for ownership because of darchei shalom and (unless there was a true kinyan) it would not be gezel gamur to take it from the person who exerted effort.
Based on that, with the parking space, the person is not being koneh anything tangible, as it is still "attached" to the ground. This doesnt even create an ownership at the level of "darchei shalom." Therefore, the person has not acquired it, and has no claim of right. BUT, as R'Schaffel suggests, it may be a nice thing to do to give them the spot, because of yashrus.
mordy
In terms of minhag vs. dina d’malchusa, see Rashba, Gittin 10a (and
the sugya itself). According to Rashba, dina d’malchusa has inherent
value and perhaps according to him it would trump local minhag. He
then quotes Rabbeinu Yonah that dina d’malchusa is only effective in
the area of kinyanim because people adopt it as the minhag. If so, in
a case where the people don’t accept it as the minhag, the minhag
would beat dina d’malchusa. This case might be a little different if
the dina d’malchusa is not intended to undo the “kinyan” but rather to
make the streets look presentable and clean.
In terms of taking the law into one’s own hands, below is an outline
from a shiur I gave on Baba Kama 27b, where the sugya is discussed.
However, the sugya is really only applicable in terms of recovering a
loss or preventing someone from harming you. In this case, scratching
someone’s car is not going to get your parking space back nor will it
prevent him from stealing your spot next time (unless you live on a
block where there are only a few houses and this fellow is constantly
taking your spot).
IN terms of the issur of nekama, I am attaching a sefer the summarizes
these halachos. Basically, you can take action against someone to
teach him a lesson if there is no intent to take revenge, but this is
something that that we hear all the time (I am not angry at him- I
just want to make sure that he does the right thing next time).
עביד איניש דינא לנפשיה
I. שאלות
a. האם זה בא מכח שליח ב"ד או מטעם שיכול הוא לעשות לעצמו
b. האם הוא בעצם דין באיסור והיתר או דין בממון
c. מהי נקודת המחל' בין ר"י ורב נחמן
d. למה בעינן עאד"ל, הלוא בגזל לכאורה מותר להפרישו מאיסור
II. שיטת הרא"ש
a. בסוגיין משמע דהוא בעצם משום שהוא שליח ב"ד
b. אם הוא משום שליח ב"ד, לכאורה אין זה רק איסור והיתר אלא דין
ממון
c. בפרק קמא יש מחל' בינו לבין רבינו מאיר ובקונט' שיעו' מבואר
דהמחל' על איזה כח ב"ד יש לו האם יש כח רק לכפות על הדין או אפי' יש לו
כח לחתוך את הדין
d. הסבר המחל' ר"י ור"נ משמע מהרא"ש אם הטירחו לילך לב"ד מקרי הפסד
i.
לרש"י הטירחו לילך ברה"ר הוי הפסד
ii.
אף שהתוס' חולקין, וגם הגהות אשרי ג"כ חולק (אף שמסכים בעצם להרא"ש), מ"מ
יש לומר שהם רק חולקים בשיעור הטירחא
III. שיטת רבינו אפרים (שטמ"ק)
a. אף דקיי"ל כר"נ בדינא, זה לו הוי דינא משום שהוא בעצם איסור
והיתר
b. לפי זה קשה לומר דהוא משום שליח ב"ד אלא צ"ל שחכמים התקינו שאדם
יכול להכות בשביל דבר שיש לו
IV. שיטת הרמב"ם
a. ממה שכתב אין סותרין את דינו משמע שאפי' באופן שלא היה מנצח
בדין אין מפקיעין ממנו (כגון ממון המוטל בספק)
i.
זה דלא כהרא"ש דעאד"ל הוא דוקא אם ברור שיזכה בדין
ii.
קשה לומר כן מפני שהטור ג"כ הביא לשון זה וודאי מסכים אם הרא"ש
b. אפשר לומר שהרמב"ם סובר דאפי' במקום דאיכא קנס אבל לא היה זכאי
בדין, אין מפקיעין ממנו כגון היכא דליכא עדים.
c. המשנה למלך הביא קושיית המהרש"ך מהל' עבדים ותירץ שהרמב"ם סובר
שאינו יכול להכות אא"כ איכא פסידא
i.
המשנה למלך הביא ראיה לזה מסוגיא אחרת
ii.
עדיין קשה שהרמב"ם לא הזכיר ענין הכאה אלא לגבי עבד שמסרב לצאת והתם הוא
לענין אפרושי מאיסורא
iii.
שמא יש לומר שהרמב"ם סובר שאה"נ מותר להכות בגזל משום אפרושי מאיסורא אבל
משום הפסד לא
1. הנתיבות כבר העיר בזה שהיאך יכול להכות ע"פ סמכות ב"ד, הלוא ב"ד
עצמו צריך לעשותו מסרב ויש תהליך ארוך
V. שיטת הרמ"א
a. בס' ד כתב דוקא היכא שהיא דבר מבורר, ואילו בס' תכא כתב דמותר
להכות כדי למנוע גניבה
b. שמא יש לומר בדבריו דבס' ד' מיירי בסמכות ב"ד לכן בעינן דבר ברור
אבל בס' תכא סובר הרמ"א דכדי למנוע הפסד יש תקנה מיוחדת.
On Feb 10, 8:20 am, Jacob Lewin <lewin.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with the psak of Rabbi Schaffel (found in the BusinessHalacha
> source), and I dont think that there is a legitimate claim for the parking
> spot, but my reasoning is a bit more nuanced. Rabbi Schaffel argued that
> digging out the car is different than the case of an ani collecting olives
> which he knocked down from a tree because: the ani did a proprietary kinyan
> by gathering them up, after knocking them down. I, however, think the
> difference is that the person digging out his car is dealing with *immovable
> * "property," while the ani is dealing with *movable* "property." In this
> distinction is quite relevant.
>
> In Shulchan Aruch (CM 273:12), he says that public property, like an ocean
> or desert, cannot be acquired, although contents within can be acquired as
> they are hefker. The difference is that one cannot be zoche and acquire
> something which is attached/considered ground. Something movable, however,
> can be acquired as hefker. Additionally, the concept of "acquisition through
> effort" (like the ani w/ olives case) is only allows for ownership because
> of darchei shalom and (unless there was a true kinyan) it would not be gezel
> gamur to take it from the person who exerted effort.
>
> Based on that, with the parking space, the person is not being koneh
> anything tangible, as it is still "attached" to the ground. This doesnt even
> create an ownership at the level of "darchei shalom." Therefore, the person
> has not acquired it, and has no claim of right. BUT, as R'Schaffel suggests,
> it may be a nice thing to do to give them the spot, because of yashrus.
>
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Isaac Rice <isaacric...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I came across this exact discussion, when I was researching another topic:
> >http://www.businesshalacha.com/articles/olive-trees-and-parking-spots
> >http://www.cckollel.org/html/parsha/shemos/mishpatim5765.html
> > The 2nd link actually deals with the minhag of Chicago specifically.
> > (please say hi to the karesh families)
>
> >> Any questions, email iChabura.Ow...@gmail.com
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >> chabura+u...@googlegroups.com
> >> For more options, visit this group at
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/chabura?hl=en
>
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups "iChabura" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to cha...@googlegroups.com
> > Any questions, email iChabura.Ow...@gmail.com
mordy
topic
perhaps he will post a detailed account but apparently Rabeinu was
pretty open to various forms of Avid Inish Dinei l'Nafshei (assuming
it would serve as future deterrent)
(for vigilante Maaseh Sh'Haya perhaps a particular Harvard Law student
can regale us with the story of his unfortunate mistake)
lewin...@gmail.com
My understanding is that this issue is not applicable to "inyanei hamelech," even though "drachim" is one of the examples. That probably refers to road-building and other expenses relating to the road, but not necessarily ownership v. Zoning rights. But still, I am not 100% abt this position. Certainly more to think about, yet this machlokes is important to be aware of when throwing around "dina demalchusa dina."
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
עביד איניש דינא לנפשיה
I. שאלות
II. שיטת הרא"ש
IV. שיטת הרמב"ם
V. שיטת הרמ"א
Any questions, email iChabur...@gmail.com
mordy
Last night at the YU kollel dinner honoring ichabura legend Rav
Aharon Liebtag shlita I asked Maran HaRav Gedalia Dov Schwartz about
the issue
He told me that you don't mess with dina d'malchusa, ever. Regardless
of the prevalent custom in chicago the law is the law, and you have to
be very careful when trying to maneuver around dina d'malchusa. He
also said that Chilul Hashem has to be considered so all in all the
posek of town is for a Chair Free Chicago.
> ...
>
> read more »