Rabbi's liability for giving a wrong psakQuestioner's liability for receiving a wrong psak“Where's the court's power to assess?” Who cares?
How do credit card companies know what type of business I'm paying for?
Digital signature that is only verifiable by one specific person
How to prevent cables getting intertwined
How to avoid offending original culture when making conculture inspired from original
Is there any effect in D&D 5e that cannot be undone?
Why are almost all the people in this orchestra recording wearing headphones with one ear on and one ear off?
Does knowing the surface area of all faces uniquely determine a tetrahedron?
On George Box, Galit Shmueli and the scientific method?
Can "Es tut mir leid" be used to express empathy rather than remorse?
How did the European Union reach the figure of 3% as a maximum allowed deficit?
Numerical second order differentiation
Using roof rails to set up hammock
Time at 1G acceleration to travel 100000 light years
High-end PC graphics circa 1990?
What do I put on my resume to make the company i'm applying to think i'm mature enough to handle a job?
Is there a risk to write an invitation letter for a stranger to obtain a Czech (Schengen) visa?
Converting 3x7 to a 1x7. Is it possible with only existing parts?
How to ask if I can mow my neighbor's lawn
Basic power tool set for Home repair and simple projects
At what temperature should the earth be cooked to prevent human infection?
How useful is the GRE Exam?
2 Managed Packages in 1 Dev Org
Is there a term for someone whose preferred policies are a mix of Left and Right?
Interview was just a one hour panel. Got an offer the next day; do I accept or is this a red flag?
Rabbi's liability for giving a wrong psak
Questioner's liability for receiving a wrong psak“Where's the court's power to assess?” Who cares?
Companion question to Questioner's liability for receiving a wrong psak.
Let's say that someone asks his Rav, for example, if a certain food is Kosher, and the Rav paskens that it is not, and that the food must be thrown out. Later on, the Rav realizes that he ruled incorrectly, and the questioner could, in fact, have eaten that food (or at least benefited from it).
Is the Rav responsible for damages, for having ruled incorrectly and causing the questioner to lose money as a result?
halacha choshen-mishpat-civil-law posek-psak-decisor-ruling
asked May 31 at 0:11
DonielFDonielF
19.1k12896
add a comment |
Companion question to Questioner's liability for receiving a wrong psak.
Let's say that someone asks his Rav, for example, if a certain food is Kosher, and the Rav paskens that it is not, and that the food must be thrown out. Later on, the Rav realizes that he ruled incorrectly, and the questioner could, in fact, have eaten that food (or at least benefited from it).
Is the Rav responsible for damages, for having ruled incorrectly and causing the questioner to lose money as a result?
halacha choshen-mishpat-civil-law posek-psak-decisor-ruling
asked May 31 at 0:11
DonielFDonielF
19.1k12896
1
See bechorot 4:4
– Double AA♦
May 31 at 0:20
add a comment |
Companion question to Questioner's liability for receiving a wrong psak.
Let's say that someone asks his Rav, for example, if a certain food is Kosher, and the Rav paskens that it is not, and that the food must be thrown out. Later on, the Rav realizes that he ruled incorrectly, and the questioner could, in fact, have eaten that food (or at least benefited from it).
Is the Rav responsible for damages, for having ruled incorrectly and causing the questioner to lose money as a result?
halacha choshen-mishpat-civil-law posek-psak-decisor-ruling
asked May 31 at 0:11
DonielFDonielF
19.1k12896
Companion question to Questioner's liability for receiving a wrong psak.
Let's say that someone asks his Rav, for example, if a certain food is Kosher, and the Rav paskens that it is not, and that the food must be thrown out. Later on, the Rav realizes that he ruled incorrectly, and the questioner could, in fact, have eaten that food (or at least benefited from it).
Is the Rav responsible for damages, for having ruled incorrectly and causing the questioner to lose money as a result?
halacha choshen-mishpat-civil-law posek-psak-decisor-ruling
halacha choshen-mishpat-civil-law posek-psak-decisor-ruling
asked May 31 at 0:11
DonielFDonielF
19.1k12896
asked May 31 at 0:11
DonielFDonielF
19.1k12896
asked May 31 at 0:11
DonielFDonielF
19.1k12896
asked May 31 at 0:11
DonielFDonielF
19.1k12896
asked May 31 at 0:11
DonielFDonielF
19.1k12896
19.1k12896
1
See bechorot 4:4
– Double AA♦
May 31 at 0:20
add a comment |
1
See bechorot 4:4
– Double AA♦
May 31 at 0:20
1
1
See bechorot 4:4
– Double AA♦
May 31 at 0:20
See bechorot 4:4
– Double AA♦
May 31 at 0:20
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
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 only indirectly caused the damage, but if only one of those two conditions applies (eg. the rabbi isn't such an expert) then the rabbi is obligated to pay back damages.
answered May 31 at 1:09
Double AA♦Double AA
80.5k6200439
Can you Define what "expert" means?
– Moshe
May 31 at 6:00
@Moshe I can't but probably some commentators try. How do you ever define what things like "raui lehoraah" and "talmid chacham" mean? Not everyone in a semikha program is always on the same level obviously.
– Double AA♦
May 31 at 11:13
add a comment |
I'll approach this theoretically. There are two views on a Rabbi's Psak in Issurim (but similar in other fields inc. Mamonos and Nefoshos):
The Rabbi reveals the existing truth: an object already possesses certain qualities (Kosher or Mutar) and the Rabbi tries to logically infer those qualities from his Torah knowledge. In the result, he might "guess" right or wrong (50/50) and if he's wrong we attribute it to his "lack" of the knowledge of Torah, like he was unable to reveal the truth.
In such case, if it turns out he was wrong (by a greater(?) Rabbi or if he admits it himself) we can "accuse" him in this "wrongdoing" and "demand" repay. (I use "" extensively to stress that those words must be taken with caution).
The Rabbi sets the truth: an object's qualities are undetermined (even in Heaven, this the double slit experiment) until a Rabbi (an observer) examines it and SETS the quality.
As a Rabbi possesses some Ruach Hakodesh (in addition to his Torah Knowledge) we presume (de-jure) that G-d agreed with him (נצחוני בניי, לא בשמים היא). In such a case, even if the Rabbi admitted that he was wrong, we consider it "G-d's will".
In this case, of course, there could not be a "wrong Psak", any Psak is de-jure right.
The existing Halachos (from the Gemmorah till the Achronim) try to balance between those two approaches, some leaning toward the first, and some toward the second.
answered May 31 at 8:35
Al BerkoAl Berko
7,6902631
I think you confuse Rabbi with Sanhedrin
– DonielF
May 31 at 12:33
I know people have little understanding of the theory of Judaism. What I wrote applies to any Rabbinical judgment, be it the Sanhedrin or your shul Rabbi. I'm not good at names, but you can put a long list of prominent Rabbis supporting either approach. Rabbis in Masechet Sanhedrin argued exactly about this point - do we seek the Heavenly truth or the Earthy one.
– Al Berko
Jun 1 at 21:44
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
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 only indirectly caused the damage, but if only one of those two conditions applies (eg. the rabbi isn't such an expert) then the rabbi is obligated to pay back damages.
answered May 31 at 1:09
Double AA♦Double AA
80.5k6200439
Can you Define what "expert" means?
– Moshe
May 31 at 6:00
@Moshe I can't but probably some commentators try. How do you ever define what things like "raui lehoraah" and "talmid chacham" mean? Not everyone in a semikha program is always on the same level obviously.
– Double AA♦
May 31 at 11:13
add a comment |
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 only indirectly caused the damage, but if only one of those two conditions applies (eg. the rabbi isn't such an expert) then the rabbi is obligated to pay back damages.
answered May 31 at 1:09
Double AA♦Double AA
80.5k6200439
Can you Define what "expert" means?
– Moshe
May 31 at 6:00
@Moshe I can't but probably some commentators try. How do you ever define what things like "raui lehoraah" and "talmid chacham" mean? Not everyone in a semikha program is always on the same level obviously.
– Double AA♦
May 31 at 11:13
add a comment |
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 only indirectly caused the damage, but if only one of those two conditions applies (eg. the rabbi isn't such an expert) then the rabbi is obligated to pay back damages.
answered May 31 at 1:09
Double AA♦Double AA
80.5k6200439
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 only indirectly caused the damage, but if only one of those two conditions applies (eg. the rabbi isn't such an expert) then the rabbi is obligated to pay back damages.
answered May 31 at 1:09
Double AA♦Double AA
80.5k6200439
answered May 31 at 1:09
Double AA♦Double AA
80.5k6200439
answered May 31 at 1:09
Double AA♦Double AA
80.5k6200439
answered May 31 at 1:09
Double AA♦Double AA
80.5k6200439
80.5k6200439
Can you Define what "expert" means?
– Moshe
May 31 at 6:00
@Moshe I can't but probably some commentators try. How do you ever define what things like "raui lehoraah" and "talmid chacham" mean? Not everyone in a semikha program is always on the same level obviously.
– Double AA♦
May 31 at 11:13
add a comment |
Can you Define what "expert" means?
– Moshe
May 31 at 6:00
@Moshe I can't but probably some commentators try. How do you ever define what things like "raui lehoraah" and "talmid chacham" mean? Not everyone in a semikha program is always on the same level obviously.
– Double AA♦
May 31 at 11:13
Can you Define what "expert" means?
– Moshe
May 31 at 6:00
Can you Define what "expert" means?
– Moshe
May 31 at 6:00
@Moshe I can't but probably some commentators try. How do you ever define what things like "raui lehoraah" and "talmid chacham" mean? Not everyone in a semikha program is always on the same level obviously.
– Double AA♦
May 31 at 11:13
@Moshe I can't but probably some commentators try. How do you ever define what things like "raui lehoraah" and "talmid chacham" mean? Not everyone in a semikha program is always on the same level obviously.
– Double AA♦
May 31 at 11:13
add a comment |
I'll approach this theoretically. There are two views on a Rabbi's Psak in Issurim (but similar in other fields inc. Mamonos and Nefoshos):
The Rabbi reveals the existing truth: an object already possesses certain qualities (Kosher or Mutar) and the Rabbi tries to logically infer those qualities from his Torah knowledge. In the result, he might "guess" right or wrong (50/50) and if he's wrong we attribute it to his "lack" of the knowledge of Torah, like he was unable to reveal the truth.
In such case, if it turns out he was wrong (by a greater(?) Rabbi or if he admits it himself) we can "accuse" him in this "wrongdoing" and "demand" repay. (I use "" extensively to stress that those words must be taken with caution).
The Rabbi sets the truth: an object's qualities are undetermined (even in Heaven, this the double slit experiment) until a Rabbi (an observer) examines it and SETS the quality.
As a Rabbi possesses some Ruach Hakodesh (in addition to his Torah Knowledge) we presume (de-jure) that G-d agreed with him (נצחוני בניי, לא בשמים היא). In such a case, even if the Rabbi admitted that he was wrong, we consider it "G-d's will".
In this case, of course, there could not be a "wrong Psak", any Psak is de-jure right.
The existing Halachos (from the Gemmorah till the Achronim) try to balance between those two approaches, some leaning toward the first, and some toward the second.
answered May 31 at 8:35
Al BerkoAl Berko
7,6902631
I think you confuse Rabbi with Sanhedrin
– DonielF
May 31 at 12:33
I know people have little understanding of the theory of Judaism. What I wrote applies to any Rabbinical judgment, be it the Sanhedrin or your shul Rabbi. I'm not good at names, but you can put a long list of prominent Rabbis supporting either approach. Rabbis in Masechet Sanhedrin argued exactly about this point - do we seek the Heavenly truth or the Earthy one.
– Al Berko
Jun 1 at 21:44
add a comment |
I'll approach this theoretically. There are two views on a Rabbi's Psak in Issurim (but similar in other fields inc. Mamonos and Nefoshos):
The Rabbi reveals the existing truth: an object already possesses certain qualities (Kosher or Mutar) and the Rabbi tries to logically infer those qualities from his Torah knowledge. In the result, he might "guess" right or wrong (50/50) and if he's wrong we attribute it to his "lack" of the knowledge of Torah, like he was unable to reveal the truth.
In such case, if it turns out he was wrong (by a greater(?) Rabbi or if he admits it himself) we can "accuse" him in this "wrongdoing" and "demand" repay. (I use "" extensively to stress that those words must be taken with caution).
The Rabbi sets the truth: an object's qualities are undetermined (even in Heaven, this the double slit experiment) until a Rabbi (an observer) examines it and SETS the quality.
As a Rabbi possesses some Ruach Hakodesh (in addition to his Torah Knowledge) we presume (de-jure) that G-d agreed with him (נצחוני בניי, לא בשמים היא). In such a case, even if the Rabbi admitted that he was wrong, we consider it "G-d's will".
In this case, of course, there could not be a "wrong Psak", any Psak is de-jure right.
The existing Halachos (from the Gemmorah till the Achronim) try to balance between those two approaches, some leaning toward the first, and some toward the second.
answered May 31 at 8:35
Al BerkoAl Berko
7,6902631
I think you confuse Rabbi with Sanhedrin
– DonielF
May 31 at 12:33
I know people have little understanding of the theory of Judaism. What I wrote applies to any Rabbinical judgment, be it the Sanhedrin or your shul Rabbi. I'm not good at names, but you can put a long list of prominent Rabbis supporting either approach. Rabbis in Masechet Sanhedrin argued exactly about this point - do we seek the Heavenly truth or the Earthy one.
– Al Berko
Jun 1 at 21:44
add a comment |
I'll approach this theoretically. There are two views on a Rabbi's Psak in Issurim (but similar in other fields inc. Mamonos and Nefoshos):
The Rabbi reveals the existing truth: an object already possesses certain qualities (Kosher or Mutar) and the Rabbi tries to logically infer those qualities from his Torah knowledge. In the result, he might "guess" right or wrong (50/50) and if he's wrong we attribute it to his "lack" of the knowledge of Torah, like he was unable to reveal the truth.
In such case, if it turns out he was wrong (by a greater(?) Rabbi or if he admits it himself) we can "accuse" him in this "wrongdoing" and "demand" repay. (I use "" extensively to stress that those words must be taken with caution).
The Rabbi sets the truth: an object's qualities are undetermined (even in Heaven, this the double slit experiment) until a Rabbi (an observer) examines it and SETS the quality.
As a Rabbi possesses some Ruach Hakodesh (in addition to his Torah Knowledge) we presume (de-jure) that G-d agreed with him (נצחוני בניי, לא בשמים היא). In such a case, even if the Rabbi admitted that he was wrong, we consider it "G-d's will".
In this case, of course, there could not be a "wrong Psak", any Psak is de-jure right.
The existing Halachos (from the Gemmorah till the Achronim) try to balance between those two approaches, some leaning toward the first, and some toward the second.
answered May 31 at 8:35
Al BerkoAl Berko
7,6902631
I'll approach this theoretically. There are two views on a Rabbi's Psak in Issurim (but similar in other fields inc. Mamonos and Nefoshos):
The Rabbi reveals the existing truth: an object already possesses certain qualities (Kosher or Mutar) and the Rabbi tries to logically infer those qualities from his Torah knowledge. In the result, he might "guess" right or wrong (50/50) and if he's wrong we attribute it to his "lack" of the knowledge of Torah, like he was unable to reveal the truth.
In such case, if it turns out he was wrong (by a greater(?) Rabbi or if he admits it himself) we can "accuse" him in this "wrongdoing" and "demand" repay. (I use "" extensively to stress that those words must be taken with caution).
The Rabbi sets the truth: an object's qualities are undetermined (even in Heaven, this the double slit experiment) until a Rabbi (an observer) examines it and SETS the quality.
As a Rabbi possesses some Ruach Hakodesh (in addition to his Torah Knowledge) we presume (de-jure) that G-d agreed with him (נצחוני בניי, לא בשמים היא). In such a case, even if the Rabbi admitted that he was wrong, we consider it "G-d's will".
In this case, of course, there could not be a "wrong Psak", any Psak is de-jure right.
The existing Halachos (from the Gemmorah till the Achronim) try to balance between those two approaches, some leaning toward the first, and some toward the second.
answered May 31 at 8:35
Al BerkoAl Berko
7,6902631
answered May 31 at 8:35
Al BerkoAl Berko
7,6902631
answered May 31 at 8:35
Al BerkoAl Berko
7,6902631
answered May 31 at 8:35
Al BerkoAl Berko
7,6902631
7,6902631
I think you confuse Rabbi with Sanhedrin
– DonielF
May 31 at 12:33
I know people have little understanding of the theory of Judaism. What I wrote applies to any Rabbinical judgment, be it the Sanhedrin or your shul Rabbi. I'm not good at names, but you can put a long list of prominent Rabbis supporting either approach. Rabbis in Masechet Sanhedrin argued exactly about this point - do we seek the Heavenly truth or the Earthy one.
– Al Berko
Jun 1 at 21:44
add a comment |
I think you confuse Rabbi with Sanhedrin
– DonielF
May 31 at 12:33
I know people have little understanding of the theory of Judaism. What I wrote applies to any Rabbinical judgment, be it the Sanhedrin or your shul Rabbi. I'm not good at names, but you can put a long list of prominent Rabbis supporting either approach. Rabbis in Masechet Sanhedrin argued exactly about this point - do we seek the Heavenly truth or the Earthy one.
– Al Berko
Jun 1 at 21:44
I think you confuse Rabbi with Sanhedrin
– DonielF
May 31 at 12:33
I think you confuse Rabbi with Sanhedrin
– DonielF
May 31 at 12:33
I know people have little understanding of the theory of Judaism. What I wrote applies to any Rabbinical judgment, be it the Sanhedrin or your shul Rabbi. I'm not good at names, but you can put a long list of prominent Rabbis supporting either approach. Rabbis in Masechet Sanhedrin argued exactly about this point - do we seek the Heavenly truth or the Earthy one.
– Al Berko
Jun 1 at 21:44
I know people have little understanding of the theory of Judaism. What I wrote applies to any Rabbinical judgment, be it the Sanhedrin or your shul Rabbi. I'm not good at names, but you can put a long list of prominent Rabbis supporting either approach. Rabbis in Masechet Sanhedrin argued exactly about this point - do we seek the Heavenly truth or the Earthy one.
– Al Berko
Jun 1 at 21:44
add a comment |
1
See bechorot 4:4
– Double AA♦
May 31 at 0:20