By Rabbi Meir Orlian
On Shavuos night, Rabbi Dayan delivered a shiur on the topic “Rus and Conversion.”
“Rus, in addition to being the great-grandmother of Dovid HaMelech, also serves as the model of a genuine convert,” Rabbi Dayan said. “Several of the laws of conversion are derived from the story of Rus, which we read on Shavuos.
“For example, we initially discourage the potential convert, as Naomi did, and present before him or her the fundamentals of Judaism and a sampling of the mitzvos, including the obligations to give to the poor from the harvest. However, once the potential convert expresses a sincere desire to join the Jewish People, we embrace him or her fully” (Yevamos 47b; Y.D. 268:2).
“Other laws of conversion are derived from the preparations of Am Yisrael for Mattan Torah,” continued Rabbi Dayan, “when the entire nation accepted the commitment to be Hashem’s chosen nation and observe His commands. Just as then, the nation entered the covenant with Hashem through circumcision, immersion in a mikveh, and offering of a sacrifice, these three steps are required for all generations. These steps are in addition to the essence of conversion: the acceptance of the yoke of Heaven and commitment to the observance of mitzvos” (Kreisus 9a; Hil. Issurei Bi’ah 13:4—5).
“If so,” asked one participant, “how can we accept converts nowadays? Unfortunately, we do not have a Beis HaMikdash in which to offer a sacrifice!”
“The Gemara derives from the word ‘l’doroseichem’ that it is possible to accept converts in all generations,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “Thus, in the absence of the Beis HaMikdash, we suffice with the other elements of conversion. Nonetheless, when the Beis HaMikdash will be rebuilt, be’H, the convert will owe a sacrifice.”
“I know that a valid beis din is also needed for conversion,” said another listener. “What is that based on?”
“The Gemara (Yevamos 46b) derives the need for a beis din from the use of the word ‘mishpat’ (judgment) in the context of conversion,” answered Rabbi Dayan. “We therefore require the presence of three dayanim, like for monetary rulings that require a panel of three” (Y.D. 268:3).
“How are dayanim nowadays considered qualified?” asked one learned participant. “After all, Torah law requires that dayanim be semuchim, with an unbroken chain of formal semichah tracing back to Moshe Rabbeinu, which we no longer have!”
“Indeed, many Rishonim raise this issue,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “Tosafos (Yevamos 46b; Kiddushin 62b) explain that dayanim perform conversions nowadays as agents of dayanim semuchim from generations past, similar to cases of monetary law. Although in principle monetary law requires semuchim, the Sages empowered beis din to rule nowadays on common cases as the agents of the semuchim of old, so as not to discourage people from lending. Similarly, so as not to close the door on potential converts, they empowered beis din nowadays to serve as agents of semuchim from generations earlier” (B.K. 84b; Gittin 88b; C.M. 1:1).
“I understand this regarding monetary law,” said the questioner. “The Sages can institute what they wish regarding monetary matters, but how can they institute this regarding conversion, which is a matter of Torah law?”
“Rashba, in fact, poses this question,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “Therefore, he posits that we derive from ‘mishpat’ only the need for three dayanim for conversion, but not the need for semuchim. I should note, however, that Nesivos (1:1) maintains that the empowerment is of Torah status, but is left to the discretion of the Sages.”
“Tosafos (Kiddushin 62a) provides another explanation of why semuchim are not required for conversion nowadays,” concluded Rabbi Dayan. “As mentioned, the Torah states that conversion is for all generations, so that a sacrifice is not required nowadays, when it is not possible. Similarly, when it is impossible to obtain semuchim, the Torah allows conversion with other learned dayanim” (Be’er Heitev, C.M. 1:2).
From The BHI Hotline: When A Broker Misrepresents
Q: A real estate agent showed me a house and told me that its area is 65 feet ×20 feet. I trusted him, signed the contract, and gave the seller earnest money. I subsequently discovered that the house’s area is actually 65‘ × 18‘. When I contacted the agent, he told me that he had erred; he thought it was that large. The contract requires me to pay the agent. Am I obligated to pay the agent when he misled me?
A: The answer to your question depends on a couple of factors. The obligation to pay a broker arises in two situations:
- Employment (sechiras po’alim): When someone approaches a broker to find a house, he is hiring the broker as an independent contractor and must pay him for the service that he provides.
- Benefit (neheneh): When a broker of his own volition convinces someone to purchase a house, he cannot be characterized as an employee. The obligation to pay stems from the obligation to pay when one benefits from another’s efforts. Chazal’s precedent for this is the obligation to pay for benefit an owner receives when a friend makes a material improvement to the owner’s property (yored l’nichsei chaveiro) (Biur HaGra, C.M. 185:13).
If a real-estate agent brokers a deal and the sale is voided because the house is defective, the agent does not deserve payment. Moreover, if he was already paid, he must refund that money since the purchase was made in error (Shaar Ephraim 150; Mishpat Shalom 185:10). However, the agent cannot be forced to reimburse the buyer or seller for their expenses, even if he intentionally concealed information. The reason is that people generally do not rely on agents and have the property inspected independently. The agent is liable only if the buyer and seller informed him that they will be incurring expenses because they are relying on him (see C.M. 306:6).
In your case, if you cancel the sale because the house was not the size you expected, the agent did not perform his job and thus you are not required to pay him. However, if you decide to go forward with the sale anyway, you must pay him for the benefit that you derived from the fact that he found a house for you to purchase, although payment may be the least amount of the going rate. Despite your claim that the agent did not do what he was hired to do, he nevertheless deserves payment for the benefit that he provided.
The buyer can claim, however, that he would not have purchased the smaller house for the price he paid if he also had to pay the agent. If the buyer makes such a claim, beis din will have to consider the strength of such a claim and how to best strike a compromise about the agent’s fee.
The same is true when the buyer wishes to cancel the sale but refrains because doing so will involve a significant expense (e.g., beis din, lawyer’s fees, etc.). Beis din will have to decide whether the buyer benefited from the agent’s work, even though he misrepresented, or he did not benefit and is going through with the sale only because there is no realistic and economical way to back out of the sale. It is also possible that beis din will decide that the buyer has some degree of benefit from the agent’s efforts and will require payment commensurate with that benefit (cf. Orchos Mishpatim I, p. 68).
Money Matters:
Paying A Car Mechanic
Based on the writings of Rav Chaim Kohn, shlita
Q: Â The mechanic called to say that my car is ready. Do I have to pay him that day if I will not pick up the car until the next day?
A: While the car is in his hands, you are not in violation for delaying payment, since it serves as collateral to ensure payment or because time has not yet come for payment (C.M. 339:6; Sma 339:10; Ketzos 72:23; Aruch HaShulchan 339:8).
If the mechanic explicitly asks you to pick up the car and pay that day, Aruch HaShulchan maintains that you violate the halacha by waiting to pick it up, whereas Chofetz Chaim disagrees. Everyone agrees that there is an obligation not to delay payment without reasonable cause (Pischei Teshuvah 339:2; Ahavas Chessed 10 [2]; Biur Halacha, O.C. 242 s.v. “l’chabed”; C.M. and Aruch HaShulchan 339:8).
If the job involved material provided by the worker, one does not violate the mitzvah (Ketzos 339:3). These laws apply also to one who brings clothes to a tailor or dry cleaner, since they hold the clothes until payment. So when the mechanic returns the car to you, you must pay him that day. v
This article is intended for learning purposes and not to be relied upon halacha l’maaseh. There are also issues of dina d’malchusa to consider in actual cases.
Rabbi Meir Orlian is a faculty member of the Business Halacha Institute, which is headed by HaRav Chaim Kohn, shlita, a noted dayan. For questions regarding business halacha issues, or to bring a BHI lecturer to your business or shul, please call the confidential hotline at 877-845-8455 or e‑mail ask@businesshalacha.com. To receive BHI’s free newsletter, Business Weekly, send an e‑mail to subscribe@businesshalacha.com.
