Thursday 5 August 2010

Harry & Larry - Ethical Dilemma #7

Once upon a time there were 2 Jewish buddies in school, named Harry and Larry. Harry and Larry car-pooled together went to ball-games together and the families were on friendly terms. Harry grew up to be a moderately successful businessman owning a few pieces of real estate - and Larry developed mental illness – perhaps from the recreational drugs that he used in the 60’s and 70’s.

Later in life, Larry’s father Murray approached Harry to take him in as a boarder in a building that Harry owned. Harry agreed. In his mind, he was confident that Larry’s father would make good for any missed rent, because he considered Murray to be a mensch.

Unfortunately, Larry had a breakdown. He broke a door in Harry’s triplex and was sent to the hospital and was behind on the rent.

Harry assumed that Larry’s Dad Murray would make good. Is Harry ethically, morally, or legally entitled to that assumption? Or was it all wishful thinking based upon past good-will but without any obligation whatsoever?

Disclaimer:
While based upon a true story any similarity to characters living or dead is pure coincidence

KT
RRW

Previously Published 6/28/07

6 comments:

Mighty Garnel Ironheart said...

This is why nobody really religious comes to this blog. In the really religious world, the buddies would be Hershel and Leibl. Leibel's taty would be Motl. Hershel would have owned a few pieces of real estate, all of them tenements in violation of city code. He would have saved himself from community disapproval by contributing lots of money to the local shul and yeshivah.
Leibl, on the other hand, would have gotten over his drug use in the 60's and 70's and become a rapid Baal Teshuvah and day school teacher. He would have had to move from his community back to where Motl and Hershel lives after "unsubstantiated" rumours of inappropriate conduct with little boys in his classes surfaced.
He would then have moved into Hershl's building but refused to pay rent on the basis of his being a Torah scholar and you're not supposed to take advantage of them. Hershl would have tried to take him to the local beis din only to find out that since he works and Leibl doesn't, he's automatically going to lose his case but if he takes him to the state court for back rent, he'll be put in cheirem by Leibl's friends and his wife, Channee, would have to leave him.
So the real question is: Does Hershl say "Screw it all with the religion thing!", change his name to Harry and move to Montana?

DrMike said...

There's always a difference between moral and legal obligations and that difference is a true sense of decency.

Did Harry discuss the matter of rent with Murray? Is there a signed contract? Do we know Murray's thoughts on the matter or if he feels any sense of responsibility for his son's actions?

If there's something in the contract naming Murray as a guarantor, there's no question so I must assume that the reason for the question is that there isn't.

Halachically, Larry is an adult so my understanding is that Murray has no responsbility for him. That leaves the concept of decency. If Murray is a decent chap, he'll approach Harry and say "Gosh, I'm sorry my son did this. Here, I'll pay for the back rent." As for the door, Harry probably has insurance.

But good will and $1.73 will get you a double double at Tim Horton's.

Rabbi Ben Hecht said...

I find this question most fascinating because it deals with the perception of righteousness and the the self-perception of righteousness. Both Murray and Harry could possibly feel that they are doing the right thing no matter what they choose.

Murray asked Harry to take in his son so what's the big mitzvah if Harry wasn't taking a risk. He never promised anything so Harry has his argument for why the menshich thing would be for Harry to cover it. And of course if Murray did cover it, he would for sure see himself the tzaddik especially if he felt that Harry really should have covered it.

On the other hand, Harry thought in taking in Larry that the father should be a mensch and take care of his son -- he would expect Murray to do the mitzvah of helping his son. And, of course, if Murray did not, then Harry could see himself as the tzaddik for look what he did and the father did not.

Is Murray obligated? Where's contract? Is Harry entitled to his assumptions? Maybe in a dream world. We all make assumptions but the fact is that we often are wrong about them because there are usually many ways to define the tzaddik in a specific situation. We usually define it in a way that is better for us -- either in assuming that someone will come through or by defining whatever we do as the right thing to have done. A contract is not only to protect oneself in the case of outright lies but to clarify the underlying assumptions. That's what is necessary.

In terms of actually responding to this situation, in din it is pretty straightforward. Harry is responsible. The question is what to do in pshara. The first thing you may want to look at is who can better afford the cost. Then one considers the connections. What would occur in a real world of tzaddikim is a discussion between the two, both feeling for Larry and wanting to truly do the right thing in terms of the proper decision of expenditure. Here is where you start thinking about being a father and a friend. The cost has to be paid -- but that's not the issue. Both Murray and Harry should want to see the cost paid as that is the righteous neccessity. Who should pay? It should be a pshara from two people who care about Larry.

Mighty Garnel Ironheart said...

> What would occur in a real world of tzaddikim is a discussion between the two, both feeling for Larry and wanting to truly do the right thing in terms of the proper decision of expenditure.

If they're frum, I think you can safely rule that out ever happening.

Rabbi Richard Wolpoe said...

I would assume that legally Murray is off the hook completely.

But since Murray asked Harry to help out I think there is an ethical obligation [dina deshamayyim]. The risk Harry assumed was to deal witha a very troubled young man - who while an adult - might not even have been legally competent!

Insurance might cover the door but with the deductible and adverse future under-writing, it makes little sense to put in the claim.

To paraphrase the opening Mishna in Baba Metzia, Murray should have taken at least 50% of the responsibility - given the set of circumstances.

KT
RRW

Garnel Ironheart said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.