Like this? Login or register to create your own source sheet. אוהבים? התחברו או הרשמו כדי ליצור דף מקורות משלכם.

The Brooklyn Pizza Wars:

Hasagat Gevul and Free Enterprise  

Source Sheet by Gabe Greenberg
More info מידע נוסף
Created May 8, 2017 · 2121 Views · נוצר 8 May, 2017 · 2121 צפיות ·

  1. (יד) לֹ֤א תַסִּיג֙ גְּב֣וּל רֵֽעֲךָ֔ אֲשֶׁ֥ר גָּבְל֖וּ רִאשֹׁנִ֑ים בְּנַחֲלָֽתְךָ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר תִּנְחַ֔ל בָּאָ֕רֶץ אֲשֶׁר֙ יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ נֹתֵ֥ן לְךָ֖ לְרִשְׁתָּֽהּ׃ (ס)

    (14) You shall not move your countryman’s landmarks, set up by previous generations, in the property that will be allotted to you in the land that the LORD your God is giving you to possess.

  2. בבא בתרא כ״א ב:ד׳-י״א

    אמר רב הונא האי בר מבואה דאוקי ריחיא ואתא בר מבואה חבריה וקמוקי גביה דינא הוא דמעכב עילויה דא"ל קא פסקת ליה לחיותי לימא מסייע ליה מרחיקים מצודת הדג מן הדג כמלא ריצת הדג וכמה אמר רבה בר רב הונא עד פרסה שאני דגים דיהבי סייארא א"ל רבינא לרבא לימא רב הונא דאמר כרבי יהודה דתנן רבי יהודה אומר לא יחלק חנוני קליות ואגוזין לתינוקות מפני שמרגילן אצלו וחכמים מתירין אפילו תימא רבנן עד כאן לא פליגי רבנן עליה דרבי יהודה התם אלא דאמר ליה אנא קמפלגינא אמגוזי את פלוג שיוסקי אבל הכא אפילו רבנן מודו דא"ל קא פסקת ליה לחיותי מיתיבי עושה אדם חנות בצד חנותו של חבירו ומרחץ בצד מרחצו של חבירו ואינו יכול למחות בידו מפני שיכול לומר לו אתה עושה בתוך שלך ואני עושה בתוך שלי תנאי היא דתניא כופין בני מבואות זה את זה שלא להושיב ביניהן לא חייט ולא בורסקי ולא מלמד תינוקות ולא אחד מבני בעלי אומניות ולשכנו אינו כופיהו רשב"ג אומר אף לשכנו כופיהו אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע פשיטא לי בר מתא אבר מתא אחריתי מצי מעכב ואי שייך בכרגא דהכא לא מצי מעכב בר מבואה אבר מבואה דנפשיה לא מצי מעכב בעי רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע בר מבואה אבר מבואה אחרינא מאי תיקו אמר רב יוסף ומודי רב הונא במקרי דרדקי דלא מצי מעכב דאמר מר (עזרא תיקן להן לישראל שיהו מושיבין סופר בצד סופר

    Rav Huna said: There was a certain resident of an alleyway who set up a mill in the alleyway and earned his living grinding grain for people. And subsequently another resident of the alleyway came and set up a mill next to his. The halakha is that the first one may prevent him from doing so if he wishes, as he can say to him: You are disrupting my livelihood by taking my customers. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that a baraita supports his opinion: One must distance fish traps from fish, i.e., from other fish traps, as far as the fish travels, i.e., the distance from which the fish will travel. ...Ravina said to Rava: Shall we say that Rav Huna spoke in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? As we learned in a mishna (Bava Metzia 60a): Rabbi Yehuda says: A storekeeper may not hand out toasted grain and nuts to children who patronize his store, due to the fact that he thereby accustoms them to come to him at the expense of competing storekeepers. And the Rabbis permit doing so. This indicates that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, all forms of competition are prohibited, which would include the scenario concerning the mill. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: You may even say that Rav Huna holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda only there, as the storekeeper can say to his competitor: If I distribute walnuts, you can distribute almonds [shiyuskei]. But here, with regard to a resident of an alleyway who sets up a mill in that alleyway where another mill already exists, even the Rabbis concede that the owner of the first mill can say to him: You are disrupting my livelihood, as beforehand whoever required grinding came to me, and you have provided them with another option. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: A man may establish a shop alongside the shop of another, and a bathhouse alongside the bathhouse of another, and the other cannot protest, because the newcomer can say to him: You operate in your space, and I operate in my space. ...Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: It is obvious to me that a resident of one town can prevent a resident of another town from establishing a similar business in the locale of the first individual. But if he pays the tax of that first town, he cannot prevent him from doing business there, as he too is considered a resident of the town. ...

  3. (...הַגָּה: ... יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים הָא דִבְנֵי הָעִיר יְכוֹלִין לִמְחוֹת בִּבְנֵי עִיר אַחֶרֶת, הַיְנוּ דַּוְקָא בִּדְלֵיכָּא פְּסֵידָא לַלָּקוֹחוֹת, שֶׁמּוֹכְרִין כִּשְׁאָר בְּנֵי הָעִיר וְגַם סְחוֹרָתָם אֵינָהּ טוֹבָה יוֹתֵר מִשֶּׁל בְּנֵי הָעִיר, אֲבָל אִם נוֹתְנִין יוֹתֵר בְּזוֹל, אוֹ שֶׁהִיא יוֹתֵר טוֹבָה, שֶׁאָז נֶהֱנִין הַלּוֹקְחִין מֵהֶן, אֵין מוֹכְרֵי סְּחוֹרוֹת יְכוֹלִין לִמְחוֹת (הָרֹא''שׁ וְטוּר בְּשֵׁם הר''י הַלֵּוִי)....וּכְשֶׁמְּבִיאִים סְחוֹרָה אַחֶרֶת שֶׁאֵין לִבְנֵי הָעִיר, אַף עַל פִּי דְלָא מוֹזְלֵי בַּמִּקָּח וְאֵינָה יוֹתֵר טוֹבָה, אֵינָם יְכוֹלִין לִמְחוֹת (בֵּית יוֹסֵף מִדִּבְרֵי הַפּוֹסְקִים)

    Remah: There are those who say that the ability of residents to deny a business permit to residents of another place, is only possible where there will be no loss to the consumer. [That is, the proposed new business] would sell just like the original residents, and also their wares are no better than those of the original residents. However, [if the proposed new business] were to sell for lower prices, or the items were nice, then the consumers would benefit; in such a case, the original businesses may not deny a permit....Additionally, [if the new business] would bring in a new item, which wasn't previously available; even if not cheaper nor better, the original business may not deny them a permit...

  4. Loading Media...
  5. Loading Media...
  6. Rabbinical Court of Boro Park, Beis Din Beis Yoseph

    Feb. 16, 2017


    ...The plaintiffs came before us, in their names and in the name of Basil Pizza and Wine Bar LLC. They made a claim against the defendants, Koffiko. The claim is one of hassagat gevul ["violation of economic boundaries"]: the defendants wish to open a restaurant right next to that of the plaintiffs, and which is quite similar to it. They wish to sell a certain type of pizza; namely, "specialty pizza", which may be understood as impinging upon the economic livelihood of the plaintiffs. The defendants reply that the store and the pizza are entirely dissimilar, and this doesn't enter [the halachic category of] "one's neighbor's business"....


    Our ruling is as follows: We accept the claim of the plaintiffs that this case does in fact fall into the category of impinging upon one's neighbor's business....the opening of the new store constitutes impinging upon another's economic livelihood.


    Therefore: A) It is prohibited for the defendants to sell pizza of a special variety, but they may sell regular pizza and other foods....C) If upholding this ruling will cause a financial loss to the defendants, both sides may return to court for a ruling regarding the amount of fiscal responsibility the plaintiffs will have in compensating the loss....



    Seeing as there were different understandings of the intention of the court's ruling, specifically regarding the words, "they may sell regular pizza and other foods" - we wish to clarify that the meaning of "regular pizza" is what is popularly known as "New York Style Pizza."

Made with the Sefaria Source Sheet Builder
Add Highlight הוספת צבע להדגשה
Create New
Save שמירה