- Sections
- P'ninat Mishpat
An appeal to a previous ruling was presented to the Supreme Religious Court on a regional court ruling more than thirty days after the ruling was rendered. The Regulations on Adjudication state that appeals must be made within thirty days of the rendering of the ruling to be appealed. If the sides were not informed in advance of the date the ruling would be handed down, then the sides have thirty days from the time they were informed that the ruling was given.
In this case, the plaintiff’s lawyer found out about the handing down of the ruling from the opposing side, who faxed him a copy of the ruling. The plaintiff claims that the quality of the fax was not good so that sections were not effectively received. The lawyers of the two sides met soon thereafter. The plaintiff received the official copy from the court, for some reason, a few weeks later, and the appeal was made within thirty days of that time.
In general, in such matters, the rabbinical courts to do not quibble over the fine details of deadlines and procedure when there is a need to clarify a matter of concern in the carriage of justice. However, in this case, where adjudication has been going on between the Bavlis for sixteen years, in a variety of forums, with endless energy and legal costs involved, there is an interest to put an end to further adjudication. While the name Bavli has become a major part of the public and legal world’s language, there are people who stand behind that name. Those people deserve closure, not the opportunity to provide the legal world with more interesting rulings. Therefore, we will follow the strict letter of the law and refuse to hear the appeal on procedural grounds.
The Regulations of Adjudication do not state that the side that wants to appeal must receive a copy of the ruling from the offices of the court in order for the thirty-day limit to begin to be counted. It says that the sides must know that it was given. In this case, not only did they receive a fax of the ruling, but the two lawyers met to discuss the ruling more than thirty days before the appeal. In fact, many lawyers throughout the country received copies of the ruling by that time. Therefore, it is inconceivable that the plaintiff was not aware of the ruling just because the official copy was delayed in arriving.

P'ninat Mishpat (762)
Various Rabbis
191 - Freezing of Assets for Spousal Reconciliation
192 - Rejection of a Late Request for Appeal
193 - Levying Fines for Infringement on Intellectual Rights
Load More

P'ninat Mishpat: Counter Claims – part II (Child Care, Foundations)
based on ruling 81059 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Tevet 5784

A Man Who Died Without Known Inheritors
Rabbi Yosef Goldberg | Monday, 24 Cheshvan 5768

Closing the Door on the Window Maker
Various Rabbis | 5773

An Abrupt End to a Rental
Various Rabbis | Tevet 5768

Various Rabbis
Various Rabbis including those of of Yeshivat Bet El, such as Rabbi Chaim Katz, Rabbi Binyamin Bamberger and Rabbi Yitzchak Greenblat and others.

Buying Looted Seforim from the Slovakians
Iyar 21 5775

Sub-Par Guest House Experience? – part II
Tevet 12 5777

Following the Majority When the Minority Is More Knowledgeable
5771

Proper Foundations of the Home
Ein Aya Shabbat Chapter B Paragraph 192
Tevet 12 5777
Parasht Yitro
Towards Nationhood
Rabbi Zalman Baruch Melamed

Redeeming a Firstborn Donkey!
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff | 5770

Redeeming a Firstborn Donkey!
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff | 5770

Parashat “Shema” and Parashat “Vehaya Im Shamoa”
Parashat Ekev
Rabbi S. Yossef Weitzen | Av 5761

Parashat Hashavua: The Ten Commandments – A Blueprint for World Justice
Rabbi Yossef Carmel | Shevat 5785
Daf Yomi Sanhedrin Daf 57
R' Eli Stefansky | 14 Shevat 5785
