- Sections
- P'ninat Mishpat
198
[We will divide different elements of the ruling over two weeks and skip over other parts of the long ruling.]

P'ninat Mishpat (762)
Various Rabbis
397 - Compensating a Cellphone Owner for Damage Caused During a Repair Attempt
398 - Returning a Loan That Might Have Had Heter Iska – Part I
399 - Returning a Loan That Might Have Had Heter Iska – Part II
Load More
Ruling: Regarding the time of the payment of the interest, def #2 did not claim that it was to be pushed off until the sale of the business. The fact that they started paying the exact amount of interest monthly strengthens the anyway preferred reading of the contract that it is to be made monthly. The money paid is thus not to be seen as payment of principal unless it was forbidden to receive interest. Regarding return of the principal, while the loan agreement states that it is when there is a sale, since they have stopped paying the interest according to schedule,pl can call for a cancelation of the loan.
At first, def #2 agreed that there was a heter iska, and only after the hearing did he submit the claim that there was not. Therefore, we should not consider his claim a definite one but one that raises questions as to whether there was a heter iska. Even if we would view def #2 as making a definite claim, we would not treat this as a forbidden loan with interest and without a heter iska. First, the Rosh (Shut 108:9) says that if one side says that the loan was done in a permitted manner and one said it was done in a forbidden manner, we accept the former claim (of course, he needs a strong claim that the money was promised). The Rama (Yoreh Deah 169:25) rules that the lender is believed that he lent the money in a permitted manner only if the payment was already made or he is in possession of collateral but not to extract payment. However, the Shach (169:79) and the Shulchan Aruch (177:12) say that the lender can even extract money based on the claim that it is permitted. Therefore, on these points, pl’s claims are accepted.

P'ninat Mishpat: Unpaid Fees of a No-Show to Beit Din
based on ruling 84052 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Shevat 5784

P'ninat Mishpat: Questions of Changing Work Orders
based on ruling 79044 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Shevat 5784

P'ninat Mishpat: Proof Needed to Remove a Squatter – part I
based on ruling 81116 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Cheshvan 5784

Backing Out of a Rental After Checks Were Given
Various Rabbis | 28 Shvat 5768

Some Laws Relating to Tu Bishvat
Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu Zt"l | 7 Shvat 5768

The Mitzvah of “Duchening” - Birchas Kohanim
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff | 5769

Yitro Deed and Creed
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks | 11 Shvat 5784

The Mitzvah of “Duchening” - Birchas Kohanim
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff | 5769
Daf Yomi Sanhedrin Daf 53
R' Eli Stefansky | 10 Shevat 5785

THANK TRUMP BUT SING TO G-D & the IDF- Parshat Beshalach & Tu BiShvat
Rabbi Ari Shvat | Shevat 5785 11

Ties to Religiously Controversial Events/Organizations 1. #293
Date and Place: Iyar 5670 (1910), Yafo
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Shevat 5785
