Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Case: Beit din rendered a partial ruling on some of the matters in disagreement. More than 30 days after the partial ruling, but before the end of adjudication, the defendant (=def) claimed to have found proof that the plaintiff (=pl) deceived beit din in a way that was responsible for the ruling. Def claims that whenever proof is brought, it should be accepted. Pl argues that according to this beit din’s rules, one only has 30 days, which have passed.
Ruling: According to Halacha, it is possible to overturn a ruling by new evidence at any point (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 20:1). According to the rules of our beit din, which operates according to the authority provided by the Law of Arbitration, once a ruling is given, it can be overturned only through the appeal process as prescribed in our rules and procedures. The reason for preferring the Law of Arbitration is that this is the only way to make rulings enforceable, and only when a beit din can enforce a ruling is it required to adjudicate (see Eretz Hemdah-Gazit ruling 74092). The rule in our batei din, is that we will not adjudicate when the sides cannot enforce our ruling.
According to the Law of Arbitration (Par. 21), a partial ruling has the same status as a full ruling regarding its finality. If the sides agreed in advance through an arbitration agreement that there will be a possibility of appeal, then that process can undo the ruling. Our arbitration agreement sets out an appeal procedure which gives thirty days to appeal. However [at the time] it did not state explicitly if the thirty days are counted from the time of the partial ruling or the end of the adjudication. Although there is some logic in both directions, the point of departure has to be that the time is from the partial ruling.
Since beit din has to adjudicate further on the dispute, we recommend that def present his new proofs, which may have an impact on the rest of the case. If it turns out that it does not impact the partial ruling, beit din will be able to explain this in its final ruling and hopefully put def’s mind at rest. If it information should change the ruling, beit din can deal with the ramifications at that time. One of the possibilities is for def to appeal to the regional courts to allow the arbitrator’s authority to extend to the matter of the partial ruling based on the new information.
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Various Rabbis
524 - Was the Site Created Fast Enough?
525 - Authority of the Beit Din to Hear Arguably Late Appeal
526 - Firing with Insufficient Warning? – part I
Load More
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.
Moreshet Shaul Moreshet Shaul: A Crown and its Scepter – part II
Based on Siach Shaul, Pirkei Machshava V’Hadracha p. 294-5
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Multiple Agreements and Parties – part III
based on appeal of ruling 80082 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: To Whom Do the Payments Go? – part I
based on ruling 81075 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'NINAT MISHPAT: A Mess of Loans, Repayments and Grievances – part II
based on ruling 83033 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: A Contractor’s Leaving the Job in the Middle – part III
based on ruling 84013 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Rabbis in Midrash
Lessons
fast navigation
Various Events FOR WHOM NOT TO VOTE
Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook stressed that Israeli politics is G-dly, so I have no problem answering this common question on a Torani blog. Also, Free-Will is a G-d-given right and obligation, to "destine one's fate" (R. Soloveichik, Kol Dodi Dofek, 67), so I obviously don't tell others how to vote. But once not a few (especially young) have already asked, a couple of personal words from experience and thoughts from chazal & Rav Kook which may be of help to others, mainly for whom NOT to vote.
P'ninat Mishpat Fallout from Failure to Install Elevator – part II
based on ruling 85007 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
