Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: [Last time we saw that pl was not negligent in not signing a contract with oo or coming to help def negotiate with him.]
There were conflicting testimonies in beit din regarding the question if oo was willing to go along with the agreement that he and pl had worked out. Mr. S said that because oo thought it was too much merchandise to trust CP to pay for, oo refused to give that which was promised. Mr. P (pl’s brother) said that oo did not trust that pl had ordered wisely, considering it was for the Diaspora, and that maybe had pl been present he could have solved the problem. Therefore, he said, the deal was only made possible by oo’s confidante, Mr. T. Mr. A also said that oo had not prepared merchandise for def, as he does for buyers he takes seriously. Oo testified that while he was surprised, he was willing to do the sale as discussed, but that he thought that CP would want a different arrangement. Actually, the claim that it was a totally new deal is something that def never raised in his letters to beit din; he raised it for the first time in the hearing. There was a contradiction in Mr. S’s testimony, who def brought as a witness, as he later said that he ignored pl’s order and pushed in a new order of his own volition. Perhaps the strongest evidence that pl’s contribution was not forgotten, is that the delivery order that oo prepared said, "for pl or Mr. S in the name of CP," and Mr. S signed that order. Mr. S said that he did not consider that accurate but only signed about the number received. The gemara (Ketubot 24b) relates to the question if one who signs on a document affirms everything written in it or only its critical elements. The Rama (Choshen Mishpat 49:7) rules that we view it in a limited manner; the Shach (ad loc. 7) views it more broadly.
We cannot base ourselves strongly on Mr. P’s testimony, as he is a relative of a party, nor on Mr. S’s testimony, as he contradicted himself.
[Next time, we will discuss the status of oo’s testimony and complete our treatment of the case.]
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
589 - Why Was the Etrog Order Changed? – part
590 - Why Was the Etrog Order Changed? – part II
591 - Why Was the Etrog Order Changed? – part III
Load More
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
P'ninat Mishpat Payment for Not Clearing Warehouse On Time – part II
based on ruling 75076 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Igrot Hare’aya Trying to Arrange Purchase of Land in Eretz Yisrael
#222 Date and Place: 2 Elul 5669 (1909), Rechovot
Igrot Hare’aya Connecting Disciplines in Torah Study
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook 103 – part III
P'ninat Mishpat A Commercial Rental for a Closed Business – part II
based on ruling 80047 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
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Dividing Parents’ Resources when Mother Still Alive
based on ruling 82017 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
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
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
