Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: There is no need, according to neither Halacha nor secular law, for an arbitration clause to be labeled as such if its content indicates that this is the clause’s function. Def’s claim of possible forgery is a serious one. Def should have a copy of the rental contract. If it is different from the one that pl sent to beit din, this supports the claim of forgery, but def did not present such an alternative contract, making it wrong to propose the claim with scant basis.
Def’s claim that beit din categorically cannot rule in abstentia is incorrect. If it is determined that beit din has jurisdiction and the defendant consciously refused to come without justification and does not give in to pressure (see Shut Maharil Diskin, P’sakim 52), beit din may hear the plaintiff’s claims, investigate the matter, and rule (Maharam Shick, Choshen Mishpat 2; Guidelines of the Israeli Rabbinical Courts). On the other hand, this is an unusual step that is contemplated only when there is no choice. In this case, def has an argument over jurisdiction and is not outright refusing to adjudicate. Therefore, ruling in abstentia is not currently "on the table."
The correct reading of the arbitration clause is not a trivial matter. According to the laws of arbitration, a court is incapable of making a binding determination (when one is needed) about its own jurisdiction. According to law, the jurisdiction is adjudicated by the governmental courts. However, since both sides are G-d-fearing people who agree to go to beit din, it is proper that another beit din determine it. Def is correct that as the defendant, he gets to choose the venue (Shulchan Aruch, CM 14), and therefore they should bring their preliminary dispute to Beit Din X to rule on jurisdiction. If Beit Din X rules that the adjudication should be by us, then even according to def’s reading of the arbitration agreement, they must do so.
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
607 - Firing during Maternity Leave
608 - Interpreting an Arbitration Clause
609 - Pay for Contractor who Left the Job under Protest – part I
Load More
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
Igrot Hare’aya Connecting Disciplines in Torah Study
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook 103 – part III
Igrot Hare’aya Trying to Arrange Purchase of Land in Eretz Yisrael
#222 Date and Place: 2 Elul 5669 (1909), Rechovot
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Complaints about Contractor’s Work – part II
(based on ruling 83037.1 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: A Seller with Questionable Rights to the Property – part I
based on ruling 84062 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: 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
