Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: We have dealt with all of the original points of the claims and counter-claims, primarily siding with pl. Now we will look at the impact of the pandemic.
During 32 days of the time that the business was closed and def was to pay rent, the government-imposed closure prevented such businesses from operating. In general, when use of a rental property becomes impossible due to a makat medina (society-wide plague), the renter is exempt from paying (Rama, Choshen Mishpat 312:17). While this ostensibly indicates that def is exempt for paying for the 32 days, one of the dayanim argued that since def’s decision to not use the unit preceded the closures, def is not entitled to an exemption. The gemara (Bava Metzia 106a) discusses a case of one who rented a field and the area’s vegetation was ruined by infestation, which generally is reason to reduce the rent. The gemara says that if the renter did not plant that season, he cannot gain an exemption because the field owner can say that we treat it as if there was a chance that had he planted, he would have been the exception to the rule. Furthermore, def was not fully affected by a makat medina because he could have used the unit for a different purpose. Also, according to the Maharam Tiktin, we do not exempt a renter for a makat medina when the structure is standing and there is an external reason that affects the renter and precludes him from using it.
However, the majority ruled to give a 50% reduction on these days because of a machloket on the matter. The Rama (Shut 50) posits that if someone improperly reneged on a deal and then a situation arose to prevent its implementation, we say that he became obligated to pay when reneging and does not benefit from the exemption based on the new situation. The Sha’ar Mishpat (333:1) reasons that just because one backed out does not obligate him for a time he would anyway be exempt for. This is especially true of rental, where every day creates a new obligation to pay. The Erech Shay (333:1) argues that the Rama was not referring to a makat medina and might agree in this case. Furthermore. here, def had not removed his furnishings and could have used the unit so that the closure was of significance to him. Therefore a partial exemption is appropriate.
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
638 - A Commercial Rental for a Closed Business – part I
639 - A Commercial Rental for a Closed Business – part II
640 - A Commercial Rental for a Closed Business – part III
Load More
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
Igrot Hare’aya Semi-solicited Advice to Calm Down Petach Tikva
#227 Date and Place: 8 Tishrei 5669, Yafo
P'ninat Mishpat Limits of Interest Rate for Loan with Heter Iska – part II
based on ruling 80033 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Unsuccessful Transfer of Yeshiva – part V
based on appeal ruling 82138 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Sharing in Plumbing Expenses – part II
based on ruling 85013 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: A Contractor’s Leaving the Job in the Middle – part II
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
