Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: We have discussed all of the claims of the suit. Now we will examine def’s offsetting claim of hityashnut (statute of limitation), that too many years have gone by since the events that caused the obligations. Def claims that this is a sign that the claims are untrue and that Israeli law does not allow such claims to be presented to court.
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
646 - Making Up for Unpaid Employment Benefits – part III
647 - Making Up for Unpaid Employment Benefits – part IV
648 - Receiving One’s Due in a Joint Building Project – part I
Load More
When there are grounds for payment, we do not say that the passing time without a claim is a proof of mechila and that beit din must be suspicious about the fact that the claim was raised late unless the suspicion has specific merit (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 98:1-2). Thus, Halacha does not fundamentally recognize hityashnut. The likely difference in this matter between Halacha and secular law is that Halacha is more concerned with justice than with "proper procedure" (one should make his claim promptly and allow the obligated to "move on") (Mishpetei Uziel IV:28). Beit din need not be suspicious of the claim regarding the pension because def agrees with the claim’s factual basis.
Some poskim entertain the possibility of hityashnut entering Halacha based on accepted practice (see Pitchei Choshen, Halva’ah 2:(72)). Our beit din accepts this approach when there is such a minhag, including when it developed because of the law. However, this applies to obligations that are created due to agreement between the parties, not in a case like ours when it is based on damages, when def caused pl to rely upon him and failed to follow through.
Additional reasons that hityashnut does not apply here: Israeli law views hityashnut as a matter of court procedure, not of the forfeit of the obligation. Additionally, while the law applies to arbitration, religious courts were excluded from the law (because they are entitled to their own procedures). Finally, the law requires a litigant to invoke hityashnut at the first opportunity. Def did not do so at the first hearing, but only in later written submissions.
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
Igrot Hare’aya Raffle of Property in Eretz Yisrael for Tzedaka
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook: – #220
P'ninat Mishpat Payments after a Gradual End of Employment
(Based on ruling 82024 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Igrot Hare’aya Trying to Arrange Purchase of Land in Eretz Yisrael – part II
#229 Date and Place: 13 Tishrei 5670 (1909), Yafo
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: Undoing a Problematic Partnership – part III
based on ruling 84061 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Undoing a Problematic Partnership – part I
based on ruling 84061 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
