Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: In the letter of claim and first hearing, pl1 asked for 6 months of salary for 2015 (=42,000 NIS). However, in summations he added on the first three months of 2016, claiming that he did not mention those months previously because he had limited his total claim to 120,000 NIS and was referring only to the amount due for 2015. One is not able to alter the scope of his claims in the midst of a proceeding unless he has a convincing explanation (amatla) as to why he changed his claim (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 80:1). Pl1 did not explain why he would have limited his claim to 120,000 NIS if he thought he deserved more or why he would have not bothered to mention the months of 2016. Therefore, the additional claim will not be considered.
Def1 claimed that pl1 should prove that he did sufficient work during 2015 to justify a full salary. While pl1 did provide some documentation of work, it is unclear that it was proof of a great enough amount. However, that is not the issue here. According to the agreement, pl1 was to be paid as a worker for a time period, not as a contractor who gets paid by results. Since no time expectations were stated for pl1 (there was no claim that pl1 was supposed to punch a clock), it is not feasible for him to prove that he did as much as he had to. It was clear that part of pl1’s day was going to be spent working on pl2, to which def2 channeled clients, and the same agreement that mandated it also spoke of pl1’s salary. Def1 was unable to explain to beit din exactly what was expected of pl1.
In cases like this, when one side can know the facts and the other cannot, the one who knows is believed with an oath (Shulchan Aruch, CM 91:3). According to the common practice (and apparently the law), we do not reduce anything from the worker’s salary in such a case, which is what we will rule. Therefore, pl1 is to receive 42,000 NIS on this claim.
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
655 - Disappointment with Arba Minim Sales Provisions – part III
656 - Aftermath of a Complex Partnership – part I
657 - Aftermath of a Complex Partnership – part II
Load More
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
Igrot Hare’aya Trying to Arrange Purchase of Land in Eretz Yisrael
#222 Date and Place: 2 Elul 5669 (1909), Rechovot
Igrot Hare’aya Semi-solicited Advice to Calm Down Petach Tikva
#227 Date and Place: 8 Tishrei 5669, Yafo
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Multiple Agreements and Parties – part IV
based on final ruling of 80082 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat Limits of Interest Rate for Loan with Heter Iska – part I
based on ruling 80033 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Undoing a Problematic Partnership – part II
based on ruling 84061 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: A Seller with Questionable Rights to the Property – part II
based on ruling 84062 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
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)
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
