Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: [Last time, we saw that financial logic, the language of the agreement and an admission of pl in a different beit din all indicate that pl did not own 10% of the property but only has claims to 10% of profit.]
In general, legally and halachically, entry of ownership in the Tabu is very significant, and in this case, it seems to support pl. However, there are problems with the support it gives. Pl admits that he never had more than 10% rights, yet the Tabu had him at 25%, and now at 13.5%. Thus, the Tabu is not an accurate indication. Def1 does not appear in it at all, and yet all agree that he is the main owner and that the Tabu was done as it was for technical reasons (the sides preferred not to discuss details).
Arguably, pl has a migo (proof of telling the truth from the fact that he could have won with a claim that he admits is not true). In a case where the thing he wants to rely upon is invalid (the Tabu, in regard to this case), we have an indication from the gemara (Bava Batra 32b) that migo does not help. Our beit din has ruled in the past that when an entry in Tabu can be demonstrated to be incorrect, the Tabu is to be fixed rather than being able to validate that which is not true. The other official papers that state that pl is a 13.5% owner are just extensions of the Tabu entry.
Agr states that pl is to cooperate with requests for building permits, and based on the timing of the letter of understanding, it clearly applies to stage 2 of expansion as well. While an obligation to do something is not generally halachically binding, since def1 relied on the promise, pl would at least be obligated to pay for damages stemming from his refusal. Furthermore, in our times, an obligation to go along with a building practice can be binding based on dina d’malchuta (the Law of Contracts) and accepted practice. Therefore, pl is to cooperate with the process or face sanctions from beit din.
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
690 - Learning Right after Shacharit
691 - Extent of Partnership – part II
692 - Did the Renovations Cause Damages?
Load More
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 Profits from Formerly Joint Swimming Pool – part
(based on ruling 81110 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Agricultural Water Rights – part II
based on ruling 84122 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Sharing in Plumbing Expenses – part I
based on ruling 85013 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
