Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: Payment for hosting: Pl claims that he was asked one summer to oversee vacationers staying in the dormitory and was promised 3,000 NIS. He received 3,000 NIS soon thereafter, but the paystub called it a studies stipend. (Def’s rosh yeshiva (=ry) promised to help pl study towards an MA, because pl had planned to get one quickly, and def asked him to delay it in order to dedicate himself to def.) Def said that the stipend was only if pl would stay a year longer than he did. One administrator (adm1) confirms pl helped with vacationers, and ry admits he promised a stipend but does not know if def’s director approved it, as necessary. Since the paystub mentions the stipend, we can assume that the stipend was approved by def, and since adm1 admits that pl worked with vacationers, pl deserves both. Since the 3,000 NIS was only paid once, pl deserves another 3,000 NIS.
15% salary supplement for running dormitory: Pl says that he deserves this based on the collective bargaining agreement. Def says that the paystubs mention a 5% payment for "supervising the dormitory" and a 10.4% payment for "being on call" (which is the reason there is a supplement for dormitory supervisors). Beit din’s research shows that there are two different incentives – one for general "on-call" duty in counseling roles (12%) and another specifically for supervising a dormitory (15%). Def claimed that the fact that pl was given pay-level 16 should compensate. However, when def agreed to include pl in the collective agreement, that obligates in its elements, whereas level 16 impacts on a wider variety of elements. The two should not be seen as mutually exclusive. Therefore, pl deserves a 27% supplement and has received only 15.4%. Beit din’s expert calculated that this comes to 19,107 NIS.
Def’s claim that pl was overpaid 40,338 NIS – There is no demonstrated connection between pl’s rights to his claim and the claim that he was overpaid. Because the money was given by def without clear conditions, they cannot demand it back even if it were true that they would not have given so much if they knew about pl’s claims (see Pitchei Choshen, Kinyanim 17:(56)). Def admits that he was not involved when the early agreements were made, and therefore there is no way to know what def had considered that pl was deserving.
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
702 - A Request for Turkish Protection
703 - Unpaid Worker’s Compensation
704 - P'ninat Mishpat: Compensation for Transfer of Business to One Partner
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 Repercussions of a Sale that Turned Out Not Happening – part III
(based on ruling 83045 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
P'ninat Mishpat Repercussions of a Sale That Turned Out Not Happening – part II
(based on ruling 83045 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
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 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: Undoing a Problematic Partnership – part II
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
