Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: Pl demands that def return 10,000 NIS that a municipality mistakenly gave him for a Purim program she ran as the sides were parting, for which she billed the municipality and paid taxes, after she did the program without the help she asked for from def. Def explained why he was unable to provide the help and claimed that, in any case, based on the timing, the money belongs to him. Ruling: Based on beit din’s arrangements for transfer of the business, all monies received for services rendered before May 1 belong to def. It does not make a difference if def helped or did not. If pl (improperly) sent the municipality an invoice which resulted in her paying taxes, she caused herself the problem and does not receive compensation.
Pl demands half of the income from special events, which netted 189,000 NIS, based on an oral agreement due to the fact that pl was not being paid profits. Def denies such an agreement. Ruling: A few factors weaken pl’s claim. There is no circumstantial evidence of such an agreement or of an early claim of that money. Pl raised the claim in beit din at a late point in the adjudication. The sides’ written agreement lists such events as a basic obligation of pl, not a special, additional one. We also reasoned that pl might have made up for doing less therapy than expected by doing more of other things, such as special projects. Therefore, without substantiation, pl will not get anything from this claim.
Pl’s husband provided many services for the center and allowed it to use his property and has not gotten paid; the value of these is scores of thousands of NIS. Def’s only response was that the claim was made too late. Ruling: The Rama (Choshen Mishpat 264:4) rules that when one does a service for his fellow without being asked, we normally assume that he is to be paid, not that he was doing it for free. The Chatam Sofer (Shut V:119) says that delay in requesting pay is not an indication of waiving his rights. However, pl, in her summary of claims, explained that since the work had been done under false pretenses (regarding the chances of pl receiving profit), she can ask for money now. This means that she admits mechila previously, and she did not sufficiently prove the false pretenses. Additionally, the recipient of the award would be pl’s husband, but he is not a litigant in our proceedings. Therefore, there is no award of payment.
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
710 - Compensation for Transfer of Business to One Partner – part VI
711 - Compensation for Transfer of Business to One Partner – part VII
712 - Problems Arising from the Sale of Stores in New Project – part III
Load More
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
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 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 Limits of Interest Rate for Loan with Heter Iska – part I
based on ruling 80033 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Igrot Hare’aya Raffle of Property in Eretz Yisrael for Tzedaka
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook: – #220
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Problematic Lights?
based on appeal of ruling 84085 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
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Agricultural Water Rights – part I
based on ruling 84122 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
