Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: Since both sides agree on the outstanding payment on the printing press, but they disagree about the claims for deduction, def must substantiate the latter.
Written agreement – The sides presented beit din with four signed agreements from over the years. In three of them, the agreement’s introduction defines the "muskar" (rental property) as pl’s full hall. The third agreement, signed only by pl, mentions first that def is renting two thirds of the hall and then defines that area as the muskar. In all the contracts, it then says that def is responsible for the muskar’s various charges.
According to the majority opinion, since the first agreement clearly defines the whole hall as the muskar, we are to understand that def is responsible for the payments in full. Although the third contract’s reading sounds like the muskar refers only to def’s two thirds, it is not explicit enough to contradict the assumption that renewed agreements continue the original one. In addition, only pl signed the third agreement, which is an indication that it was not supposed to change the conditions. The minority opinion disagreed with this logic because when there is a change in the language (where it is easier to keep the same language), we can assume there was a purposeful change, and the fact that only pl signed does not mean that his signature is not an agreement to something to his detriment. However, this dayan agrees with the others that def has to pay the municipal tax because the relevant ordinance posits that the main person who uses the property (in this case, def) is responsible for paying municipal tax. Therefore, def had to pay the whole tax, and def does not deserve relief on payment.
The majority also learns that def agreed to pay all the side payments from the fact that he did not demand compensation for the alleged extra third until after the business connections ended and pl demanded def to pay the balance on the printing press. Additionally even when def made the claim, he only did so in regard to enough of the years for him to erase his own obligation. The minority opinion argues that there were also obligations that def had to pl that pl did not make claims on for many years, and that this can be explained by their close relationship at the time.
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
715 - Fee for a Fired Toein Rabbani – part II
716 - Various Issues Regarding a Printing Press – part I
717 - Various Issues Regarding a Printing Press – part II
Load More
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
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 Profits from Formerly Joint Swimming Pool – part
(based on ruling 81110 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: 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: Sharing in Plumbing Expenses – part II
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
