- Sections
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: Pl and def’s partnership took a turn for the worse when def decided that his daughter would become the school secretary, and pl refused because it would stymie her freedom to run the school. Pl started to make demands, via email, of steps needed to bolster her standing, and after a few weeks, def demanded a hearing with pl. Pl refused to participate in a hearing and demanded agreement on her terms via email. After several days of each applying pressure via email, def fired pl via email, effective the end of the school year.

P'ninat Mishpat (762)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
731 - Back Pay for a Junior Lawyer – part I
732 - How to Take Payment from A Guarantor – part lII
733 - Veto Power of Special Stockholders – part II
Load More
Regarding informing the students and parents, pl has a grievance, as the two had agreed not to act unilaterally, and def did not keep his word, which caused pl embarrassment. Def’s claim that he had to act to preempt pl’s "stealing the school" was not substantiated. Beit din does not have grounds to levy a formal payment for the personal affront (def did not defame her), but they recommend that def pay pl an extra half-month of salary along with an apology as moral amends.
Pl denies she worked on making a new school. She admits only to a single inquiry if someone would back the present school if def pulled out financial backing. After the firing, pl did look into the possibility of claiming that the school was hers rather than def’s, as she formed it, and a witness testified that pl might have taken such a course if the witness had not supported def. However, there are no grounds for obligating money for contemplations that did not bring on concrete steps or damage.
Most of pl and def’s interaction was via email. While there were emotional emails in which pl shared her frustration and one set of emails in which she complained that def did not show appreciation for her contributions, nothing rose to the level of abuse. She also seriously apologized a few times for strong messages, and def accepted the apologies. Def never gave any form of pl’s abuse as a reason for firing her, and he even offered a raise in salary after the exchanges took place. Therefore, this accusation by def is inappropriate and defamatory; it appears that he made the claims to intimidate or counter pl’s monetary claims, which is wrong. Therefore, def must pay pl 12,000 NIS toward her legal expenses.

Responsibility of a Guardian
Various Rabbis | Adar I 16 5776

P'ninat Mishpat: What is Included in Costs of the Elevator?
based on ruling 82159 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Tishrei 5785

Ending Payment for Child Care Center
Various Rabbis | Elul 5 5778

P'ninat Mishpat: Questions of Changing Work Orders
based on ruling 79044 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Shevat 5784

Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit

Interceding Regarding a Will
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook #105
Sivan 28 5782

Payment for Not Clearing Warehouse On Time – part II
based on ruling 75076 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Av 20 5780

Limits of Interest Rate for Loan with Heter Iska – part II
based on ruling 80033 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Sivan 15 5782

Who Breached the Contract? – part IV
Based on ruling 81087 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Iyar 20 5783
Daf Yomi Sanhedrin Daf 55
R' Eli Stefansky | 12 Shevat 5785
Daf Yomi Sanhedrin Daf 56
R' Eli Stefansky | 13 Shevat 5785
Daf Yomi Sanhedrin Daf 57
R' Eli Stefansky | 14 Shevat 5785
