Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- 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 (835)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
725 - Back Pay for a Junior Lawyer – part I
726 - How to Take Payment from A Guarantor – part lII
727 - 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.
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
Igrot Hare’aya Connecting Disciplines in Torah Study
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook #103 – part II
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 P'ninat Mishpat: Realtor’s Fee on Large Commercial Building – part I
(based on ruling 85031 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
P'ninat Mishpat Complaints about Contractor’s Work – part II
(based on ruling 83037.1 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Complaints about Contractor’s Work – part II
(based on ruling 83037.1 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
