YeshivaThe torah world Gateway
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: [Last time we discussed how much rental proceeds def must give to pl.]
P'ninat Mishpat (834)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
743 - Repercussions of a Sale that Turned Out Not Happening – part I
744 - Repercussions of a Sale That Turned Out Not Happening – part II
745 - Repercussions of a Sale that Turned Out Not Happening – part III
Load More
The question emerges from the following point. Pictures from various occasions indicate that some damage took place from the time that def vacated the unit until pl took charge, as the uprooted front door enabled trespassing; a trespasser apparently damaged the unit. The Yad Ramah (Bava Batra 2b) obligates someone who, due to negligence in his own property, enabled thieves to steal from his neighbor’s property. The Rama (Choshen Mishpat 155:44) cites those who agree and disagree (Rosh) with the Ramah’s opinion, without deciding between them, and Acharonim disagree which to accept. However, even according to the Rosh, there is at least a moral obligation to pay, and our arbitration agreement authorizes beit din to levy payments according to its judgment even for moral obligations. Beit din obligates def in two thirds of its estimation of the damages even though it might have been done by others due to def’s actions to pl’s property.
Regarding improvements that def made, the rule is that if one makes improvements in another’s property without permission, and the owner would have had the improvements done at some point, the owner must pay their fair value (Shulchan Aruch, CM 375:1). A witness said that before the improvements, the unit was uninhabitable. The same is true when the improver did it after what appeared to be his purchase, but the purchase was nullified (ibid. 232:14). Def did not prove that he improved the unit by 67,000 NIS, but since he is obligated 56,550 NIS, he is believed enough to not pay that money.
We will finish off the final elements next time.
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
Igrot Hare’aya Departure of an Uncle to Eretz Yisrael
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook: Vol. I, #1 , p. 1-2 – part II
P'ninat Mishpat Who Breached the Contract? – part IV
Based on ruling 81087 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 Limits of Interest Rate for Loan with Heter Iska – part I
based on ruling 80033 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
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: A Contractor’s Leaving the Job in the Middle – part III
based on ruling 84013 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)
Rabbis in Midrash
Lessons
fast navigation
Moreshet Shaul Hashem Is your Shadow – part I
Based on Siach Shaul, Pirkei Machshava V’Hadracha p. 420 – an address from 1941
P'ninat Mishpat A Non-Contractor in Changing Times – part I
(based on ruling 85128 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
Moreshet Shaul Our King on Rosh Hashana, Our Father on Yom Kippur.
Based on Aroch Siach, p. 221 (Rav Shaul Yisraeli)
P'ninat Mishpat A Non-Contractor in Changing Times – part II
(based on ruling 85128 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
Moreshet Shaul Hashem Is your Shadow – part II
Based on Siach Shaul, Pirkei Machshava V’Hadracha p. 420 – an address from 1941
Parashat Hashavua Happiness for the Right Reasons
[With painful longing, we share these divrei Torah from our co-Rosh Kollel for close to 40 years, Harav Moshe Ehrenreich zt”l.]
