Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: Rent for storage area due to late placement of a wall – While all agree there was agreement to erect a wall, the sides disagree whether it was a condition for payment of rent. It is also unclear if the purpose was to give def privacy or to protect valuable items that def might want to put there. Beit din rules that def must pay rent. An oral agreement to rent an area can be made binding based on chazaka, i.e., the renter’s use of the area for his purposes (see Machaneh Ephrayim, Sechirut 1; Netivot Mishpat 192:6). This was done, making the agreement binding. For a condition to nullify the transaction if it is unmet, the condition must be mentioned explicitly at the time of the kinyan (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 207:4). In a case like this, where the kinyan was definite and the existence of a condition is questionable, the definite existence of a kinyan gives the one who wants to uphold it against nullification the upper hand.
Def claims that the storage area he received is flawed due to the lack of the wall. Pl claims that the rent was for the space, whereas the promise of the wall was an additional agreement that does not take away from the first one. According to the majority of dayanim, the above logic applies – the agreement is definite, the condition is unclear, and therefore def should pay in full. According to the minority opinion, since the question is not whether to uphold the agreement, but how much def should pay, after the fact, the amount should be adjusted to reflect the lower value of the area as a storage room without a wall (for many months).
Payment for eventual building of a wall – Def had promised to pay 4,000 NIS for the building of the above wall but refuses to pay it, because it was built at such a great delay that it is irrelevant and because it was not built in a hermetic enough manner. Beit din rejects both claims. There was no time set for the building of the wall, and, in fact, def was originally supposed to be in charge of arranging it. When it was built, def was still using pl’s property, and def did not set a deadline for pl, after which point, he would not pay for it. There is no indication that def had raised a specific description of the wall, and a retroactive complaint that came up first only in the summation of claims before beit din’s writing the ruling is not to be accepted in such a matter.
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
739 - Conditions of the Leasing of a Community Supermarket
740 - Mutual Repairs Agreement – part I
741 - Mutual Repairs Agreement – part II
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 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 Trying to Arrange Purchase of Land in Eretz Yisrael
#222 Date and Place: 2 Elul 5669 (1909), Rechovot
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Multiple Agreements and Parties – part III
based on appeal of ruling 80082 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
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
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
