- Sections
- P'ninat Mishpat
18
Ruling: [Last time we saw that the first agreement was a rental, not a sale. We started considering pl’s claim of mekach ta’ut (transaction based on misinformation) since pl did not know about the tax.]

P'ninat Mishpat (769)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
765 - Who Pays for an Unexpected Tax? – part I
766 - Who Pays for an Unexpected Tax? – part II
767 - Not Completed and Imperfect Renovation Job – part II
Load More
Is lack of knowledge about building rights/taxes comparable to something missing/wrong with a property? Contemporary Acharonim dispute this matter. Rav Yehuda Silman (Hayashar V’hatov X, pp. 85-93) compares a case similar to ours to a blemish in a property. In both cases, the buyer can opt out of the sale. Along these lines, the Maharsham (III:181) says that if the seller did not know about a significant tax, he can nullify the sale. Rav Levin (Yerushalayim Rulings XI, p. 310) brings a machloket whether changes in rights are grounds for nullifying a sale, but concludes that if it was known that building rights were a possibility, not being aware of the tax considerations does not nullify the sale. Rav Nussbaum (Mekabtz’el XXX, p. 375), discussing a case where the buyer has to inform the seller of rights that the seller does not know about, opined that the lack of knowledge would not nullify the sale but the buyer would violate the prohibition of benefitting from mispricing and would be obligated to return the difference.
In our case, the first two opinions would say that pl can nullify the sale, and the third would say that he would be obligated to return the extra value of the property. In this case, pl is asking for less than that, allowing def to enjoy the new rights and asking only to reimburse for the fraction of that difference, to reimburse for the added tax, and he should be able to do so.
We will bring the final considerations next time.

P'ninat Mishpat: How Far Does a Lien Go?
based on ruling 83097 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Shevat 5784

Mold Damage to a Rented Apartment
Various Rabbis | Adar I 23 5779

P'ninat Mishpat: Unpaid Fees of a No-Show to Beit Din
based on ruling 84052 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Shevat 5784

P'ninat Mishpat: Did the Real Estate Agent Remain Relevant?
based on ruling 84031 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Adar 5784

Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit

Repercussions of a Sale That Turned Out Not Happening – part II
(based on ruling 83045 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
18 Sivan 5784

Limiting Exorbitant Lawyer’s Fees – part I
(Based on ruling 81120 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
Tishrei 29 5783

Connecting Disciplines in Torah Study
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook #103 – part II
Sivan 8 5782

Profits from Formerly Joint Swimming Pool – part
(based on ruling 81110 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
19 Sivan 5784

“G” Dash “D”?
Rabbi Daniel Mann | Adar 21 5780

21. The Dangers of Pride
Rabbi Zalman Baruch Melamed

The Mitzvah of Settling the Land of Israel
Rabbi Eliezer Melamed | 5575

The Mitzvah of Settling the Land of Israel
Rabbi Eliezer Melamed | 5575

Refuting Criticism by the Ridbaz – #311 – part III
Date and Place: 19 Sivan 5670 (1910), Yafo
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Nisan 5785

Parashat Hashavua: Who Called Out to Whom?
Rabbi Yossef Carmel | Nisan 5785
Daf Yomi Sanhedrin Daf 107
R' Eli Stefansky | 5 Nisan 5785
