Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: Privacy: Pl cannot be made to seal the window through which their children allegedly disturb def because they have a chazaka on the use of that window (see Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 154:7) after years of it being used even after def had exclusive rights. On the other hand, the Rama (ibid.) points out that when there is chazaka for the window, that means that the window can exist even though one could look, but it is forbidden to look at his neighbors’ property in a manner that is personally damaging. Therefore, pl are to firmly instruct their children not to look (or obviously to throw things down). If def want, they can erect a fence at the edge of the courtyard to protect their privacy.
Housing Unit: In general, it is problematic to add additional residents into a joint property (see Shulchan Aruch, CM 154:1). However, def also built an extra housing unit on their extension, and the rule is that one cannot object to a change a neighbor made if he did the same thing himself.
Pipes: Neither side proved whether water coming from pl’s property causes damage to def’s property (they were asked to film where water goes during a period of rain and neither did). However, based on what we know, there is likelihood that water falling can cause problems. Therefore, pl must extend the pipes so that they do not fall in the proximity of def’s property. We will not levy payments for the unproven claim of damage in the past.
Aravot: The demand for pl to pay 400 NIS a year for the arava tree that was displaced is rejected. The claim that pl agreed to such a thing was not proven, and the nature of the 400 NIS is not a matter of loss but of unrealized profit, which halachically is viewed very differently.
P'ninat Mishpat (801)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
761 - P'ninat Mishpat: Late and Flawed Apartment
762 - P'ninat Mishpat: Did Any Furniture Go to the Buyer? – part II
763 - P'ninat Mishpat: Did Any Furniture Go to the Buyer? – part I
Load More
P'ninat Mishpat: Dividing Returns on Partially Cancelled Trip – part I
based on ruling 84070 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Tammuz 5785
P'ninat Mishpat: Benefit from Unsolicited Efforts of the Plaintiff
based on appeal of ruling 82138 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Av 5785
P'ninat Mishpat: Did Any Furniture Go to the Buyer? – part II
based on ruling 84093 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Kislev 5786
P'ninat Mishpat: Normalizing an Agreement that Becomes Absurd
based on ruling 83069 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Sivan 5785
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
Raffle of Property in Eretz Yisrael for Tzedaka
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook: – #220
18 Sivan 5784
A Commercial Rental for a Closed Business – part II
based on ruling 80047 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Shvat 1 5782
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
