Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: The fundamental halachic question is whether the owner of a higher property must take steps so that water not damage property below it. The Rama (Choshen Mishpat 155:4) says that the owner of the higher property is not required to prevent water that he does not own and to whose presence he did not contribute from going into his neighbor’s property; the latter is to take precautions to protect himself. This is apparently contradicted by the Rama (CM 164:1) who requires the owner of a roof to keep it from allowing rain to damage another. The Netivot Hamishpat (164:2) answers that the latter source is talking about a case in which there is a partnership of sorts between the neighbors, which obligates each to the other. Therefore, in our case of neighbors who are not partners, def would not have been responsible to pay for upgrades. However, since def received the property with a pipe in it, he would be required to maintain the precautionary devices he received. Since he recently did work that now endangers pl’s property, def must properly restore a pipe.
The sides disagree about whether the pipe was present during ff. During a relatively recent phone call between def, pl, and a supervisor in the third company, def apparently admitted that the pipe had been removed. Def claims he was confused during the conversation and misspoke. In fact, def presented two pictures showing no significant difference in the site before and after the alleged changes, and pl admitted that the pictures show no relevant change. (Pl argued that the dating of the pictures was mistaken, but it was proven that pl was wrong about that.) Since pl’s admission was done in beit din, where a litigant knows he needs to be exact, pl’s admission is more weighty. In this circumstance, def can claim he made a mistake during the phone call (see Shulchan Aruch, CM 81:23).
Beit din is not required to analyze whether def could be obligated to pay for the damage from sf. This is because twice during the adjudication, pl said that he would be fair to def and not demand payment for it. After such mechila, even if (far from clear) pl would have been deserving compensation from def, he can no longer demand it.
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
765 - P'ninat Mishpat: Did the Real Estate Agent Remain Relevant?
766 - P'ninat Mishpat: Upper Property’s Responsibility for Flooding
767 - P'ninat Mishpat: Unsuccessful Transfer of Yeshiva – part I
Load More
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
P'ninat Mishpat A Commercial Rental for a Closed Business – part II
based on ruling 80047 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)
Igrot Hare’aya Trying to Arrange Purchase of Land in Eretz Yisrael – part II
#229 Date and Place: 13 Tishrei 5670 (1909), Yafo
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 P'ninat Mishpat: How Many Dayanim?
based on ruling 84139-1 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
