Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: [In the ruling, which we featured on this past Parashat Emor, there were three different analyses of the dayanim, but the majority agreed that pl had too much access to information prior to the purchase to nullify it. Now we see the judgment of the appeal panel.]
The first question requested to be reconsidered is about the difference between the way def told pl about the problem with the car and the actuality. The gemara (Bava Batra 83b) says that if one bought an object with the understanding it was of poor quality and it was of poor quality, he may not back out of the sale. The Ran (accepted by the S’ma 233:4) asks that this is obvious and therefore says that the gemara is referring to a case where it is of an even lower quality than he understood, and still the sale is valid. Arguably, that is the case here. However, we believe that an engine that is likely to stop working in a relatively short amount of time is of a different category of problem. Shut Maharil Diskin (166) applied the same idea to a horse suffering from a worse disease than the buyer told about.
Since pl chose to not just describe the symptoms but cite an expert (mech2), it was wrong to not cite mech1. This is strengthened by the fact that def followed mech1’s advice (to sell the car) and by the fact that def did not cooperate with the appeal panel’s request to provide information for beit din’s expert to give a third opinion.
Def claimed that he suspects that pl did not add as much oil as he was told to, which caused the engine to be ruined. Considering that the sale was nullified, it turns out that pl became a "watchman" over it, and def claims that he was negligent as such. According to Torah law, he would have to swear that he added as much oil as he should have, and in lieu of that, and in consideration of the fact that pl ended up using a car that was not his, we will reduce 4,000 NIS from what pl should get. Def should now pay 20,000 NIS.
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
786 - P'ninat Mishpat: Using Car that Was Supposed to be Returned
787 - P'ninat Mishpat: A Used Car with a Tendency Toward Engine Problems
788 - P'ninat Mishpat: Benefit from Unsolicited Efforts of the Plaintiff
Load More
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
Igrot Hare’aya Connecting Disciplines in Torah Study
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook #103 – 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 Trying to Arrange Purchase of Land in Eretz Yisrael
#222 Date and Place: 2 Elul 5669 (1909), Rechovot
P'ninat Mishpat Payments after a Gradual End of Employment
(Based on ruling 82024 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: A Seller with Questionable Rights to the Property – part II
based on ruling 84062 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Tuition Payment after Withdrawing Student
based on ruling 85142 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
