Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: Beit din does not have resources to make a determination on def’s claim that he lacks the ability to pay, and pl may turn to Hotza’a Lapo’al (the arm of the government that enforces the payment of debt), which has access to information on earnings and assets.
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
782 - P'ninat Mishpat: End of Tenure of Development Company – part II
783 - P'ninat Mishpat: Reducing Amount Owed Due to Interest Taken
784 - P'ninat Mishpat: Dividing Returns on Partially Cancelled Trip – part I
Load More
Beit din certainly will not require the payment of further ribbit. The question is what to do about the 72,500 NIS that was already taken as ribbit. The gemara (Bava Metzia 61b) cites a machloket among Amoraim whether interest that is set from the time of the loan (ribbit ketzutza), which is forbidden as a Torah-level violation, is to be returned. The halacha is that the beit din enforces its return to the borrower (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 161:5).
The Taz (ad loc. 3) infers from the language of Rashi that beit din takes action to return the ribbit only if the borrower requests this. The Beit Meir (ad loc.) agrees and explains that the borrower’s silence is understood as mechila (relinquishing of rights) of the return (although he also cites opinions that mechila does not work regarding ribbit). Shut Sh’eilat Yaavetz (I:147) agrees with the Taz and says that once mechila has been assumed, the borrower can no longer demand the money. The Knesset Hagedola (to Tur 161:19) disagrees with the Taz and learns Rashi differently, and the K’tzot Hachoshen (Choshen Mishpat 9:1) agrees that the borrower deserves the ribbit back even without a request.
The majority of beit din’s dayanim rule like the Knesset Hagedola and therefore, without def’s request, reduced the amount due to 162,500 NIS. The dissenting opinion relied not only on the Taz and those who agree with him, but also on the halacha that a dayan must not rule on behalf of a litigant more than he asked for (Rama, CM 17:12). Although this does not apply when the litigant did not know his halachic rights, in this case, def learned that the interest paid was forbidden and still did not feel it was his place to ask for it back. The minority opinion agrees that pl has a moral obligation to return (/deduct) the ribbit received.
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
P'ninat Mishpat Limits of Interest Rate for Loan with Heter Iska – part II
based on ruling 80033 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat Profits from Formerly Joint Swimming Pool – part
(based on ruling 81110 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
Igrot Hare’aya Departure of an Uncle to Eretz Yisrael
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook: Vol. I, #1 , p. 1-2 – part II
P'ninat Mishpat Payments after a Gradual End of Employment
(Based on ruling 82024 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
