Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: A guideline of our beit din is that when we are unable to ascertain all the information necessary to rule, we usually rule based on compromise (based on Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 12:5). In this case, in which neither side provided all the information it could have but asked beit din to expedite a ruling based on the information beit din possessed, it behooves us more than usual to rule based on compromise that resembles a likely ruling, incorporating the unknown points as different levels of doubt.
According to a majority of dayanim, the main question is whether pl had a right to demand def to not smoke cannabis. It is illegal in Israel to use cannabis without a certificate. However, it is now not a crime but a civil violation, with the maximum punishment being a modest fine; it is also very common for people to use cannabis without a certificate, and given the time and effort required to get one, upstanding people use it medically without one. A person cannot demand the right to do something that is illegal, especially in a case like this where it negatively affects others, as def admits. Still, though, if we knew that def had a serious medical need with no good alternatives, she would have the right to smoke the cannabis at apt in a case like this in which she was not told in advance she must not do so. While pl has no knowledge to refute def’s claim that she needs to use cannabis, he and beit din are not expected to accept def’s claim that she needed it and lacked reasonable alternatives.
Another point is that def mentioned in passing that dn told her that he had made a condition with pl that pl would not rent the apartment to someone who smoked cannabis. This would put blame on pl for not ascertaining def’s practices. Pl neither confirmed nor denied this claim, and def brought no corroboration from dn nor details. Therefore, it is another point of doubt, and an example of the sides not providing proofs or even clear claims on significant matters.
We will continue next time with other elements of the case.
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
792 - P'ninat Mishpat: Return of Down Payment Due to War – part III
793 - P'ninat Mishpat: Smoking Rights in a Rental? – part I
794 - P'ninat Mishpat: Smoking Rights in a Rental? – part II
Load More
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
P'ninat Mishpat Payments after a Gradual End of Employment
(Based on ruling 82024 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 A Commercial Rental for a Closed Business – part II
based on ruling 80047 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 P'ninat Mishpat: Realtor’s Fee on Large Commercial Building – part I
(based on ruling 85031 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
