YeshivaThe torah world Gateway
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: We dealt with the first two issues last time.
Built-in oven: On the one hand, there is no obvious reason that the built-in oven is different from the rest of the furniture/appliances. The fact that it is plugged into the wall when used is obviously not a good distinction, as this is the case for many other appliances, including a refrigerator, about which def did not complain when pl took. Also, the fact that it fits into a certain area in the kitchen is not a factor, as this is common for kitchen appliances, and one just orders standard sizes that fit these areas.
However, during the negotiations in beit din over the main compromise, def raised the issue of the oven and pl answered cryptically, "Yes," in a manner that seems to clearly indicate that she was admitting that the oven was to remain. Pl counters that one cannot turn one word that was said in the course of discussion into an admission. However, pl is incorrect, as admission can even be made out of silence, if it is indicative of admission in context (Shulchan Aruch, CM 138:6). It is true that if the admission is not clear, the admitter can explain his intention in a way that it is not admission. However, pl did not succeed in doing that, and just saying it is too cryptic is insufficient. To additionally strengthen the ruling, since def is now in possession of the oven, if there were doubt, the burden of proof would be on pl.
Responsibility for taken books: There are no proofs that def accepted responsibility as a watchman over pl’s books, just that they allowed the books to stay in the apartment, and acceptance is required to obligate a person as a watchman (Bava Metzia 81b; Shulchan Aruch, CM 291:2). Even if they were watchmen, since they were not paid and did not benefit, they would be shomrei chinam who are obligated only for negligence. In beit din’s eyes, there was not negligence, since def did not see what was written in the divorce settlement and were not warned not to give him any books. Furthermore, def claim that the divorcee took only his own books.
P'ninat Mishpat (834)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
839 - P'ninat Mishpat: Did Any Furniture Go to the Buyer? – part I
840 - P'ninat Mishpat: Did Any Furniture Go to the Buyer? – 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 Connecting Disciplines in Torah Study
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook #103 – part II
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 P'ninat Mishpat: To Whom Do the Payments Go? – part I
based on ruling 81075 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Multiple Agreements and Parties – part II
based on ruling 80082 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Igrot Hare’aya Improving New Yishuv More Practical than Alternatives
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook #107
Rabbis in Midrash
Lessons
fast navigation
Moreshet Shaul Hashem Is your Shadow – part I
Based on Siach Shaul, Pirkei Machshava V’Hadracha p. 420 – an address from 1941
P'ninat Mishpat A Non-Contractor in Changing Times – part I
(based on ruling 85128 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
Moreshet Shaul Our King on Rosh Hashana, Our Father on Yom Kippur.
Based on Aroch Siach, p. 221 (Rav Shaul Yisraeli)
P'ninat Mishpat A Non-Contractor in Changing Times – part II
(based on ruling 85128 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
Moreshet Shaul Hashem Is your Shadow – part II
Based on Siach Shaul, Pirkei Machshava V’Hadracha p. 420 – an address from 1941
Parashat Hashavua Happiness for the Right Reasons
[With painful longing, we share these divrei Torah from our co-Rosh Kollel for close to 40 years, Harav Moshe Ehrenreich zt”l.]
