Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: Monthly stipend: Pl admits that ftr did no more than make an oral pledge to give a present, with no act of kinyan. This is not binding (Bava Metzia 58a). This is strengthened by the (unrefuted) claim that it was conditional on its use by pl for an apartment, which pl admits to have not acted on.
Part of the business: One point of disagreement is whether the value pl ascribes to the business is correct. However, the question is not operative. The entire estate is to be protected to ensure support of mtr (Shulchan Aruch, Even Haezer 93:3), and therefore, nothing needs to be paid to pl at this point.
Part in the bank account: Ftr set up this bank account to finance medical expenses of his and mtr’s. Since this money is likely earmarked for mtr’s needs, it would not be divided with the general estate. In any case, the resources of the estate must be set aside for possible use for the widow’s medical needs (ibid. 79:1).
Stocks: Pl will get his part, but there is a technical problem taking it out now.
P'ninat Mishpat (834)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
823 - P'ninat Mishpat: Agricultural Water Rights – part II
824 - P'ninat Mishpat: Dividing Parents’ Resources when Mother Still Alive
825 - P'ninat Mishpat: Unsuccessful Transfer of Yeshiva – part V
Load More
Funeral expenses: Pl admits that he took part in financing ftr’s funeral without an explicit stipulation that if he has financial complaints, he can get it back. While things one only thinks of are not halachically significant (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 207:4), the Rama (ad loc.) says that if it involved a present, then thought can make them conditional. However, the Aruch Hashulchan (CM 207:12) says that each case must be considered on its merit. In this case, it is natural that one chip in towards a father’s funeral, and pl cannot come much later and say it was conditional.
Rights in a car: Def2 bought and uses a car but put it in pl’s name (for technical reasons). Since pl admits that he has no direct rights in the car, he cannot demand money for it. It makes no difference if def2 used his own money to buy it or whether his parents decided to pay for some or all of it, as they had the right to use their money as they liked.
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
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 Connecting Disciplines in Torah Study
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook #103 – part II
Igrot Hare’aya Trying to Arrange Purchase of Land in Eretz Yisrael – part II
#229 Date and Place: 13 Tishrei 5670 (1909), Yafo
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: Tuition Payment after Withdrawing Student
based on ruling 85142 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Agricultural Water Rights – part I
based on ruling 84122 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: A Seller with Questionable Rights to the Property – part I
based on ruling 84062 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Rabbis in Midrash
Lessons
fast navigation
Hosha'ana Rabba FLYDUBAI & HOSHANA RABBA- ANI VAHU HOSHIA NA- I & HIM SAVE US
"Ani vaHu Hoshia Na", "I and Him, Save Us". We don't just pray to Him, but we also pray to and for ourselves that we should emulate and educate our children to have that instinctive altruism with which He created the world. President Trump seemed amused about Yaniv Hayon, our PLUMBER who confidently worked with G-d like Superman (he learned from a pilot on a TV show!) to save 174 lives on the Dubai hijacking, but we in Israel are totally accustomed already 78 years to our plumbers, teachers, garbage-men, rabbis, farmers & doctors being Hashem's shlichim! This is what Zionism is about.
