Beit Midrash
  • Sections
  • Chemdat Yamim
  • P'ninat Mishpat
קטגוריה משנית
undefined
Case: The plaintiffs (=pl) used to live in an unrecognized settlement extension (=SE), which was the subject of past rulings of a beit din in the region (=pbdr) in 2014. Pl left SE in 2013, and returned in 2016, against the will of the settlement committee (=def), with the help of pressure from the regional council (=rc). Def instructed pl as to the boundaries of their lot, but pl expanded beyond them and ignored warnings to desist from such actions. In 2023, def started preparing neighboring lots for new units, including areas to which pl had asserted control, and def destroyed some of pl’s infrastructure. An official of rc wrote that he does not oppose pl’s use of the area, pl have called the police to stop the work, and the matter is before our beit din. Pl claims that since SE is not recognized as part of any jurisdiction but general national land, they are not bound by the instructions of def or rc. Also, as no one claims ownership but right of use, chazaka (squatter’s rights) does not require a claim, and pl deserve it because they developed the land before SE existed (SE is also temporary, until it joins the established settlement.) Def claim that pl’s right to live in SE is based on a previous beit din ruling, and that ruling requires residents to following SE rules. Also, there is no chazaka because there were regular protests about pl’s expansions. Other claim elements will be fielded in future editions.

Ruling: The approach that pl espouse leads to anarchy, and the State of Israel does not allow this. When, for various reasons, the central government does not set rules for a certain area, it encourages local jurisdictions to assume such roles, and rc maintains such a role in the area of SE, in partnership with def.
The area in question is legally similar to a reshut harabim (public property). An individual may not use reshut harabim in a manner that is out of step with public norms (see Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 637:3). The closest arbiters of what this entails in settlement expansions is the regional council.
Furthermore, while rc does not have legal authority, it is very pertinent that when pl needed help going back to SE, they turned to rc, which felt a need to pressure def into agreeing. Since this hierarchy brought pl to their present situation, they cannot deny all authority to these bodies.
As those who represent the local residents in practice, def have the status we find in classical halachic sources of zayin tuvei ha’ir. Rishonim (including Shut Harashba I:729; Mordechai, Bava Batra 480) give them equivalent rights locally to the highest rabbinic authorities. There is no need for the local representation to enjoy a national stamp of approval. This is in line with pbdr. While pl was not a signatory to that arbitration agreement, and thus that ruling is not binding on them, pl signed our beit din’s arbitration agreement, and we have no reason not to incorporate pbdr, with which we have no issue.
In summary, then, pl are bound by the authority of rc and def to the extent that the latter serves as a partner to the former.


Popular Lessons
Popular Lessons
Recent Lessons
Recent Lessons
את המידע הדפסתי באמצעות אתר yeshiva.org.il