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 claim 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. Pl claim that def’s decisions should not be binding because there was great animosity between def and pl and because the relevant rules were applied only to pl. Pl also claim to have chazaka based on the fact that they were present in the area before others arrived to SE and def was formed.

Ruling: [Last time we saw that the government, while unable to officially appoint rc and/or def, wants them to have authority, and that this was recognized by pl as well.]
Ba’i Chayei (Choshen Mishpat I:109) rules that a public decision that was taken in order to hurt an individual is not binding; other poskim agree. The Maharshach (I:159) says that when a decision applies only to one person, it is considered suspect of violating that rule. On the other hand, the Knesset Hagedola (Tur CM 231:94) says that we assume that a public decision was not for the purpose of revenge until it is proven that it is. However, if the decision is what makes it possible to extract payment from someone, the level of indication that the decision is problematic is lower, and the fact that it applies to only one person can be enough to accomplish this (see also Hilchot Medina (Waldenberg) I, p. 185).
In this case, pl were unable to prove that the decision not to let them keep (for free) a property that is greater than 700 sq. meters was done out of hate. The decision is very logical when one considers that no one else in SE has such a big property (the average is 500 sq. meters), so their right to have the biggest plot is retained. Therefore, the decision is upheld even though it is not denied (and beit din regrets this) that there is indeed enmity between the sides.
Pl’s presence in the plot of land in 2013 is inconsequential regarding chazaka because they were removed from the land by the government’s civil authority, which represents the owners of the land. Therefore, whatever chazaka might have existed was uprooted, and when pl tried to reestablish it, def was already involved and possessed set rules that precluded pl’s expansion to the extent they wanted.
We will continue next time.


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