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. [We continue dealing with pl’s claims in installments.] Pl claims that since he is not claiming ownership but only use of the area, this is under the realm of chezkat tashmishin, which can be claimed after even a short amount of time.

Ruling: We point out that this entire line of argument is plausible only according to the opinion of the Geonim that chezkat tashmishin does not require three years without protests or a claim that he positively arranged rights from the original owners. In contrast, Tosafot and most Rishonim require the same standards of chazaka as for full ownership claims. On this machloket, the S’ma (153:32) says that the Rama did not decide between the opinions. The Netivot Hamishpat (153:13) says that the Rama allowed for lower chazaka requirements only when the machzik used his own property, just in a manner that improperly disturbs his neighbor’s use of his own property.
We also need to understand the Geonim’s opinion, that chezkat tashmishin is different. The Ri Migash (62) says it is because the machzik does not really take away the property itself but just gets certain peripheral rights. The K’tzot Hachoshen (153:3) says that the use of the property is considered like a kinyan on that element of the property. The Netivot Hamishpat (192:6) reasons that it works as a type of mechila (relinquishing of rights). Either way, since here the owner of the property is the State of Israel and the state did not bestow any rights on pl by any delay in SE’s protesting, pl should not have chazaka. On the contrary, by the state having rules under what conditions people can receive rights and pl not having fulfilled them, the rules are equivalent to protest.
Another reason that there is no chezkat tashmishin follows from the way the Netivot Hamishpat (140:20) explains the Rambam. Specifically, it is because the machzik does not want to take away from the owner’s use of the property in the long term. In contrast, in this case, it is clear that pl are progressing in a manner that in the long term only they will be able to use the land.


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