Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: Pl claims that rc never sent maps limiting homes to a half a dunam. Beit din rejects this claim. Rc has a file for pl’s property, with much detailed documentation, including the maps in question. This file was not opened by itself. The indications that pl were aware of what was planned for them is corroborated by rc’s engineer’s (=rce) testimony. While there were some difficulties with rce’s testimony, it makes clear the basic fact that there was a discussion between rc and pl at the relevant times.
While rc lacks authority to allocate land without permission from those who control it, since it is part of rc’s responsibility to prepare not yet recognized settlements for normalization, that includes preventing anarchy in land allocation that prevents such normalization. As mentioned in the past, pl used rc’s influence to receive their lot in the first place.
Rc presented a clear stance to beit din that they were against anyone having a lot larger than 700 square meters. Pl claim that this is a change in their longstanding policy in regard to pl, and is based on political pressure. Beit din sees no change in rc’s policy, which was well known and finds expression in rc’s file on pl.
Rc claims that the area south of pl’s property was set aside as a public open space, and pl claim that it was agreed that they would have special rights to usage there. There was a meeting at which it was agreed that a rock retaining wall at the area’s boundary with pl’s property would be built by def, and be paid for by pl. Pl claim that at a meeting they were promised that anything above the rock formation would be for their full use, and rc’s representative to that meeting refused to come and testify what transpired. Pl claims that this proves that they are correct and the representative is intimidated by def. Beit din rejects that claim. One needs strong grounds to establish that one who refuses to testify does so because of a litigant’s intimidation (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 92:6). In this case, the representative is a powerful person who should not feel intimidated by def. Although rc had suggested a compromise regarding this area, this is not binding, as it just represents what rc could accept from a planning perspective. Regarding a public area, the people of the public (def) need to accept it. Joint usage of the area would have required cooperation between def and pl, which we see is untenable, due to the enmity between them.
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
827 - P'NINAT MISHPAT: REGULATION OF LAND RIGHTS IN A SETTLEMENT EXTENSION – PART III
828 - Regulation of Land Rights in a Settlement Extension – part IV
829 - Regulation of Land Rights in a Settlement Extension – part V
Load More
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
Igrot Hare’aya Raffle of Property in Eretz Yisrael for Tzedaka
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook: – #220
P'ninat Mishpat Payments after a Gradual End of Employment
(Based on ruling 82024 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Igrot Hare’aya Semi-solicited Advice to Calm Down Petach Tikva
#227 Date and Place: 8 Tishrei 5669, Yafo
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Multiple Agreements and Parties – part III
based on appeal of ruling 80082 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
Various Events FOR WHOM NOT TO VOTE
Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook stressed that Israeli politics is G-dly, so I have no problem answering this common question on a Torani blog. Also, Free-Will is a G-d-given right and obligation, to "destine one's fate" (R. Soloveichik, Kol Dodi Dofek, 67), so I obviously don't tell others how to vote. But once not a few (especially young) have already asked, a couple of personal words from experience and thoughts from chazal & Rav Kook which may be of help to others, mainly for whom NOT to vote.
P'ninat Mishpat Fallout from Failure to Install Elevator – part II
based on ruling 85007 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
