- Sections
- P'ninat Mishpat
25
Case: The plaintiff (=pl) owns a business that operates in an industrial zone adjacent to a yishuv (=def). Because the army does not provide all of the necessary security, def accepted upon itself to include the business in their patrols and overall responsibility. For more than a year, def’s Ravshatz (officer in charge of internal security) was lax in implementing this responsibility despite pl’s requests. This is especially true on Shabbat, when guardsmen sometimes limit their efforts out of concern of violating Shabbat. Pl is suing to have clear security guidelines, which must be carried out, written up. Pl also demands 1000 shekels for legal expenses, as this adjudication should not have been necessary. Def does not argue the facts presented by pl and is willing, with beit din’s help, to arrive at a memorandum that spells out guidelines for their responsibilities looking forward.

P'ninat Mishpat (766)
Various Rabbis
485 - Firing a Lawyer before He Finishes the Job
486 - Enforcing Security Responsibilities
487 - Delay in Providing Documentation
Load More
The Ravshatz, an employee of def, is the one who is obligated to carry out this responsibility. Def’s security council, with pl’s participation, will determine what physical provisions (e.g., cameras, road access) need to be provided. Their findings will be binding and must be implemented. Regarding patrolling, members of the civilian patrol will make two visits to the site every night. This should be written so that members of the community should not think that doing so is just a favor for pl. Def will be responsible for opening and closing the gate that accesses pl. Pl’s alarm system should be hooked up to the Ravshatz, so that he can respond if there is infiltration.
As a new Ravshatz is being chosen, candidates should be made aware of these decisions, and their readiness to carry them out must be a condition for their appointment. The rabbi of the yishuv is to make a ruling about the type of steps that should be taken on Shabbat.
In their claim sheet, pl demanded payment from def for their past laxness, but they did not repeat this during the hearing. The latter is appropriate because payment would be for damages, and there has been no indication that there have been damages (time spent by pl is not considered damage). Since both sides acted responsibly during the adjudication, there will be no reimbursement for time spent (see Shut HaRivash 475)

P'ninat Mishpat: Did the Real Estate Agent Remain Relevant?
based on ruling 84031 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Adar 5784

A Will That Was Not Publicized
Rabbi Yoav Sternberg | Kislev 5768

Copyright Infringement in Communal Gift – part I
Various Rabbis | Av 22 5777

How Much Pay for the Fired Lawyer? – part I
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | 17 Elul 5783

The Mitzva of Onah
Rabbi Eliezer Melamed | 15 Shvat 5784

The Four “Exiles”
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff | Tevet 13 5781

The Mitzva of Onah
Rabbi Eliezer Melamed | 15 Shvat 5784

The Four “Exiles”
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff | Tevet 13 5781
Daf Yomi Sanhedrin Daf 81
R' Eli Stefansky | 8 Adar 5785

Public Response to Zealous Defense of Rav Kook – #308
Date and Place: 15 Sivan 5670 (1910), Yafo
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Adar 5785
Daf Yomi Sanhedrin Daf 83
R' Eli Stefansky | 10 Adar 5785
