- Sections
- P'ninat Mishpat
- Sections
- Parashat Hashavua
25
Ruling: The 2012 contract is binding, as it was signed by authorized officers of each organization. The fact that other contracts (signed and proposed) do not include the clause to enable def’s removal does not invalidate the contract or the clause. As the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 45:3) rules, one cannot deny being bound to all of a document he signed based on the claim he was not aware of its content. Although the following is not necessary to validate the clause, we point out that until the 2012 contract, the agreements were with the regional council, which paid for def to service the community at pl’s auspices. The 2012 contract, the only one between these two parties, can be different than the previous ones. Later draft agreements are not an indication of an end to previous agreements if the two sides decided not to sign them.
There is more to discuss regarding the claim that since the 2012 contract expired years ago, its clauses are not relevant to subsequent, oral agreements. There is a machloket whether an expired contract is still relevant. The Taz (CM, 333:8) and Shach (CM 333:44), in the context of labor agreements, rule that all of the details of the old agreement that were neither renewed nor revoked continue to be in effect. The Rama (ad loc. 8) and Machaneh Ephrayim (Sechirut 11) say they do not continue. There is a further machloket (see treatment in our beit din’s ruling 70024) whether those who posit that provisions continue say so when the new agreement changes other elements of the previous agreement. However, since the only explicit change was the price of the rental, which naturally goes up over time, that change is not indicative of the lapsing of the other provisions.
We will continue from this point next time.

P'ninat Mishpat (766)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
715 - Rights of a Yishuv on Peripheral Land – part I
716 - Disagreement on Length of Rental Commitment – part I
717 - P'ninat Mishpat: Disagreement on Length of Rental Commitment – part II
Load More

A Student Who Broke a Camera
Various Rabbis | Tevet 5768

P'ninat Mishpat: Counter Claims – part II (Child Care, Foundations)
based on ruling 81059 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Tevet 5784

P'ninat Mishpat: Overpaying Rent by One of the Roommates – part I
based on ruling 84001 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Kislev 5784

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

Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit

Connecting Disciplines in Torah Study
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook #103 – part II
Sivan 8 5782

Departure of an Uncle to Eretz Yisrael
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook: Vol. I, #1 , p. 1-2 – part II
Tevet 21 5781

Limits of Interest Rate for Loan with Heter Iska – part I
based on ruling 80033 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Sivan 8 5782

Connecting Disciplines in Torah Study
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook 103 – part III
Sivan 15 5782

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

Were there Fasts in the time of the Second Temple?
Rabbi Yosef Tzvi Rimon | 5778

Fasting on the Wedding Day
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff | Sivan 9 5779

Were there Fasts in the time of the Second Temple?
Rabbi Yosef Tzvi Rimon | 5778
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
