Об этом документе

Torah & Horaah — Re'eh 5785

Выпуск: Torah & Horaah — Re'eh 5785. Темы: не определены автоматически. D iN our site: WWW.dinonline.org.il THE TORAH& INTETNATIONAL BEIS HORAA The Institute for Dayanim HORAAH And under the auspices of Beis Horaah in memory of Baruch and Bracha Gross Re'ei 5785 345  Question in Choshen Mishpot  By Rabbi Yosef Fleischman A Dispute Between Landlord and Tenant Concerning the Terms of the Lease-Part 2 Question I am a dayan in beis din and we had a difficult question. Answer (Part 2) In the previous article we concluded that the The second reason is based on the principle renter can remain because of the principle of miggo-if a person claims something and he of the Rashbo that if there definitely was a could have made a better claim, then under transaction and there is a doubt if there was a certain conditions we believe the claim that condition that would undo the transaction, we he actually made. the contract that he had the right to terminate 1 Questions in all areas of halacha can be submitted to the rabbanim of our Beis Horaah at www.dinonline.org the lease in case he needed the property for defendant, beis din will not force the claimant his personal use, but not in case he wanted to surrender what he obtained. if there are other reasons to rule in favor of the However, there was no indication in the rental claimant, the Shach (82, 28) rules that a miggo agreement that the landlord had the right to lehotsi does enable the claimant to obtain new terminate the lease prematurely under any possessions. The text of the rental agreement miggo we don't award a defendant's property did not contain any conditional clause at all, to a claimant, applies only to movable which supported the claim that there was objects because then the defendant's claim no condition. with regard to immovable property, like the The reason that perhaps the miggo is not apartment in your case, we do say a miggo strong enough is because, as we mentioned lehotsi since there is no chazoko that whatever in part 1, the landlord owns the property and is in a person's possession is his. The not demand the return of the loan document consensus is that beis din will not force one prior to paying the lender, the lender can to pay back a loan if the claimant's argument claim that the borrower owes him money for is a miggo since it is a miggo lehotsi. that the dispute is undecided and if the The re

Издание

Torah & Horaah

Дата

22 августа 2025 г.

Страниц

3