Tzfas Chief Sephardi Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu has turned to the Jerusalem District Court seeking to disqualify an arbitration ruling issues by Kiryat Arba Chief Rabbi HaGaon HaRav Dov Lior Shlita in a case pertaining to an apartment in the Old City. Rabbi Lior ruled against Rabbi Eliyahu and Rebitzen Tova, opting to rule in favor of Yisrael Tuito, a resident of the Jewish Quarter of the Old City. The rav and Tuito were involved in a real estate dispute over a home purchased by the Eliyahus. Rabbi Eliyahu calls the affair a real estate sting.
According to the News1 report, Rabbi and Mrs. Eliyahu purchased an apartment in the Old City for 1.55 million NIS. The rav also paid all the necessary taxes, amounting to 100,000 NIS. According to Rav Lior’s ruling, the property must remain in Tuito’s hands despite the fact he never bought or paid for it.
In his case before the secular court Rav Eliyahu explains Rav Lior was hasty in his ruling, which was announced after only one session, not permitting Rabbi Eliyahu to bring witnesses that would confirm the facts in the case and thereby compel Tuito retuning his money to him. Rav Eliyahu adds that his rebitzen gave Tuito the money to act as her agent. The rebitzen never signed an arbitration agreement and she was never heard at the single arbitration session. He therefore asks to have that ruling disqualified, represented by attorney Sarah Markowitz. Rav Eliyahu explains his old friend Tuito ran a sting operation against him and Rebitzen Tova.
In the report News1’s Yitzchak Danon writes that Rav Eliyahu and Tuito have been friends for many years. Tuito offered the rav a real estate deal in the Old City, offering to act on his behalf. Tuito reportedly told the rebitzen to give him the 10% down payment and he would gladly act as their agent. The money was given and they did not hear from Tuito thereafter. Rabbi and Mrs. Eliyahu have since purchased the apartment and they asked Rabbi Lior to arbitrate the dispute over the down payment given to Tuito, 10% of the selling price. Rabbi Eliyahu adds Rav Lior seems to have misunderstood, ordering the home remain in Tuito’s hands when he never owned it or claimed to have purchased it for himself.
Danon adds Rabbi Lior ruled that Tuito is not obligated to pay Rabbi Eliyahu any money and the apartment is to remain in his hands, despite the fact he did not buy it. Rabbi Eliyahu is now calling upon the Jerusalem District Court to disqualify Rabbi Lior’s ruling.
(YWN – Israel Desk, Jerusalem)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
9 Responses
How does anyone have the chutzpa to go to arkaos (secular Israeli court) after a Beis Din issued a ruling he didn’t like because he lost in Beis Din?!?!?
Going to arkaos is keneged halacha and a humongous issur.
not permitting Rabbi Eliyahu to bring witnesses that would confirm the facts
When a Beth Din [or a secular court for that matter] does not properly hear out each side, whatever they render has no validity.
Please dan kol Adam le’zchut! Specially big Rabbis!!! We don’t know the entire story, but this tuito doesn’t sound right. Where is the down payment. And it could be a misunderstanding.
Ben Torah –
You’re absolutely right, but you don’t know the details of this case, and neither do I. But I do know that in order to register ownership as a result of arbitration (including a borerus al pi din torah) the arbitration has to be approved by a court, and at that time the other party has a right to claim that the arbitration is invalid, and if in fact the Eliyahu family did not sign the heskem borerus, then there would seem to be a valid reason to invalidate the arbitration. So it’s likely that the rov did not “go to arkaos” but responded to what the other side was doing in arkaos. But as I say, I don’t know the details, so I won’t express an opinion. I’m just pointing out a possibility.
Ben Torah-
It is also a humongous issur to believe and/or speak lashon hara about talmidei chachamim.
Like several cities in “ancient” Europe, Israel has an appeals Beis Din. If you don’t like the ruling of the Beis DIn or arbitration Beis Din, you can appeal to the Appeals Beis Din, not sure why appealing to secular court is the way to go, especially for a Rabbi.
Was it a Beis Din, or a private contract of arbitration? If a Beis Din, there must be at least three dayanim. If they were dealing with a government Beis Din, why would one in Kiriyat Arba be dealing with a Jerusalem matter? If it was a private contract of arbitration, or a private Beis Din, then what matters should be the contract they agreed to by which both parties agreed to be bound by the contract of arbitration.
Without answering these questions, the story is meaningless?
I don’t understand why you published an article which will cause people to accuse leading rabbanim of wrongful behavior. Expecially in light of the fact that your readers don’t have the information necessary to know what really happened.