Is All Lost When You Receive a Parking Violation Notice in Israel?
You find a parking violation notice on your car window, or receive one in the mail. What options are available to you?
The notice you receive from the Police gives you two options: either to pay up at the Post Office or over the Internet, or to try your luck in court within the specified period (“90 days of receiving this notice or by no later than ____”). If the fine is not paid within the specified period and no requires for trial is made, the municipality will be entitled to send you demands for payment, including additional penalties for later payments. If collection proceedings are instigated, the municipality may collect the debt, in part, by vehicle foreclosure, or by seizure (lien) or foreclosure of bank accounts.
But are these the only two options available to you?
Has the notice been served on your registered address?
By law, parking violation notices must be hand delivered or sent to you by registered mail. Therefore, a notice affixed to your car is illegal and can, technically, be discarded by you! Even if you decide not to adopt this course, don’t rush off to the Post Office. According to the law, where the penalty notice is affixed to your car window, and you do not pay the fine within 90 days, the prosecuting authority is required to send an additional notice – this time, to your registered address. The notice must be dispatched within 1 year of the commission of the offense. If you receive notice at the address which is registered for the violating car at the Ministry of Interior, within 1 year and a day, the offense will lapse and it will not be possible to sue you for it!
This period is increased to 2 years, in the event that the car is not registered in the driver’s name who has committed the offense, e.g. in the case of a leased car or company vehicle.
Is there a mistake in any of the particulars registered in the notice?
Let’s assume the notice arrives at your registered address within the requisite time, stating that it must be paid within 90 days. Before rushing to pay, however, check the notice properly. A slight change in your ID number or in the number of the car, the type of vehicle, and possibly also its color, the date, the time or any other particular, has the ability to cancel the notice. In some judgments, the court has cancelled notices purely on the ground that the handwriting of the traffic warden is illegible.
Were you elsewhere at the time of the alleged offense?
The parking violation notice seems intact. Still, don’t rush to pay. Check carefully round the area at which the notice was received if anything there contradicts what is stated in the report. Is there a sign in the vicinity permitting parking during certain days or times, or for certain categories of people? If so, photograph the sign. Or if you can prove that you were elsewhere at the time of the alleged offense (e.g. reserve duty, making a professional call by a doctor, visiting your garage etc.), you have good cause for rescinding the report. At times, the report can be converted into a warning. You can write to the Israel Police (משטרת ישראל, מרכז ארצי לפניות נהגים, ת”ד 120, פתח-תקוה 49100) to request a photograph of the car and particulars of where and when exactly the car was filmed.
Write a letter!
If you consider that the report should be rescinded, write a detailed letter, together with references and photographs. If the answer is negative, or if you do not receive an answer within the 90-day period, you still have the option of applying for trial within 90 days of receiving the notice. At court, you will be given the opportunity to state your case. It should be remembered that the case against you needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and any doubt will work in your favor.
Conclusion
Of course, if the judge decides against you at court, you run the risk of a heavier penalty being imposed for trying your luck and contesting the fine. Costs penalties may also be imposed. Clearly, in many if not most cases, penalty fines are justified – parking in a disabled car space, for example, or speeding. But if you consider you have a good case to make, don’t be afraid to make it!
This article is brought as general information only and should not be a replacement for professional advice.
In the blessing for the new month, the Birkat HaChodesh prayer, we ask God to grant us “חיים ארוכים, lives of peace, of goodness, of blessing, of prosperity…”
What does חיים ארוכים mean?
Most translated siddurim, including the US Artscroll, the UK Singers/Authorised Daily Prayer Book and the Israeli Rinat Yisrael Siddur, read this phrase as Chaim AruKim, meaning “long life.”
Grammatically, it has been argued that even though the word appears to be vocalized as Aruchim, its correct pronunciation is actually Arukim. Long in Hebrew is aroch, which is properly vocalized as ארך, without the vav. When the word is written without vowels, as it was done for hundreds of years, a vav (the shuruk vowel) is added after the resh to help with reading (as with the word צהוב), but not as a proper vowel – officially there is no vav there. The proper vowel should in fact be a kubbutz under the resh (as in צהבים – pronounced Tzehubim).
Other siddurim, including the Israeli Koren Siddur, vowelize the phrase as Chaim AruCHim, meaning “healthful life,” as in the phrase ve-ha’ale arucha u’marpe (“Bring a cure and healing”), in some versions of the Refaeinu blessing, or Ta’ale arucha le’aleh nidaf (“Bring a cure to Israel that fears every rustling leaf”) in the Yom Kippur Ma’ariv prayer.
In the context of the Birkat HaChodesh prayer, this second understanding seems to be particularly logical: we beseech God to make the new month “a new period for us of well-being and blessing” (i.e. quality), similar to the reference to “perfect health” at the end of the prayer; whereas according to the first possibility (the quantitative approach), reference to “long life” would deviate from the other requests in the blessing, relating as it does to life beyond the coming month.
May we all merit to have a life both of quantity (Arukim)and quality (Aruchim)!
In Parshat Vayishlach (Bereshit 32:11), Ya’akov declares: “I am unworthy of all the kindness and faithfulness you have shown your servant. I had only my staff when I crossed this Jordan, but now I have become two groups.” The Hebrew verb for “I am unworthy” is katonti (literally: “I am too small for all the kindness…”)The problemMusical Cantillations
In Parshat Vayishlach (Bereshit 32:11), Ya’akov declares: “I am unworthy of all the kindness and faithfulness you have shown your servant. I had only my staff when I crossed this Jordan, but now I have become two groups.”
The Hebrew verb for “I am unworthy” is katonti (literally: “I am too small for all the kindness…”)
The problem
Depending on the Tikun/Tanach one looks at, the musical cantillation on this word is either a revi’a (with its downward spiral in pitch) or a geresh (with an upward spiral in pitch). The two notes are diametrically opposed! Which is correct?!
First, does it even matter?! On one level, the answer is no: one would not generally correct the Torah reader on a mistake in a musical cantillation – especially in this case, when there is a disagreement between the different printers as to what should be the correct note. But on the level of beautifying the Torah reading (le’tiferet ha’keriah) and ascertaining the accurate Masoretic tradition, it is certainly praiseworthy to sing the word with the correct musical tune.
The arguments for the geresh
On the one hand, the Keter Aram Tzova medieval manuscript indicates that the word should be sung with an upward spiral (geresh). This codex was written in the 10th century and has long been considered to the most authoritative document in the masora, the tradition by which the Hebrew Scriptures have been preserved throughout the generations, both in terms of its letter text (nikud) and its vocalization/musical cantillation.
The arguments against the geresh
It should be remembered that the Keter Aram Tzova codex was verified, vocalized, and provided with Masoretic notes by Aaron ben Asher. Ben-Asher was the last and most prominent member of the Ben-Asher dynasty of grammarians from Tiberias, which shaped the most accurate version of the Masorah and, therefore, the Hebrew Bible. Yet he was also a Karaite, according to most scholars! Moreover, numerous differences were discovered between the many manuscripts reviewed by Ben-Asher that Mishael Ben Uziel went so far as to publish his Sefer HaChilufim, enumerating a number of them. Only one manuscript remains today – the Leningrad Manuscript – whose verification is attributed to Ben-Asher – and in that text the word katonti is vocalized with a revi’a. While Maimonides relies on the Keter, this is only in relation to “open” and “closed” portions (parshiot petuchot u’stumot).
It is true that most other manuscripts vocalize the word with a geresh. Yet, as Yekutiel the Grammarian, who lived in Germany in the 12th century, writes, the scribes did not take pains to vocalize their manuscripts accurately, resulting in multiple errors.
The various printers likewise generally vocalize the word with a geresh. The famous Mikraot GedolotChumash is a prime example. Its printer was Daniel Bomberg from Venice, who was a Christian, while the text was edited and vocalized by two apostate Jews. The Mikraot Gedolot edition from the year 1515 was edited by Felix Partners (whose Hebrew name is unknown), while the 1528 edition was edited by the apostate Ya’akov ben Adoniyahu. Most printers of the Chumash over the next 400 years copied Bomberg’s Mikraot Gedolot text, and even prided themselves on this fact (apparently out of graphic-aesthetic considerations); and in this manner the word katonti became vowelized with a geresh rather than a revi’a.
Two printers were the exception to this rule, and vocalized the word using a revi’a. The first, Natan Shlomo Soncino, was a scholar and scion of the Tosafists, who lived in Soncino, Italy, and set up a printing press there. He was the first to print the Tanach in the year 1488. The second was Rabbi Wolf Heidenheim, a scholar and etymologist of repute, who likewise vocalized the word with a revi’a, in his prints from 1818 and onwards – this, despite the fact that the two manuscripts in his possession used a geresh. “Koren” publishers followed in Heidenheim’s footsteps, as did the publishers of the Chumash with the commentary of Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch, both vocalizing the word with a revi’a.
In addition to the question of the tradition, as a matter of logic, the vocalization of the revia flows far more naturally than does use of the geresh, when describing Ya’akov Avinu’s state of mind when declaring his statement: “I am unworthy of all the kindness and faithfulness you have shown your servant.” The minor note, with its downward pitch, seems far more in tune with the intent of its maker! And, indeed, the Aramaic Targum to the word katonti is ze’irin de’chavati (“I am altogether less than any of the (acts of) goodness and truth which you have exercised towards Your servant”). That said, a possible case could be made for the geresh, if we imagine Ya’akov’s throwing his hands up heavenward, in an outburst of supplication to God…
Conclusion
Based on the above logic, as well as a long tradition held by his father and grandfather (both Torah readers), R. David Yakovson, of Elazar, Gush Etzion, vocalizes the word katonti with a revi’a, rather than a geresh. The writer strongly sympathizes with this position and would welcome further input by readers on their views and experiences.
Depending on the Tikun/Tanach one looks at, the musical cantillation on this word is either a revi’a (with its downward spiral in pitch) or a geresh (with an upward spiral in pitch). The two notes are diametrically opposed! Which is correct?! First, does it even matter?! On one level, the answer is no: one would not generally correct the Torah reader on a mistake in a musical cantillation – especially in this case, when there is a disagreement between the different printers as to what should be the correct note. But on the level of beautifying the Torah reading (le’tiferet ha’keriah) and ascertaining the accurate Masoretic tradition, it is certainly praiseworthy to sing the word with the correct musical tune.The arguments for the gereshOn the one hand, the Keter Aram Tzova medieval manuscript indicates that the word should be sung with an upward spiral (geresh). This codex was written in the 10th century and has long been considered to the most authoritative document in the masora, the tradition by which the Hebrew Scriptures have been preserved throughout the generations, both in terms of its letter text (nikud) and its vocalization/musical cantillation.The arguments against the geresh It should be remembered that the Keter Aram Tzova codex was verified, vocalized, and provided with Masoretic notes by Aaron ben Asher. Ben-Asher was the last and most prominent member of the Ben-Asher dynasty of grammarians from Tiberias, which shaped the most accurate version of the Masorah and, therefore, the Hebrew Bible. Yet he was also a Karaite, according to most scholars! Moreover, numerous differences were discovered between the many manuscripts reviewed by Ben-Asher that Mishael Ben Uziel went so far as to publish his Sefer HaChilufim, enumerating a number of them. Only one manuscript remains today – the Leningrad Manuscript – whose verification is attributed to Ben-Asher – and in that text the word katonti is vocalized with a revi’a. While Maimonides relies on the Keter, this is only in relation to “open” and “closed” portions (parshiot petuchot u’stumot). It is true that most other manuscripts vocalize the word with a geresh. Yet, as Yekutiel the Grammarian, who lived in Germany in the 12th century, writes, the scribes did not take pains to vocalize their manuscripts accurately, resulting in multiple errors. The various printers likewise generally vocalize the word with a geresh. The famous Mikraot GedolotChumash is a prime example. Its printer was Daniel Bomberg from Venice, who was a Christian, while the text was edited and vocalized by two apostate Jews. The Mikraot Gedolot edition from the year 1515 was edited by Felix Partners (whose Hebrew name is unknown), while the 1528 edition was edited by the apostate Ya’akov ben Adoniyahu. Most printers of the Chumash over the next 400 years copied Bomberg’s Mikraot Gedolot text, and even prided themselves on this fact (apparently out of graphic-aesthetic considerations); and in this manner the word katonti became vowelized with a geresh rather than a revi’a. Two printers were the exception to this rule, and vocalized the word using a revi’a. The first, Natan Shlomo Soncino, was a scholar and scion of the Tosafists, who lived in Soncino, Italy, and set up a printing press there. He was the first to print the Tanach in the year 1488. The second was Rabbi Wolf Heidenheim, a scholar and etymologist of repute, who likewise vocalized the word with a revi’a, in his prints from 1818 and onwards – this, despite the fact that the two manuscripts in his possession used a geresh. “Koren” publishers followed in Heidenheim’s footsteps, as did the publishers of the Chumash with the commentary of Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch, both vocalizing the word with a revi’a. In addition to the question of the tradition, as a matter of logic, the vocalization of the revia flows far more naturally than does use of the geresh, when describing Ya’akov Avinu’s state of mind when declaring his statement: “I am unworthy of all the kindness and faithfulness you have shown your servant.” The minor note, with its downward pitch, seems far more in tune with the intent of its maker! And, indeed, the Aramaic Targum to the word katonti is ze’irin de’chavati (“I am altogether less than any of the (acts of) goodness and truth which you have exercised towards Your servant”). That said, a possible case could be made for the geresh, if we imagine Ya’akov’s throwing his hands up heavenward, in an outburst of supplication to God…Conclusion Based on the above logic, as well as a long tradition held by his father and grandfather (both Torah readers), R. David Yakovson, of Elazar, Gush Etzion, vocalizes the word katonti with a revi’a, rather than a geresh. The writer strongly sympathizes with this position and would welcome further input by readers on their views and experiences.
Some 93% of land in Israelis in the public domain; that is, it is either property of the State, the Jewish National Fund (JNF) or the Development Authority (Reshut HaPituach – the body which was established in 1950 to manage lands entrusted with the Trustee for Absentee Properties After the War of Independence).
The Israel Land Administration (ILA) is the government agency responsible for managing this land which comprises approx. 22 million dunams. “Ownership” of real estate in Israel usually means leasing rights from the ILA for 49 years or 98 years (49 years with an additional 49-year option).
A real estate purchase in Israel can be registered at a number of entities in Israel:
1) The Land Registry (Lishkat Rishum Me’karkein or Tabu), which forms part of the Ministry of Justice.
2) The Israel Land Administration (Minhal Mekarkei Yisrael or the Minhal), which forms part of the Ministry of Housing and Construction.
3) Contract registration at the offices of construction companies approved as residential construction companies (Chevrot Meshakenot - see Chevra Meshakenet).
What on Earth is a Housing Corporation (Chevra Meshakenet)?!
Housing Corporation
A chevra meshakanet (a “housing corporation” or “settlement company”) is a large public building company that exists in Israel, which has constructed large numbers of dwelling units and temporarily registered them in an quasi (mini) land registry.
This legal arrangement is prevalent in newly constructed or about to be constructed residential buildings. For example, an apartment may have been purchased “on paper” from a building contractor (kablan) or entrepreneur (yazam). In such a case, the builder will normally have obtained the rights to construct the apartment building from the Israel Land Administration (Minhal Me’karkei Yisrael or Minhal). Following the construction, the builder will need to register the building as a cooperative house or condominium building (bayit meshutaf), whereby each apartment will be registered, with its own sub-parcel (Tat Chelka) number, in the Land Registry (Lishkat Rishum Me’karkein or Tabu) as a long-term lease.
When purchasing an apartment registered at a Chevra Meshakenet, in the interim period between winning the tender and registering each condominium owner’s rights in the Land Registry, it is important to insist that the seller’s attorney provide you with a Certificate of Rights (Ishur Zechuyot) from the builder/entrepreneur. An Ishur Zechuyot from the Israel Land Administration will need to be obtained in most cases too. The rights of the builder/entrepreneur and the nature of the building to be constructed will all need to be thoroughly examined before purchasing an apartment in this framework. Selling an apartment of this nature during this intermediate period also requires substantial documentation and verification of the rights involved particularly when mortgages are taken.
פשט = simple or abstract. להפשיט = to skin or flay an animal. לפשוט = to raid. When removing an animal hide, one strips it down to its bare essentials - the pure and unadulterated p’shat.
עגבניה was the term coined for “tomato”. לעגוב = to flirt/desire/lust! The tomato was believed to arouse love in the heart of its eater. Hence, עגב was chosen as the Hebrew root of the vegetable!
צפון (tzafun) = hidden. צפון (tzafon) = the North (hidden). מצפן = a compass, מצפון = one’s conscience (concealed to all), while צופן = a hidden code! Yosef is referred to as Tzofnat Pa’aneiach = the decipherer of the concealed!
Originally, the term לחבוש was used to describe the saddling of one’s donkey (as with Avraham: ויחבוש את חמורו on the way to the akeida). Saddling involved folding a piece of cloth into a comfortable seat. From there, the word evolved to donning the traditional head covering (the turban), which was folded in essentially the same manner as the original Biblical saddle. And from there, the word evolved to describe the act of putting on any head covering: לחבוש את הכובע, את הכיפה etc.!
Wills & Halacha - No Need to Compromise on Either!
The Basic Halacha on Succession (Yerusha)
According to Halacha, male offspring will exclusively inherit their father’s estate. The Torah awards women no rights of inheritance as long as there are male heirs in the same class. So, daughters will not inherit if there are sons, and sisters will not inherit if there are brothers. (In tandem, the Rabbis made provision for support and maintenance of unmarried daughters up to the age of physical maturity and for a dowry at the time of their marriage, which could run to as high as 10% of the total assets left by the deceased). Moreover, when the first born is a male, he is entitled to two shares of the tangible assets of the estate.
The Torah (Bamidbar 27:11), after setting forth the halachic procedure for the disposition of an estate, concludes its discussion with the term chukat mishpat. Chuka (statute) implies inalienability, and thus prohibits any change to the order of inheritance as prescribed in the Torah: neither to bequeath a legacy to a person who is not entitled by the Torah to inherit, and nor to disinherit a person who the Torah declares is entitled to inherit. In this regard, inheritance differs from the general rule in monetary matters, which states that monetary stipulations are valid (if structured properly), even if they contradict Torah law (kol t’nai she-be’mamon kayam).
The upshot of the above is that a person, according to the strict letter of the law, is unable to distribute his estate to non-halachic heirs, such as a wife or a daughter, or in a way which would deprive his firstborn of his halachic entitlement to a double portion, without violating the Halacha.
Some Possible Solutions
(A) The Gift Approach
The strict Torah laws of inheritance only apply to property owned by a person at the time of his death. However, one can make a gift to anyone at any time he is capable of doing so, before his death. Thus, if a person gave away or otherwise disposed of his property during his lifetime (for example, to his daughters), the Torah’s restrictions limiting his abilities on inheritance would not apply. In practice, however, the maker of the will may be unable to part with his possessions during his lifetime, which is a drawback of making an outright gift. Moreover, it is not possible for a gift to be made during his lifetime to be effective after the testator’s death – because at the moment of death the title to his possessions vests automatically in his heirs!
The way of getting round this quandary is to draft a legal instrument, which would enable the beneficiary to take immediate title to the property – but, at the same time, would enable the donor to retain the right to all income earned during his lifetime, as well as to revoke the trust whenever he desires. This is known as a “revocable inter-vivos trust.” A secular will could thus provide: “All of the rights and gifts granted according to this Will shall be given to the beneficiaries in the Will according to the Halacha, namely by way of gift, the title/principal now and the benefit/interest proximate to my death, and all of the stipulations and provisions mentioned in this Will shall have the same legality as stipulations and provisions that are valid according to the Halacha, in the most effective manner, as well as according to the laws of the land.”
The drawback to this method is that the majority of halachic authorities require a formal transfer of title to the property (kinyan) to be binding. However, such a kinyan will only be effective in transferring property which is currently in the donor’s possession at the time of the kinyan. It would have no effect on property yet to be acquired, such property being a matter which is not as yet in existence (davar sh-lo ba le’olam) – see: Bava Metzia 46a, Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 203, 209. Yet a conventional will generally deals with future holdings as well. Thus, equal distribution to children using outright lifetime gifts would be extremely difficult. On a practical level, too, the gift approach has drawbacks. For example, a substantial gift made to a daughter while the parents are alive might generate considerable resentment from the sons.
Simply put, this method enables a testator to draft a secular will, while effectively distributing his estate equally to both male and female heirs. He does so by creating an indebtedness well in excess of the total value of his estate, as leverage to encourage his sons to carry out the terms of his will. Should they fail to do so, the will would require them to pay the full monetary debt to the daughters (or non-firstborn sons). This debt becomes a lien on all of the testator’s property – both current and future holdings. This technique was primarily used to give daughters a half share or full share in one’s estate and is known as shtar chatzi zachar (half share) or shtar zachar shaleim (full share). Such a document was often drawn up and delivered to a daughter at the time of her marriage.
Conclusion
http://www.ishiur.com In view of the above halachic problems/challenges, and in light of the above suggested solutions, the writer drafts for clients, at the time of drafting a secular will in accordance with the law of the State of Israel, at no extra charge, a “Halachic Wills Appendix.” This document was created by Rav Zvi Yehuda ben Ya’akov, a dayan on the Tel-Aviv Regional Rabbinical Court. In the writer’s eyes, this document has the advantage of enabling a secular will to be made, according to all the strictures of the “law of the land,” while tailoring the provisions of this will to the requirements of Halacha.
The “Halachic Wills Appendix” is actually a separate document – which thus has the added advantage that it need not be brought to the attention of a non-religious judge (who may otherwise be confused, particularly by its “indebtedness” provisions) at the time the will is probated. At the same time, it effectively enables the secular will to comply with the requirements of Halacha, combining as it does the elements of the gift approach (for property on which a kinyan can work) and the penalty payment mechanism (in the sum of double the share that each beneficiary would be entitled to receive under the secular will, in the event that the sons do not pay their full monetary obligations to the daughters under the ‘note’ of indebtedness).
For further reading: (1) Halacha and the Conventional Last Will and Testament, by Rabbi Judah Dick: http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/last_will_and_testament1.html (2) Yerushah and Dina DeMalchuta Dina, by Rav Chaim Jachter: http://koltorah.org/ravj/Yerushah_and_Dina_DeMalchuta_Dina_1.html (3) Yerushah - Shtar Chatzi Zachar and its Contemporary Variation, by Rabbi Chaim Jachter: http://koltorah.org/ravj/Yerushah_-_Shtar_Chatzi_Zachar_and_its_Contemporary_Variation_1.html (4) Various Halachic Wills (in Hebrew) on the “Din Torah” website of the Mishpetei Eretz Institute for Halacha and Law, including the Halachic Wills Appendix of Dayan Zvi Yehuda ben Ya’akov referred to in the above article: http://www.dintora.org/Innerpage.asp?ChildID=308
