Responsa על קידושין 99:22

Q. What constitutes the merit of emigrating to the Holy Land?
A. My knowledge on this subject does not go beyond the talmudic statement (Ket. 111a) that a person who emigrates to the Holy Land is absolved from sin. This applies to a person who commits no sins in the Holy Land proper, and who fulfils all the commandments appertaining to the Holy Land. However, the punishment for a sin committed there is more severe than that for a sin committed elsewhere; for the Lord watches over the Holy Land more diligently, and the land itself can bear no sinners. For this reason the Holy Land is now desolate and contains no walled cities. Therefore, it is to those who go to the Holy Land and intend to be reckless in their behavior and particularly to quarrel there that the verse applies: "But when ye entered ye defiled My land (Jer. 2, 7)." When, however, a person emigrates to the Holy Land with sincere intentions and conducts himself there in piety and saintliness, his reward is unlimited; provided, of course, that he possess sufficient means of support there.
Q. Does a person buried in Palestine escape the hibbut hakkever (agonies of the grave)?
A. I do not know.
Q. Why did the Amoraim fail to move to the Holy Land?
A. Such an act would have seriously interferred with their studies, since in the Holy Land they would have to spend much time in finding means of support. A person is permitted even to leave the Holy Land in order to study with his teacher (Erub. 47a); therefore, one is surely not enjoined to break off his uninterrupted studies in the Diaspora and emigrate to the Holy Land where he would find his means of support with great difficulty.
Q. What is the meaning of the talmudic statement (Ket. 110b): A person who dwells in the Diaspora is as one who has no God?
A. God's presence is primarily concentrated in the Holy Land. Therefore, a person's prayers there ascend directly to His throne.
SOURCES: P. 14–5; Tashbetz, 561–5; Kol Bo, 127; Mordecai Hagadol p. 183d; Orhot Hayyim II, pp. 611–12. Cf. Moses Minz, Responsa 79.

Q. Without any previous courting A gave money or presents to Leah saying they were tokens of love. The witnesses testify that A did not speak to Leah about marriage while he gave her the money, and that she did not express her consent.
A. If there are witnesses that A proposed to Leah on a previous occasion and that she accepted his proposal, she is betrothed to A, even though A did not expressly say he was betrothing her. When there are no such witnesses, but both, A and Leah, admit that they had a previous understanding between them, or that at the time A gave the money to Leah they both intended the money to bind them in betrothal, Leah is betrothed to A. Moreover, the mere statement of A to Leah that he gave her the money as a token of love may constitute a betrothal, and therefore, Leah needs a divorce from A before she can marry another.
SOURCES: Cr. 19; Pr. 519–520; Mord. Kid. 521; Tesh. Maim. to Ishut, 4.

Q - A made an agreement to sell a parcel of land to B, before Hanukkah, and gave the latter a book as security, that the former would fulfill the agreement. A said to B, before an authoritative court, "If I do not carry out the terms of the agreement. This book shall be yours as of now." A failed to sell B the land before Hanukkah. Can A still sell the land to B, without incurring the penalty, although the designated time had elapsed?
A - In reality, both A and B were not sincerely interested about consummating the agreement before Hannukah. This deadline was intended to merely serve as a stimulus to complete the deal. The transaction can therefore be completed after the designated time had elapsed, and A need incur no penalty, whatsoever.

Q. Without any previous courting A gave money or presents to Leah saying they were tokens of love. The witnesses testify that A did not speak to Leah about marriage while he gave her the money, and that she did not express her consent.
A. If there are witnesses that A proposed to Leah on a previous occasion and that she accepted his proposal, she is betrothed to A, even though A did not expressly say he was betrothing her. When there are no such witnesses, but both, A and Leah, admit that they had a previous understanding between them, or that at the time A gave the money to Leah they both intended the money to bind them in betrothal, Leah is betrothed to A. Moreover, the mere statement of A to Leah that he gave her the money as a token of love may constitute a betrothal, and therefore, Leah needs a divorce from A before she can marry another.
SOURCES: Cr. 19; Pr. 519–520; Mord. Kid. 521; Tesh. Maim. to Ishut, 4.

Q. A and B placed their dispute in the hands of two mediators subject to a final decision between the two, of C, the third mediator. They agreed before an authoritative court, that should one party refuse to abide by the decision of the mediators, that party was to pay five marks to the cemetery fund or to the synagogue. They deposited valuable pledges with C to enforce their agreement. The mediators reached a decision on the second day. A, however, refused to abide thereby claiming that, at the time of the making of the agreement, it was understood by both parties that the decision of the mediators was not to be postponed till the second day. A brought two witnesses, one of whom testified that such was the understanding; the other witness was not sure whether the condition was made at the time of the agreement or subsequent thereto. C and the subscribing two witnesses denied A's allegation that such a condition was made at the time of the agreement. The Rabbis, therefore, decided that A must pay the five marks fine. A, then, changed his mind and expressed his desire to be bound by the decision of the mediators. Must he still pay the fine?
A. As soon as A refused to accept the decision of the mediators, he became obliged to pay five marks to the sacred cause. Therefore, A must pay the five marks fine.
SOURCES: Pr. 975; Cr. 289; Agudah Sanh. 5.