# The two tracks, their majorities, and their forums

Read this before answering anything about thresholds, percentages, or who decides.
Every figure here is taken from the statutory text. Where a threshold changed, both the current
and the superseded value are given, because the superseded one still governs older matters.

## The tracks at a glance

| | Pinui-binui | Strengthening track |
|---|---|---|
| Statute | Chok pinui u-vinui (idud mizmei pinui u-vinui), 2006 | Chok ha-mekarkein (chizuk batim meshutafim mipnei re'idot adama), 2008 |
| Typical shape | A whole complex is cleared and rebuilt, usually several buildings | Works on one existing building, either strengthening with additions or demolition and rebuild of that building |
| Unit of measurement | The makbetz (the complex), AND each beit meshutaf inside it | The single beit meshutaf |
| Who decides on a refusing owner | The court | The mefake'ach al ha-batim ha-meshutafim |
| Remedies against a refusing owner | Damages in tort to the consenting owners, or approval of the transaction plus appointment of an advocate or accountant to sign for them | The mefake'ach approves the work, and may appoint an advocate or accountant to contract on the owners' behalf |

Sending an owner to the wrong forum costs months. Establish the track before quoting anything.

## Pinui-binui: the special majority is a composite, not a percentage

"Rov meyuchas mibein baalei ha-dirot" requires ALL THREE of the following at once:

1. Owners holding **at least two thirds of all the apartments in the makbetz**; and
2. holding **at least three fifths of the apartments in each beit meshutaf** in that makbetz.
   Special rule: where a beit meshutaf has only **four or five apartments**, the requirement is
   **at least three apartments**, and the building must have **more than two owners**; and
3. **more than half of the common property** in each beit meshutaf attached to their apartments.

Source: section 1 of the 2006 law, definition of "rov meyuchas mibein baalei ha-dirot".

Never restate this as one number. A scheme can clear the two-thirds limb across the complex and
still fail because one building in it has not reached three fifths.

### The separate, lower majority for economic viability

A different and lower composite governs the economic-viability question: owners holding
**more than two fifths of the apartments in each beit meshutaf** and **more than two fifths of
the common property** in each. Source: section 1, definition of "rov meyuchas mibein baalei
ha-dirot le-inyan kevi'at kedaiut kalkalit".

This matters because it is a separate right with a lower bar. A minority group that cannot block
the deal may still be numerous enough to trigger the appraisal route.

### Discounting an objector's vote

The court may disregard some or all of an objecting owner's rights when computing the majority
where the objection stems from unlawful building or use of the common property or the adjoining
area, or from unlawfully splitting the apartment. This requires an application, evidence of the
unlawful building or splitting, and evidence that more than half of all the owners in that
building, holding more than half the common property in it, consent to the transaction.
Source: section 2(a1) of the 2006 law.

## Strengthening track: the threshold moves with the work and the building

| Work | Threshold | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Change to the common property that is not an apartment extension or a new apartment | A majority of the apartment owners, decided in advance | s.3 |
| Building one or more new apartments in the common property | **Two thirds of the apartments** plus **two thirds of the common property** attached to their apartments, approved by the mefake'ach on a claim, after every owner has had an opportunity to argue | s.5(a) |
| Demolition of the existing building and rebuilding it | **Two thirds of the apartments** plus **two thirds of the common property**, in a building with **at least four apartments and more than two owners** | s.5a(a) |
| Demolition and rebuild where the beit meshutaf has **six apartments or more** | Same two-thirds threshold, but the COUNTING changes: section 4 of the pinui-binui law applies, mutatis mutandis, which discounts an owner holding more than 30 percent of the apartments | s.5a(a1) |

### What the six-apartment rule actually does, and what it does not do

Section 5a(a1) says that "for the purpose of COMPUTING the majority required to approve the work"
in a beit meshutaf of six apartments or more, section 4 of the pinui-binui law applies mutatis
mutandis. It is easy to misread this as routing to a different, higher threshold. It does not.

Section 4 of the pinui-binui law is headed "baalut al yoter mi-dira achat", ownership of more than
one apartment, and it is a DISCOUNT rule, not a threshold. In a beit meshutaf of six apartments or
more, an owner holding more than thirty percent of the apartments is counted as holding thirty
percent, plus one third of the excess. The statute defines the excess ("shiur ha-hefresh") as that
owner's share of the apartments minus thirty percent.

So for a building of six or more apartments the threshold stays two thirds plus two thirds. What
changes is the arithmetic: a single owner who has bought up a large block of the building cannot
carry the vote on their own weight. Worked example, a building of ten apartments where one owner
holds five: that owner's raw share is 50 percent, the excess over 30 percent is 20 percent, one
third of that is about 6.67 percent, so they are counted at about 36.67 percent rather than 50.

This is the correct answer to the very common question "my neighbour bought four flats, can he
force this through". Read section 4 before answering it.

### The temporal split on demolition and rebuild

Before **tikkun 8, in force 1.7.2023**, the threshold at s.5a(a) was **four fifths of the
apartments and four fifths of the common property**. It is now two thirds.

Both figures are live knowledge. The current figure is what a project starting today must meet.
The superseded figure is what a claim brought under the old regime was measured against, and it
is also the source of the "TAMA 38 needs 80 percent" claim that is still published everywhere as
though it were current.

## "Has TAMA 38 ended?" The accurate answer

TAMA 38 stopped accepting new building permit applications, and municipalities have been adopting
their own urban renewal plans in its place. It does not follow that the 2008 owner-protection
statute stopped applying, and saying so is a serious error.

**Tikkun 7, in force 10.7.2022, replaced the definition of "tochnit ha-chizuk"** so that it now
means any of three things:

1. TAMA 38 itself, as in force from time to time;
2. a plan among whose purposes is strengthening buildings against earthquakes, prepared under
   TAMA 38's provisions, containing provisions that allow a permit to be issued under it without
   approving a further plan first, excluding such a plan applying in a pinui-binui complex;
3. a plan applying to a building requiring strengthening as defined in section 70a of the
   Planning and Building Law, which conditions its realisation on strengthening the building
   against earthquakes by demolition and rebuild or by strengthening to the earthquake-resistance
   standard, excluding such a plan applying in a pinui-binui complex.

The previous definition covered only TAMA 38. Source: section 1 of the 2008 law for the current
wording; the superseded wording is in the consolidated text as it stood before tikkun 7.

So the majorities, the mefake'ach's jurisdiction, and the statutory refusal grounds continue to
apply to projects running under the municipal plans that succeeded TAMA 38, provided the plan
falls within one of the three limbs. Which limb a particular local plan falls under is a question
about that plan's text and is not something to assert without reading it.

## Kashish: three thresholds, not one

| Where | Age | Additional condition | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pinui-binui law, general definition | 70 | Resident in that apartment for at least two years, both measured at the date the first pinui-binui transaction in the building was signed | s.1 of the 2006 law |
| Pinui-binui law, s.2(b)(7)(a) ground | 75 | Measured at the date the first pinui-binui transaction was signed | s.2(b)(7)(a) |
| Strengthening law, protection at s.5(b1) | 75 | Measured at the date the first transaction under the strengthening plan was signed | s.5(b1) of the 2008 law |

Never carry one age across the two statutes.

## What reaching the threshold does and does not do

Reaching the majority does not by itself bind a dissenting owner and does not make anyone a
"dayar sarvan". It is what allows the consenting owners to bring the matter to the court, in
pinui-binui, or to the mefake'ach, in the strengthening track. That forum then decides, on
evidence, whether a particular refusal is unreasonable, and the statutory grounds in
`owner-protections.md` are what it decides against. Say this explicitly whenever you quote a
threshold, because owners are routinely told that hitting the number ends the argument.

## A third track: war-damaged buildings

Since 2026 there is a separate statute, chok shikum nizkei milchama be-derech shel hitchadshut
ironit, for rehabilitating war-damaged areas through urban renewal. An owner whose building was hit
is NOT on the pinui-binui or strengthening track by default, and quoting those thresholds to them
is wrong. Establish this first whenever war damage is mentioned.

Two definitions do the work:

- **A destroyed building (binyan harus)** is one that suffered war damage where **the local
  authority's engineer** determined, for the purposes of that law, that it was destroyed or must be
  demolished. That determination is the gate, not the owner's view and not the developer's.
- **A rehabilitation and renewal area (ezor le-shikum ve-hitchadshut)** is declared under the
  statute, and a rehabilitation and renewal plan is the local or detailed plan matching its
  boundaries.

### Its majority is a fourth formula, and it is disjunctive

"Rov meyuchad shel baalei ha-dirot" is satisfied by **one or more** of:

1. A majority of the apartment owners in the area who own a majority of the apartments in **each of
   most of the buildings** in that area, provided every building falling under s.4(2) is one of
   them; **or**
2. Owners of **at least four fifths** of all the apartments in the area.

A plot with no building on it is counted as a plot containing one apartment.

Note the irony worth stating to a user: four fifths is a real threshold **here**, on the
war-damage track, and it is exactly the figure wrongly quoted for the other two tracks. Do not let
that coincidence pull you into using it elsewhere.

The transaction with an owner under this statute carries the same minimum-content spine as the
other tracks: temura principles, maximum dates for plan approval, permit and delivery, details of
who will build, and an undertaking by the developer to provide guarantees in the owner's favour.

Because this statute is recent and is being applied to live cases, treat its detail as the most
likely part of this skill to move. Read the current text before answering anything specific.

## The remaining majority in the strengthening statute

For completeness, so the table is not read as exhaustive: work in the common property whose purpose
is **enlarging an apartment** requires an advance decision of those owning **sixty percent** of the
apartments in the beit meshutaf, covering both the removal of common-property parts for attachment
to that apartment and the allocation of the building rights required. Source: s.4 of the 2008 law.

That completes the strengthening statute's ladder: s.3 a plain majority for other common-property
work, s.4 sixty percent for enlargement, s.5 two thirds for a new apartment, s.5a two thirds for
demolition and rebuild.