Shabbat Parashat Behar 5772
P'ninat Mishpat: An Aggressive Landlord – part II(condensed from Hemdat Mishpat, rulings of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
Case: The defendants (=def) rented an apartment from the plaintiff (=pl) as they were preparing for aliya, signing a two-year contract (via fax) and paying two months rent weeks before they were to come. The contract required them to give a security deposit “upon their arrival in
Ruling: [Last time we saw that the rental agreement was initially binding.]
Def brought no proof and only weak claims as to why they had reason to fear violent or illegal steps on pl’s part. Def made the impression of sensitive, timid people, and they come from a culture in which polite speech is the norm. Pl admits to speaking assertively, as he acted in beit din, which he feels is his right and is more accepted in
The Mishpat Tzedek (II, 31) allowed someone who rented a home on top of a store, which was subsequently rented to a violent non-Jew, to back out of the contract due to his fear of his neighbor. However, that was referring to a non-Jew with a proven record of violence in a society where anti-Semitism was tolerated. In this case, there are not subjective grounds for fear, just for the unpleasantness connected to financial disputes. Def also had other ways to deal with the situation, including having the rabbi or the lawyer deal with pl or looking for other tenants to take their place.
There are varied sources on the situation of bad relationships between landlord and tenant. The Rama (Choshen Mishpat 312:9) rules that one who rented a house to someone when they were friends cannot expel him when they become enemies. However, in 312:14 he says that if two people share a home and fought in court over ownership, the one who won the case can expel the other without a normal waiting period because of their enmity. The distinction is that in the former case, the relationship is just of landlord-tenant, whereas in the latter case, they share a home. Our case lacks the urgency that is grounds for breaking the contract.
The advice def received was not halachically/legally sound, and they are required to pay for the damages of the breached agreement. Beit din criticized pl’s insensitive and unwise behavior and urged him to significantly reduce the sum to which he is legally entitled to compensate for his behavior which, under the subjective circumstances, caused def pain and financial loss.
Top of page
Print this page
Send to friend
This edition of
is endowed by
Les & Ethel Sutker
Louis and Lillian Klein, z”l
This edition of
Rabbi Shlomo Merzel o.b.m,
Dedicated in memory of
ben R'Aharon Yitzhak and Bracha
on the occasion of his yahrzeit, 24 Iyar,
and members of his family
who perished in the shoah
Al Kiddush Hashem.