Shabbat Parashat Vayechi 5785

P'ninat Mishpat: Spillover of Courtyard Dispute

Case: [Last time we discussed a dispute over rights to a courtyard. Now we deal with regrettable consequences of that dispute.] Pl and def accuse each other (husbands and wives) of various affronts. Pl accuse def of putting up in the building derogatory, inflammatory notes stemming from their dispute, making false accusations, calling the police about them for no reason, spilling garbage on pl’s property, and of various physical altercations. Pl demand 100,000 NIS in compensation. Def accuse pl of spreading rumors that def is a pedophile, of physical attack (they sent a video of one), and of sending someone to break the courtyard fence’s lock. Def demand 70,000 NIS. There are also charges for damages: 1) 3,000 NIS – to storage containers against pl; 2) 4,500 NIS – to doors of storage container against pl; 3) 1,400 NIS – breaking five bicycles against pl; 4) 3,000 NIS – to alcove of gas canisters against def. Pl also demands that def remove security cameras that def installed in the stairway and the courtyard.

Ruling: Beit din excoriates both sides for their actions and accusations. These are unacceptable for cultured people. The gemara (Bava Metzia 58) equates public embarrassment to murder. Both sides should do teshuva, including asking forgiveness from the other side.

On the matter’s legal side, the Shulchan Aruch (CM 421:13) ruled that if Reuven attacked Shimon and in the process, Shimon injured Reuven, Shimon is exempt from payment. The Rama continues that if Reuven attacked Shimon and Shimon called him a mamzer, he is exempt because it is expected that one who is attacked will react strongly, even when he is not permitted to. The Yam Shel Shlomo (cited by the Pitchei Teshuva, ibid. 3) says that while it is forbidden to hit one who called him inflammatory names, he is not considered a rasha. The responding side must not overdo the reaction in comparison to what he suffered.

In this case, both sides attacked their neighbors in a manner that they should be ashamed of, but it has not been proven that one side was the main culprit. Therefore, neither side deserves compensation. Also, most of the mutual claims were denied by the other side. The video sent shows an altercation, but it does not show who started it. As far as what was said in beit din, beit din does not obligate a side for lashon hara said in court, as the sides have license to make harsh claims in advancing their arguments.

The damages mentioned in #s 1-3 were not proven to be attributable to pl, and therefore beit din will not obligate payment for them. Def admitted to damaging the gas alcoves, but def claim that his father built them, not the municipality or pl’s parents; when there were good relations, def did not mind that pl used the alcoves, but now he does. Beit din rules that if pl gets information from the municipality that they provided the alcoves and will not fix them, beit din could possibly rule that def must pay.

The cameras in the joint area invade pl’s privacy and must be removed. The ones in the courtyard are def’s prerogative, as long as their range does not extend to the public areas.  

Top of page

Print this page

Send to friend