Tenant damages
To the great Rabbi Atar Gaon Hador in the desert, the great Rabbi Avraham Shlita,
Reuven rents an apartment and something breaks in the house that the tenant rented during the rental period. Is the landlord obligated to repair it or not?
In a way that is damaged by the tenant’s use, such as when the window is broken or the tenant is injured, etc., while the tenant is opening and closing it, or when the pipe is clogged by the tenant’s use, etc., the custom is that the tenant is obligated to repair it, and even in a way that is somewhat close to rape, it seems that the custom is that the tenant repairs the damage that has occurred, and in complete rape, we still have to look at it. In a way that is damaged by natural wear and tear, such as when a pipe is punctured, etc., the custom is that the landlord is obligated to repair it. See the studies of Lev. H. H. C. S. A. S. that the custom is to charge the landlord, etc., and so on. In our day, the custom is still the same.
The question will mainly be about a rape that comes from nowhere, such as burglars and thieves or protesters, etc. breaking into a house without the tenant’s permission and damaging doors or breaking windows, etc., or a fire that broke out by rape and burned down some of the doors, etc., which is not clear from the rabbinic custom. It must be discussed whether there is an obligation on the landlord to provide him with a house repaired as it was at the beginning or whether he is exempt from repairs and the tenant who wants to continue living in the apartment must repair it himself.
I answered, because there is a fixed criterion mentioned in Baba Metzia (P.H. 47): “Whoever rents a house to his neighbor, the lessor is obligated to provide the door, the carpenter, the lock, and everything that is the work of a craftsman, but anything that is not the work of a craftsman, the lessee does it…”.
And so did the Shulchan Aruch, a scholar of the Shi’ite school.
Therefore, if something in the house breaks down as a result of use, wear and tear, etc., if it is repaired by a craftsman, the lessor is liable, and if it is repaired by a layman, the lessee is liable.
If others intentionally damaged the apartment, the landlord is obligated to repair it, since the house was rented to the tenant in good condition.
I would be very happy if His Excellency would consider my comment,
With thanks and apologies,
His student from his writings
Hello.
First, what determines is Israeli law, which is also the custom today, in terms of Halacha.
In the Gemara BM (P. Shuchar and P. HaBayit and Aliyah) we discuss the hire of a donkey and its transport to the mountain or the valley, as well as the hire of a house and its collapse. Although in the case of the hire of “this donkey” another donkey does not need to be provided for him because this donkey is no longer there, in the case of a house one must also discuss whether it collapsed and whether, when it is rebuilt, it will be this house or another house. As far as I remember, Ritva and Tos disagreed on this regarding a vow and condition upon divorce that she will not go to her father’s house and the house will collapse and you will repair it – whether it will be the same house or another house.
In our case, it is clear that this is a rental of ‘this house’, and the house did not fall but was damaged, and here the landlord certainly must provide him with the house. I do not see that there is anything that distinguishes rape of a house that fell from rape of damage from a break-in. And rape from heaven is rape at the hands of a person. As long as the rape is not caused or committed by the tenant, the obligation is on the landlord to provide him with a proper house.
It is true that the claim of “your luck caused it” that the landlord can make to the tenant should be discussed here. But it seems that it does not belong here, since even in the case of damage caused by nature to the house, it would be possible to say so. If the landlord undertook to provide him with a house, it does not belong to say that the tenant’s luck caused it. And if the damage is man-made, it seems reasonable to assume that the claim of luck does not belong at all (only in the case of natural damage can it be said that it is in the hands of heaven and in the hands of luck).
As per the law.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
