Q&A: Jewish Law Regarding a Tenant and a Landlord
Jewish Law Regarding a Tenant and a Landlord
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I wanted to ask the following question: We rented an apartment with a large balcony, and after some time construction began across from our building. Throughout the entire construction period, all day long and for a long time, stones and building materials were thrown toward our balcony in such a way that the balcony was rendered unusable for any purpose. Because of this, am I justly entitled to a discount from the landlord (that is, instead of providing me with a new balcony, to give me a discount as an alternative)?
I asked a rabbinical judge, and he told me that the claim that one is entitled to greater compensation for being prevented from using the balcony does not exist in Jewish law. Rather, according to Jewish law, anything that is considered a defect voids the transaction entirely, while anything that is not considered a defect does not void it, and full rent is paid.
I would be happy to know what the Rabbi says.
Answer
In my opinion he is correct. At most, you can sue the contractor or the neighbor.
Discussion on Answer
Hello, and thank you. Indeed, I meant that I rented the apartment and did not rent it out.
As for the substance of the matter: I haven’t managed to understand why there is no such claim. After all, in “One who rents a donkey and it became blind, etc.” (Bava Metzia 78a), the conclusion there is that in a case where the donkey completely ceased functioning, he must provide another donkey. How is that different from an apartment whose balcony has become completely unusable? Seemingly, according to that, he should have to provide me with another balcony (or pay in its place).
Also, more generally, the balcony raises the value of the apartment, and without it the apartment’s price goes down. So if that part of the apartment was impaired, its value was impaired. Therefore, seemingly there is room for an offset.
I’d be happy to know.
That’s what he answered you: if this reason is sufficient to require another apartment, then you can demand one. But if not, then there is no obligation here to compensate for damages. The one who caused the damage is the neighbor, not the landlord.
By the way, you rented it out? No—you rented it.