Q&A: Damage in a Rental Property
Damage in a Rental Property
Question
To my master, teacher, crown of my head, the great genius of the generation, Rabbi Michael Abraham, may he live a good long life,
Reuven rented an apartment from Shimon, and during the rental period something in the rented home broke down. Is the landlord obligated to repair it or not?
Seemingly, in a case where it broke from the tenant's use—for example, a window broke, or a latch broke, and the like, during the tenant's opening and closing, or a pipe got clogged from the tenant's use and the like—in such cases the custom is that the tenant is obligated to fix it. Even in a case that is somewhat close to being beyond his control, it appears that the custom is that the tenant repairs the damage that occurred, and in a case of complete accident one would still need to analyze it further. But in a case where the damage came through natural wear and tear, such as a pipe developing a hole and the like, the custom is that the landlord is obligated to repair it. See Chikrei Lev, Choshen Mishpat, part 4, section 61, who wrote that the custom is to obligate the landlord, and all the more so nowadays, since that is indeed the custom.
The main question is about an accident caused by outside factors, such as burglars, thieves, or rioters and the like, who broke into the house not because of anything the tenant did and damaged doors or broke windows and the like; or if a fire broke out accidentally and burned some of it, doors and the like. It seems that here there is no clear custom. So this needs discussion: is the landlord obligated to provide him with a repaired house as it was at the outset, or is he exempt from repairing, so that if the tenant wants to continue living in the apartment he must repair it himself?
I answered as follows: there is a fixed criterion mentioned in Bava Metzia (8:7): “If one rents out a house to another, the landlord is responsible for the door, the bolt, the lock, and anything that requires professional workmanship; but anything that does not require professional workmanship, the tenant does it …”
And this is also ruled in the Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat, section 314.
Therefore, if something in the house breaks as a result of use, wear and tear, and the like—if its repair requires professional workmanship, the landlord is obligated; and if its repair is the work of an ordinary layman, the tenant is obligated.
If others intentionally damaged the apartment, the obligation falls on the landlord to repair it, since that is how the house was rented to the tenant—while in proper condition.
I would be very glad if his honor would address my comment.
With thanks and apologies,
Your student through your writings
Answer
Hello.
First, what determines the matter is Israeli law, and that is also the current custom. From the standpoint of Jewish law as well.
In the Talmud, Bava Metzia (the chapter on hiring and the chapter on the house and the upper story), they discuss someone who rented a donkey and took it on a mountain route or through a valley, and likewise someone who rented a house and the house collapsed. Now, in the case of renting “this donkey,” he does not need to provide him with another donkey, because this donkey is no longer here. But with a house, one can discuss whether even if it fell, when it is rebuilt is it considered this same house or a different house. As I recall, Ritva and Tosafot disagree about this regarding a vow and a condition in divorce—that she not go to her father’s house—and the house fell and was repaired: is it considered the same house or a different one?
For our purposes, it is obvious that this is a rental of “this house,” and the house did not collapse but was damaged, and here the landlord certainly has to provide him with the house. I do not see why an unavoidable collapse of the house should differ from unavoidable damage caused by a break-in, or an act of God from damage caused by human beings. As long as the accident was not caused by the tenant and did not result from his negligence, the obligation is on the landlord to provide him with a proper house.
There is, however, room to discuss the claim of “your bad fortune caused it,” which the landlord could perhaps make against the tenant. But it seems that this does not apply here, because even in damage from Heaven to the house one could have said that. If the landlord undertook to provide him with a house, it is irrelevant to say that the tenant’s bad fortune caused it. And if the damage is the work of human hands, it seems logically that the claim of fortune does not apply at all (only with natural damage can one say that it is in the hands of Heaven and fortune).
That is my view.