The Yamim Nora’im were reaching their climax. The shul was packed with men wrapped in talleisim and women dressed in white for Ne’ilah. The Rabbi delivered an impassioned sermon emphasizing the tremendous last-minute opportunity for teshuvah, and exhorted each person to examine his ways.

Mr. Krumbein listened intently and the words penetrated his heart deeply. He was a simple person who earned his living as a shopkeeper but tried to observe the mitzvos properly, deal kindly with others and learn Torah according to his available time. Of course, there were many things to do teshuvah for, but none of these were going to “make or break” his Yom Kippur. He searched for something that perhaps he had overlooked in previous years or that would set his life along a significantly better path.

Toward the end of his Shemoneh Esrei, he found himself saying Viduy: “Ashamnu, bagadnu, gazalnu... — We were guilty, we betrayed, we stole...”

Mr. Krumbein was perplexed. He wasn’t a thief. He hadn’t stolen. Or had he? There were times he had cut corners slightly with his customers; sometimes he hadn’t gotten around to paying the delivery boy; some extra stock on consignment was never returned to the suppliers. But what could he do about this? How could he remember whom he had cheated and by how much?

Suddenly the Viduy took on new meaning. If he was going to repent for gezel he had only a few minutes left to go through the teshuvah process: He regretted his actions; he confessed; he accepted not to do it ever again. But how could he fix what he had done — and moreover, on Yom Kippur itself?

After finishing Shemoneh Esrei, he noticed a dvar Torah in the weekly parashah sheet titled, “So That We Should Refrain From Stealing.” While he generally avoided reading parashah sheets during davening, this was essential for Yom Kippur! He grabbed the parashah sheet and was amazed to see that the article addressed his question: How does one repent from stealing?

The article first cited the words of the Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 360): “Anyone who steals is required to return the theft itself, as it says, ‘He should return the theft that he stole.’ If it is lost or changed, he pays its value.”

But what about the many people whom he no longer remembered?

This was addressed by the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (182:7): “One who steals from many — such as a storeowner who measured with a deficient measure, or weighed with a deficient measure ... or one who took interest from many — his repentance is difficult. Therefore, he should provide for public needs, so that those who were stolen from should also benefit. Nonetheless, he is required to return to those whom he knows he stole from, and does not fulfill his obligation by contributing to public needs.”

Mr. Krumbein began to see a glimmer of hope for proper repentance from gezel. But what to do now, as the clock ticked on, and the gates of Yom Kippur were about to close?

He continued reading. The final paragraph was a story about the Chofetz Chaim, who gathered his students before Ne’ilah and spoke to them about the severity of stealing. The Chofetz Chaim concluded that although it was now Yom Kippur, and it was not feasible to return the theft that day, each person should accept upon himself now to return the money after Yom Kippur. This acceptance to repay would be considered meanwhile as if he had done so.

Mr. Krumbein firmly accepted upon himself to return to those whom he knew he had cheated and also to donate to the local shul and community center.

When he said, “Ashamnu, bagadnu, gazalnu...” for the final time in chazaras hashatz, Mr. Krumbein was able to recite the Viduy with a lighter heart.

I have had the same tenant for the last five years. The current lease is about to expire and a potential tenant expressed interest in leasing the apartment.

Q: Do I have an obligation to negotiate with my current tenant before negotiating with the new potential tenant?

A: Before answering your question, we must review some of the laws of bar metzra (loosely, a neighbor’s right of first refusal). Chazal granted neighbors the first option to purchase adjacent land. This enactment is rooted in the principle of yashar vatov, and since two contiguous properties are more advantageous than two noncontiguous properties, we tell the buyer that it is yashar vatov for him to find another property for sale and allow the neighbor to purchase the land adjacent to his.

If someone purchases a field subject to this law, one of the adjacent neighbors can exercise his rights as a matzran — a neighbor. Once invoked, the “buyer” is considered to have acted as the agent of the matzran to purchase the field and the “buyer” must vacate the property, provided that the matzran reimburses the “buyer” the cost of purchasing the field (C.M. 175:5-6). 

This enactment applies whether the “buyer” contacted the seller or whether the seller contacted the “buyer” (Maharshag 3:117). Even if the seller does not want to sell the property to the matzran, the property is transferred to him (C.M. 175:6). Although this enactment is directed toward the buyer because the seller can always decide not to sell the property (Sema 175:7, 38, 63, 67), nevertheless there are authorities who write that the seller should first inquire whether any of the matzranim are interested in purchasing the property (Divrei Malkiel 3:156; Aruch Hashulchan 175:7).

Poskim debate whether a tenant is considered a matzran to purchase the property of his tenancy (C.M. 175:62-63). 

Therefore:

If the current tenant bought the property, the matzran cannot force him to vacate. 

If someone else bought the property, even if he is not a matzran, he cannot be forced by the tenant to vacate the property. 

However, if the question arises before the sale, the tenant has priority ahead of a non-matzran. 

If the tenant and matzran ask who has priority, the matzran has, since his claim is certain whereas the tenant’s claim is subject to debate (Shevus Yaakov 3:165, cited by Pischei Teshuvah 175:28).

Conversely, all opinions agree that a tenant during the period of his tenancy who wants to renew his lease has matzranus rights and has priority over another potential tenant (Taz, Nesivos 237:1). 

However, if the landlord prefers the new tenant — for example, if the current tenant has more children than the potential tenant (Ketzos 175:3) or he has greater confidence that the new tenant will pay his rent on time (Mishpat Shalom 175:59) — the current tenant cannot demand matzranus rights to take priority ahead of the second tenant.

Similarly, if the new tenant is willing to pay a higher rent, the current tenant has no matzranus rights. However, beis din would need to determine whether the landlord’s reasoning is sufficient grounds to replace the current tenant (Divrei Chaim, C.M. 2:19). Once the lease with the current tenant expires, he has no matzranus rights (Mishpat Shalom ibid.). 

Q: I rented a property for a week-long vacation, but heavy rains and subsequent flooding required evacuation of the area. Am I liable for the rent?

A: A widespread event that affects most of the region is referred to as makkas medinah (countrywide plague). The renter is not required to pay the rent for the unusable property in such a situation; it cannot be considered his own misfortune due to the widespread nature of the event. If the property is still usable or fixable, though, even with difficulty, the renter must pay the rent (C.M. 321:1; Shach 334:3).

If the event occurred during the middle of the rental, the Rema rules that it automatically requires a reduction in the rental for the unused portion, even if the renter did not cancel the rental (Rema 312:17, 321:1).

However, something common that the renter could have foreseen is not considered makkas medinah. Additionally, if the renter prepaid, he is not always entitled to a refund (Machaneh Ephraim, Sechirus #5, 7; Pischei Choshen, Sechirus 6:10-13).