Meir Goldstone sipped his ginger ale as the plane flew at 30,000 feet over the Atlantic Ocean. He was en route to Yerushalayim for his annual Lag B’Omer trip. This year, his entire family was with him. This year, his youngest son would have his first haircut in Meron. And this year, he was going to sign a contract with Wasser Realty to purchase the apartment he’d been renting for years.

When the Goldstones arrived at their flat, Meir was surprised to see a note on his door. It was from his upstairs neighbor, whom he’d never even spoken to. It was a request for a phone call or visit at his convenience, and it was signed simply, “Your neighbor, Nate Schoen.”

Meir paid Nate a visit on Sunday evening.

Nate invited him in. “Shalom! I heard from Mr. Wasser this week that you plan to buy the apartment you’ve been renting.”

“That’s correct,” Meir smiled.

“Mr. Goldstone, I own not only my apartment, but also the apartment below you. I’m not sure what you know about the halacha of bar metzra, but I have the right to purchase your unit, and I plan to do so.”

Meir was taken aback. He hadn’t anticipated any problems with his purchase plans. After a lengthy discussion during which no conclusion was reached, the two men made an appointment to see a rav the following day.

On Monday afternoon, Rabbi Jacobs listened to their story.

“… and I’ve been renting this apartment for six years, so I feel that I have the privilege to purchase it. Mr. Schoen owns the other units in the three-floor building, so he is challenging my rights,” concluded Meir.

The rav stroked his beard as he pondered the shaila.

“The halacha of bar metzra dictates that the owner of the adjacent property has the right to purchase that property ahead of other potential buyers,” said Rabbi Jacobs. “Even in the event that someone else has already purchased the property, the neighbor has the right to take possession of the property from him.  Mr. Goldstone, you do not own the adjacent property, so it seems you have no right to purchase the flat if Mr. Schoen is interested in purchasing it. On the other hand, you have been renting and living in the apartment all these years, which could possibly give you a stronger claim than Mr. Schoen’s.  There is an uncertainty in halacha regarding whether a tenant has the right of a bar metzra.”

Rabbi Jacobs swiveled his chair around and removed a sefer from the shelf behind him. Turning back to face the two men, he opened the sefer and continued.

“Shvus Yaakov (3:165, cited in Pischei Teshuva Choshen Mishpat 175:28) rules that if a neighbor and a tenant are both interested in purchasing property, the neighbor has first rights.  The reason is that the neighbor is certainly a bar metzra, while there is a dispute whether a tenant qualifies as a bar metzra. Consequently, the one who has a definitive claim has first rights. In the event that the property was already sold to the tenant and the neighbor wants to take it away from him as the bar metzra, we allow the tenant to retain possession of the property. This is because he has already purchased it, and according to some poskim, his claim to the property is stronger than the claim of the neighbor.”

“Todah,” said Mr. Schoen as he stood up.

The rav held up one finger. “There is a limitation to this is. If Mr. Schoen wants to purchase the property to expand his living space, he can invoke the rationale of this halacha which is to that which is upright – yashar.  However, if he is interested in purchasing the property as a real estate investment and will lease the property to others, then Mr. Goldstone, the tenant, has first rights, since the halacha of bar metzra is for living space and does not apply to business.”

Now it was Nate’s turn to look surprised. “Really,” he exclaimed. “I had no idea. I have no personal need for the flat, and I wanted to buy it to collect rent from a tenant. Well then,” he said, turning to Meir, “the apartment is yours. Hatzlacha!”

A woman runs a playgroup in her basement.  One day, while the teacher was involved with one student, one little girl found a pair of scissors and proceeded to cut holes in her friend’s shirt. When the child with the damaged clothing returned home, her parents were furious. They realized that they couldn’t demand reimbursement for the shirt from the parents of the girl (M.B. 343:9) and decided to seek reimbursement from the teacher. They claim that she was negligent by leaving the scissors out where the child could reach it.

Q: Do the parents have a valid claim against the teacher?

A: That depends on whether or not the teacher accepts upon herself the responsibilities of a shomer – a watchman – on the belongings of her students.  Pischei Teshuvah (C.M. 291:1) cites a ruling of Teshuvas Tzemach Tzedek that addresses a similar case.  A woman takes her nephew, whose mother had given him a coin to play with, for a walk. During their outing, the coin gets lost. The mother wants her sister to reimburse her for the lost coin.  Teshuvas Tzemach Tzedek rules that the aunt is not obligated to pay for it: since the mother did not say anything to her sister about the coin when she gave it to her son, there was no acceptance of the responsibilities of a shomer.  Once the mother gives the coin to a child who is, by definition, not responsible, and did not instruct anyone else to take responsibility for the coin, it’s as if she knowingly decided that she would not mind if the coin would be lost (aveida mi’da’as). Although Pischei Teshuvah cites the sefer Sha’ar Mishpat who holds that the aunt is responsible since the assumption is that the mother was relying on the aunt to safeguard the coin, Pischei Teshuvah rejects that ruling.

Although a teacher should certainly make an effort to protect her students’ belongings, there is no indication that she accepts the liability of being a shomer upon herself.  Her primary focus is to teach the children and not to pay such close attention to their belongings.  Additionally, parents are aware of the likelihood that the clothing their children wear to school may get ruined. Thus, unless the teacher herself damaged the clothing, the parents cannot demand payment.

Q: Can a store manager, salesperson or cashier make a "special deal" with the customer below the price set by the store owner?

A: The store manager, salesperson and cashier are all agents of the store owner and are required to act in his best interest. In general, an agent is required to follow the directions of his sender, and can take initiative only to the degree authorized by him. Thus, the store manager would typically be authorized to make even substantial "special deals" if he evaluated it to be in the best interest of the store; a salesperson would typically have some flexibility in order to secure the sale; the cashier would typically not be authorized to adjust the price other than for issues of small change. The specific application of this principle varies from store to store and from case to case. If an agent irresponsibly sold something below the price set by the owner, he is accountable for the difference. (See Shach 96:9 and C.M. 185:1)