Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: [We saw last time that ddbm does not apply, according to strict law, to def, as a seller and that they are not required to go beyond the letter of the law when it causes damage (mainly, quarreling). We now look at the question of whether, if pl will sue the eventual buyer based on ddbm, he would be right.]
One reason that ddbm might not apply is that the two properties are on different levels so that it is not possible to combine the houses (the gardens can be joined). The gemara (Bava Metzia 108b) says that if the two fields in question are separated by a boulder, ddbm does not apply. Based on this, Rabbeinu Tam says that ddbm applies only to fields, which lend themselves to being connected, and not to adjacent houses. The fact that it is nice to have two adjacent homes does not suffice for the special institution of ddbm. The Ramah holds that ddbm applies even to houses but only if they are already attached at the time of the sale. The Rashba (Shut II, 145) says it applies even to houses that have the potential to be connected in the future, but on the other hand, this is only if the plan is to put family members in the second house. The Rid (Shut 38) posits that the logic of ddbm is stronger for homes than for fields, and it is even enough that the neighbor wants to ensure he will approve of his new neighbor. The Shulchan Aruch and Rama (Choshen Mishpat 175:53) follow the opinions that ddbm applies to homes. In the Beit Yosef, he posits that the houses do not need to be connected if they can serve one family unit (e.g., one is for living, and one is for relevant storage; a fence can be put around the two).
In this case, pl and his mother will operate separate households, and therefore ddbm would appear not to apply. The Aruch Hashulchan (CM 175:60), regarding ddbm for seats in shul, says that it applies even though each person has his own seat because he wants to have close family members next to him. Again, it is unclear if this will apply to our case if they will live separately. While pl explains how important his help is for his mother, it is likely that the help he is talking about could be done in the same manner if he lived several houses away. The joining of the gardens probably does not make a difference because the use of the gardens is ancillary to that of the home. So, on this point, it is unclear whether pl would have ddbm through his mother.
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
664 - Granting a House to a Neighbor’s Son – part I
665 - Granting a House to a Neighbor’s Son
666 - Dealing with Uncompleted Renovations
Load More
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
P'ninat Mishpat A Commercial Rental for a Closed Business – part II
based on ruling 80047 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Igrot Hare’aya Connecting Disciplines in Torah Study
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook 103 – part III
P'ninat Mishpat Limits of Interest Rate for Loan with Heter Iska – part I
based on ruling 80033 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: To Whom Do the Payments Go? – part I
based on ruling 81075 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Agricultural Water Rights – part I
based on ruling 84122 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: A Seller with Questionable Rights to the Property – part II
based on ruling 84062 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Rabbis in Midrash
Lessons
fast navigation
Various Events FOR WHOM NOT TO VOTE
Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook stressed that Israeli politics is G-dly, so I have no problem answering this common question on a Torani blog. Also, Free-Will is a G-d-given right and obligation, to "destine one's fate" (R. Soloveichik, Kol Dodi Dofek, 67), so I obviously don't tell others how to vote. But once not a few (especially young) have already asked, a couple of personal words from experience and thoughts from chazal & Rav Kook which may be of help to others, mainly for whom NOT to vote.
P'ninat Mishpat Fallout from Failure to Install Elevator – part II
based on ruling 85007 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
