YeshivaThe torah world Gateway Beit Midrash
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Case:
The defendant (=def) rented an apartment to the plaintiff (=pl). The contract stated that the rental is not governed by the Law to Protect the Tenant. Yet, the contract includes a clause that gives pl "the option" to extend the rental, "each time for a year," in which case, def would be allowed to raise the rent by no more than 10%. After a year, pl wanted to continue the rental but def wanted to make that conditional on a 35% increase in the rent due to high inflation, seemingly in contradiction to the clause mentioned above. Def says that he did not understand the clause, which, taken literally, would allow pl to rent indefinitely.
Ruling: Beit din established that the word "option" traditionally gives the renter the exclusive right to extend the rental. The contract, which mentions the relevant laws, demonstrates sensitivity to local practice. The claim of asmachta (an obligation one did not think he would have to honor) does not apply when local practice supports the obligation (Tosafot, Bava Metzia 66a; Chatam Sofer, Choshen Mishpat 66).
The Shulchan Aruch (CM 45:3) sets down a fundamental rule that one may not claim that one who signed a contract did not understand its content even if he does not speak the contract’s language. Thus, def’s claim in that regard is rejected.
The Imrei Yosher (I, 150:2) learns from the gemara (Bava Metzia 103a) regarding a loan of an object for as long as it is usable, that even an open-ended commitment to let someone use his object is binding even without a kinyan to uphold the commitment. However, regarding the Imrei Yosher’s (and our) case, where the matter is not definite but depends on the decision of the other party, an open-ended commitment is not binding without a kinyan. The kinyan of chazaka (acting as an owner/occupier of the property) does not work because the commitment is to take effect only after a year, at which time the original chazaka’s imprint is lost (Imrei Yosher ibid.; see Shulchan Aruch, CM 191:4). The money given was also for the first year, not for the agreement to subsequently freeze the price; it too is lost as a kinyan.
The Imrei Yosher’s assumption that the open-ended obligation is binding is questionable for a few reasons [beyond our scope]. Beit din agrees with the Imrei Yosher that the kinyanim that exist in this case are not valid. Situmta (use of procedures that are accepted as binding in a local society) is not valid here because, given that the contract precludes invoking the relevant law, there is no further local practice.
Given that the maximalist interpretation of the contract is invalid and that there certainly was an intent to include some rights of extension, we will accept the contract so that it allows one year’s extension and assume that the words "each time" were a mistake (see Rama, CM 49:2).
P'ninat Mishpat (832)
Rabbi Yosef Goldberg
13 - A Landlord's Responsibility
14 - The Option to Indefinitely Extend a Lease
15 - Backing Out of a Rental After Checks Were Given
Load More
Various Rabbis
Various Rabbis including those of of Yeshivat Bet El, such as Rabbi Chaim Katz, Rabbi Binyamin Bamberger and Rabbi Yitzchak Greenblat and others.

Moreshet Shaul Moreshet Shaul: A Crown and its Scepter – part II
Based on Siach Shaul, Pirkei Machshava V’Hadracha p. 294-5

P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Late and Flawed Apartment
based on ruling 82174 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts

P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Agricultural Water Rights – part II
based on ruling 84122 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Lessons
fast navigation

Shoftim TESHUVA IN COURT OF LAW?
Parshat Shoftim-Chodesh Elul
Why does parshat Shoftim always come out during Elul? This innovative and central explanation is an eye-opener regarding many aspects of Judaism.

The Month of Elul TESHUVA IS THE ANSWER
The month of Elul serves as a vital time for self-reflection and personal accountability to prepare for true repentance.

P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Realtor’s Fee on Large Commercial Building – part I
(based on ruling 85031 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
(based on ruling 85031 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)

P'ninat Mishpat Complaints about Contractor’s Work – part II
(based on ruling 83037.1 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
(based on ruling 83037.1 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)

Chemdat Yamim Moreshet Shaul: The Goal of an Agricultural Yeshiva – part I
Based on Siach Shaul, Pirkei Machshava V’Hadracha p. 263 (address at the laying of the cornerstone of the Yeshiva Chakla’it in Kfar Haroeh)
Based on Siach Shaul, Pirkei Machshava V’Hadracha p. 263 (address at the laying of the cornerstone of the Yeshiva Chakla’it in Kfar Haroeh)

Chemdat Yamim The Goal of an Agricultural Yeshiva – part II
Based on Siach Shaul, Pirkei Machshava V’Hadracha p. 263 (address at the cornerstone laying for the Yeshiva Chakla’it in Kfar Haroeh – 1938)
Based on Siach Shaul, Pirkei Machshava V’Hadracha p. 263 (address at the cornerstone laying for the Yeshiva Chakla’it in Kfar Haroeh – 1938)

Re'e NEVER EXTREME EXCEPT ISRAEL
Parshat Re'eh
Judaism is against extremism, so how can we understand the seemingly extreme statements found in our sages in favor of living in the Land of Israel and against living in Chutz laAretz? The article deals with the seeming contradiction between the strength of Free-Will and the strength of being influenced by our surroundings.

Ekev DANCE FOR ISRAEL- FOR YOUR BENEFIT
Parshat Eikev
Description: The 7 Haftarot we read after Tisha B'Av ("Shiva D'Nichemta") surely get us excited that they're coming TRUE, and awaken us to yearn, dance & join the return to Zion! The short article also deals with the problems and solutions facing the American Jewish community as discussed at a recent panel, as well as the question why Jews come from America to Israel to help when we face problems, but Israelis don't come to aid Jews in America when they face anti-Semitism.

P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Complaints about Contractor’s Work – part II
(based on ruling 83037.1 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
(based on ruling 83037.1 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)









