An unusual incident during bein hazemanim has led to an intriguing halachic discussion after a group of bochurim who rented a tzimmer in Tzfas discovered just 90 minutes before Shabbos that the property had already been rented to someone else.

The group had reserved the tzimmer for 1,000 shekels and arrived shortly before Shabbos, only to be informed by the owner that she had mistakenly rented it to another group. She offered them an alternative tzimmer in Rosh Pina for 800 shekels instead.

With little time remaining before Shabbos, uncertainty about whether public transportation was still available, and concern over traveling by bus so close to Shabbos, the bochurim hired a taxi for 150 shekels to take them from Tzfas to Rosh Pina.

The incident was subsequently presented as a shaylah to Rav Shlomo Yedidya Zafrani, who was asked whether the bochurim were entitled to deduct the taxi fare from the rental payment because of the owner’s last-minute change.

In his teshuvah, published in the Kesser Torah journal, Rav Zafrani analyzes the issue in detail based on the Shulchan Aruch, the Nesivos, the Erech Shai, and other poskim. He explains that a landlord assumes both a personal and financial obligation to provide the tenant with the agreed-upon rental property. If the landlord negligently rents the property to someone else, he is obligated to provide the tenant with an equivalent alternative or otherwise compensate him under the halachic principles of davar ha’aved and areivus. However, Rav Zafrani emphasizes that these obligations apply only if a binding kinyan for the rental had already taken effect.

Accordingly, the psak depends on how the reservation was made.

If the bochurim had paid a deposit that constituted a valid kinyan on the rental, they would have been entitled under halachah to insist that the second renters vacate the tzimmer or require the owner to provide them with a comparable property in Tzfas. By agreeing instead to relocate to Rosh Pina, they would have been acting lifnim mishuras hadin. In that case, because the owner remained obligated to provide an equivalent rental without causing them additional inconvenience, the bochurim would be entitled to recover the 150-shekel taxi fare.

On the other hand, if no deposit had been paid and there was no established local custom giving a reservation the status of a binding situmta, the agreement would be considered merely verbal. Rav Zeafrani notes that even the issue of mechusarei amanah may not apply if the bochurim themselves arrived later than expected. Under those circumstances, the owner would not be obligated to provide an alternative rental, and the Rosh Pina tzimmer would be regarded as a completely new rental arranged at the bochurim’s own responsibility. As a result, they would be required to pay the full 800 shekels for the replacement tzimmer and would have no right to deduct the cost of the taxi.

{Matzav.com}