Torah Tidbits

31 July 2010 / 20 Av 5770
Issue 0897
Issue 897 - Parshat T’ruma 5770
February 18, 2010

Vebbe Rebbe

Real Estate Issues According to Halacha

Q: I sold an apartment to a ben Torah. There was a payment at the signing, and additional payments at different dates. As of Dec. 1, the apartment was ready to be transferred if all the payments could be made. This depended on getting the mortgage and certain legal issues cleared up by then. By no fault of either side, the final payment took place several weeks later. An uncommon thing that we did is that we wrote a clause allowing the buyers to move into the apartment well before Dec. 1, but they had to pay the same rent the outgoing renters did. They did not pay in advance, and I figured they would take care of it together with the final payment. At that time, the buyer said that he thought he had to pay rent only until Dec. 1, when it was envisioned that the transfer might be made. He argued that although the payment was not completed, the majority of the money had already been paid. He said, though, that he would accept the ruling of any rabbi I want to ask. I would like to ask you (and am attaching a copy of the contract). I am pretty sure I am right, but considering he did give so much money and in the scheme of all the money changing hands, I don’t want this relatively small amount to leave a bad taste. Thus, I would be happy if you would suggest a p’shara (compromise), assuming I am correct.

A: Without going into a rigorous analysis of the contract [which is written in Hebrew], it is apparent that Dec. 1 was not the time the sale was completed but the time it could have been completed had the money been ready. If there had not been a clause about renting before the sale was complete, the buyers could not have demanded the keys before that date, even though a large part of the money had been paid. Regarding payment of the rent, there is logic (although we will see problems with that below) to pay at a prorated manner, according to the percentage of the money that was not yet paid. However, since the price of rental is mentioned without mention of pro- rating it, it is apparent that when the apartment is not yet theirs, they have to pay in full.

Now we must jump from Choshen Mishpat (monetary law) to Yoreh Deah (mainly, ritual law). You express uneasiness that the buyer gave a lot of money toward the apartment and yet had to pay full rent until the sale was complete. Making down payments is advancing money. Although it has other financial logic, there is an element of this advance that makes it considered as a loan that the buyer gives to the seller prior to the sale. Therefore, the buyer must not receive actual monetary reward for advancing the money, for that reward would be “ribi” (interest on a loan).

Therefore, for example, if two agree that the price of an apartment is $250,000 but if the buyer advances a lot of money, the price will be $240,000, this condition makes the $10,000 discount a $10,000 interest payment (Rama, Yoreh Deah 173:7). Two ways of avoiding the problem are discussing the type of payment schedule first and then negotiating the exact price based on that, or using a heter iska.

In your case as well, if you say that despite being legally correct, since so much money was advanced, it is unfair to take full rent, the rent discount would be ribit for the prepayment. If each payment were halachically considered an acquisition of a percentage of the home, the relative discount would be justified, but neither the contract nor the apparent oral discussions indicate it. If there were a halachic doubt whether you or the buyer were right, a discount could be considered a compromise on the legal question and not ribit. However, since the contract indicates that you are correct, it would be a rabbinical violation of ribit to forgive the buyer the full rent agreed upon. It would be a Torah violation only if the decision to take “interest” was set at the time of the “loan” (Shulchan Aruch, YD 161:5). The main difference is that regarding rabbinical ribit, if the payment was already made, the “lender” does not have to return the interest to the borrower (ibid.:2).

Ask the Rabbi Q&A is part of Hemdat Yamim, the weekly parsha sheet by Eretz Hemdah. You can read the entire Hemdat Yamim at http://www.ou.org or http://www.eretzhemdah.org and/ or you can receive Hemdat Yamim by sending an email to (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) with the message: Subscribe/English or Subscribe/Hebrew leave subject blank. Ask the Vebbe Rebbe is partially funded by the Jewish Agency for Israel.

Your Comments

Post a Comment

Have a Question or Comment?

Please fill in the required information below. Your comment will be reviewed by a moderator prior to posting. If you have a question or concern about this article please contact the Editor.

Remember my personal information
Notify me of follow-up comments?

Spam Protection
Help us fight spam by entering the word you see in the image

OU Israel and Torah Tidbits do not endorse the political or halachic positions of its editor, columnists, or advertisers, nor guarantee the quality of advertised services of products. Nor do we endorse the kashrut of hotels, restaurants, caterers or food products that are advertised in TT (except, of course, those under OU-Israel hashgacha). We recommend that readers check with the advertisers themselves to clarify kashrut and shmita details of their services and products.

In This Issue of Torah Tidbits

Candle Lighting and Havdala

Candle Lighting Sponsored By: