Business Halacha Daily

Bais Havaad
  • 4.7 (15)
  • JUDAISM
  • UPDATED SEMIWEEKLY

Business Halacha Daily is a program with daily 3-5 minute "nuggets" on the topic of the week. They are practical questions that come up related to that topic, with a dayan there to answer and explain the reasoning.

  1. 1D AGO

    May One Extend His Deck If Doing So Would Give Him a View Into His Neighbor’s Window ?

    Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org  Rav Shmuel Honigwachs Question: With a little effort, Reuven is able to see into his neighbor’s window from his backyard. He now wants to extend the deck in his yard to make room for a large sukkah. From the new deck, he will have a much clearer view of his neighbor’s window. Is he allowed to make this extension?   Answer: Most Poskim say that even if one could see into his neighbor’s window, if he cannot see into them easily or clearly it is not considered hezek riya. Accordingly, if building a deck would make it easier for him to see in the windows, it would not be permitted.  While it is a mitzvah to make a nice deck in order to be able to have a nice sukkah, in this case, it would be preferable to find another way to beautify one’s sukkah.

    2 min

  2. 6D AGO

    If someone Buys a House That Has a Window Facing a Neighbor’s Yard, Is He Obligated to Close It Off? 

    Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org    Rav Shmuel Honigwachs Question: Reuven bought a house in a development. When he moved in, he noticed that the house he bought already has a window that overlooks his neighbor’s backyard. Does he have to close off the window or is he allowed to leave it the way it is?  Answer: In the halachos of hezek riya, the Halacha will often differ depending upon whom the house was acquired from and the sequence of how it was built.  The Gemara discusses a case where two brothers inherited a property from their father. After dividing it, they are left with windows overlooking each other’s yards. The Gemara states that they have no legal right to these windows. The Rishonim debate what this means on a practical level. Some say that the brothers can force each other to close off the windows. Others say that they cannot go that far, rather, they are permitted to build a wall on their own property that blocks the window, even though by doing so they are limiting sunlight to the other property.  The Shulchan Aruch rules that they cannot force each other to seal the windows. Rema cites the other opinion that they can be forced to block the windows. Rema indicates that the same machlokes would apply in a case where someone purchases a house that has a window facing a neighbor’s yard. Which would mean that according to the Rema, the purchaser can be forced to close off such a window, which is a rather unusual conclusion.  As we’ve said previously, whenever there is another consideration at play, one can rely on the opinion that our yards are not comparable to the old courtyards because we do not use them for such private matters. Accordingly, perhaps the buyer could be lenient and rely on the Mechaber’s opinion that he does not have to close off his window in this case.

    3 min

  3. MAY 19

    May One Open a Window Into a Neighbor’s Yard That Is Anyway Visible from The Street? 

    Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org  Rav Shmuel Honigwachs Question: We previously said that in typical circumstances one should not open a window that allows him to see into a neighbor’s yard. What if the yard is already visible to a public area? For example, what if someone lives on a corner and his backyard faces the street? In such a case, if I live next door would I be permitted to open a new window that faces his yard since it is visible from the street anyway?  Answer: I haven’t seen this specific case discussed by Poskim, but the Gemara discusses a case where there is a street between two properties and says that it would be permitted to open a window overlooking the yards. One would assume that the same would be true in the situation in question. Since the yard is open to the street regardless and anyone walking on the street can see into the yard, the same consideration would apply and it would be permitted to open a window that faces the yard.  We can also take into consideration the opinion that the yards of today are not like the courtyards of the past which were used for more private matters, and therefore, one can be lenient in this case.

    2 min

  4. MAY 18

    May One Make a Window in His House That Overlooks His Neighbor’s Yard?

    Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org    Rav Shmuel Honigwachs Question: Reuven is making an extension to his house. After the extension is complete, the house will have a window that overlooks his neighbor’s backyard. Is that permitted?  Answer: The Mishnah and Gemara in Bava Basra discuss the concept of “hezek riya” (infringing on someone’s privacy). It is stated that it is forbidden to open up a window that faces somebody else’s yard. The question that contemporary Poskim discuss is whether the backyards of today are comparable to the a “chatzer” of the times of the Gemara. In those times, a chatzer was used for private matters. Accordingly, since it is likely that someone is doing something private in his chatzer, one may not open a window facing that place. Some Poskim, theorize that today’s yards are not used for such private things and, therefore, are not subject to the laws of hezek riya. There does not seem to be a strong basis for that opinion; however, the Poskim say that if one has another consideration that would permit him to open a window, he can combine that with this opinion in order to permit it. In the situation in question, however, it seems that making this window would not be allowed.

    2 min

  5. MAY 14

    Is Someone a Mazik if He Releases Helium Balloons That Go On To Do Damage?

    Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org   Rav Aryeh Finkel Question: Yankel made a birthday party for his child, which included helium balloons. Afterwards, he released some balloons in the street. The balloons went straight up and struck some electric wires, which caused a short. What type of mazik is he?   Answer: This definitely is the hezek of aish. What Yankel did is no different than placing a stone in a place where wind can blow it and cause it to do damage. Aish, however, is exempt from paying for tamun, covered items. The question is whether Yankel is liable as an odom hamazik, which is liable for everything. In this case, we can suggest that Yankel is odom hamazik because the way helium works is that it is lighter than air, so it floats upwards. The laws of physics are that when one releases a stone, gravity pulls it downward. If someone lets go of a stone, even if he doesn’t throw it, and gravity pulls it down and causes it to damage something, the person is liable as an odom hamazik. So too, if someone releases a helium balloon and the laws of physics dictate that it goes upwards, when it damages something above it the person would be liable for the same reason. The same would apply if someone is in a swimming pool and releases a pool tube under the water, which goes shooting up because of the force of the water and damages something, the person would be liable. Basically, if someone uses any of the fundamental laws of physics to cause direct damage, he is considered to have done an action of an odom hamazik and he can be held liable as such.

    3 min

  6. MAY 13

    If a Plumber Causes Damage by Mixing up The Hot and Cold Water Pipes, Is He Liable?

    Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org  Rav Aryeh Finkel Question: I built an extension on my house and made a new laundry room. My wife put the first load of laundry into the new washing machine and set the machine on the cold cycle. When she opened it at the end of the cycle, she realized that the plumber had mixed up the hot and cold water pipes, which had caused hot water to come out of the pipe that should have been cold water. This ruined all of the clothing in the wash. Is the plumber liable for this damage? Answer: First of all, the plumber should not get paid for the job. Regarding whether or not he should be liable to pay for the ruined clothing, we would have to find a category of mazik to place him under. The Rishonim say that garmi only applies if the damage occurs at the time of the damager’s actions. In this case, the plumber made his mistake well before the woman did the laundry; therefore, he cannot be held liable because of garmi. He also is definitely not odom hamazik as he did not do the damage directly. What he did could perhaps be classified as bor because when he mixed up the pipes he is akin to someone who dug a pit that can cause damage; however, bor is potur on keilim, so the plumber could not be held liable for damages to clothing because of bor. The most likely chiyuv would be aish. If someone places an object in a place where it is likely to be moved by an outside force and cause damage, he can be held liable for aish. The problem is that one is only liable for aish if the object he placed is the thing that ends up causing the damage. In this instance, the damage was actually done by the water. The plumber did not put the water into the machine. He merely installed the pipes in a way that caused the water to be diverted the wrong way. Thus, there doesn’t seem to be a way to hold him accountable. I would add that when we said that the plumber cannot be held liable with the rule of garmi, this was presuming that he was not a professional. If the homeowner had hired a professional plumber, perhaps the man could be held liable. The Gemara says that if a professional gives bad advice which leads to a loss of money, that professional can be held liable through the rule of garmi. This would mean that if a professional plumber said that the pipes were hooked up correctly when they really were not, he could be held liable for garmi.

    5 min

  7. MAY 12

    Is a Person Who Removes a Railing From a Balcony Considered to Have Created a Bor in Reshus Harabbim? 

    Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org    Rav Aryeh Finkel Question: Someone removed a railing from a second-floor balcony and someone else fell and got hurt. Is he liable as a mazik? Similarly, someone opened a safety gate on top of the stairs and a child fell and got hurt. Is the one who opened the gate liable? Answer: The chiyuv of bor is not only when one digs a pit; it is also when someone removes a covering from a pit. So too, it would seem that if there is a dangerous place that has protection in place, and someone comes along and removes the protection, he would be liable for uncovering this bor. However, the Mishnah says that if an ox trips over the edge of a pit and lands on the other side, rather than inside the pit, the one who dug it is not liable. The Acharonim explain that one is only liable for creating a bor if the damage occurs inside the actual bor. If the damage occurs outside the bor, the one who created it is exempt from liability. Similarly, the Gemara also speaks about a case where someone builds an incline in a public area and people walk up this ramp unaware and fall off and get hurt. Tosafos write that the one who built the ramp is only liable if he also dug a ditch next to it that the damaged people fell into. If they just fell onto the street, he would be exempt because the damage did not occur inside his bor. In the case of the railing that is removed from a balcony, the damage occurs when the person hits the street below, which is not inside the bor; therefore, it would seem that the one who removed the balcony cannot be held liable. The case of the safety gate however, may be different. The Chazon Ish describes a bor as something that is “meshuna m’tivo shel olam”, it is not the regular surface of the ground. Stairs may fall under the category of meshuna m’tivo shel olam, as they are different than the regular surface of the floor. If a person removes a baby gate, he is uncovering the stairs, which are dangerous for babies. Thus, the stairs are the bor that he created and if the damage occurs on the stairs, he may be held liable.

    4 min

  8. MAY 11

    If Someone Makes a Short Stop In The Middle of the Road, Is He Liable For The Damages of a Car that Rear-Ends Him? 

    Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org Rav Aryeh Finkel Question: Someone is driving and suddenly stops in the middle of the road. The driver behind him isn’t able to brake in time and hits him from behind, which causes substantial damage to the second driver’s car. Is the car that is parked in the middle of the road considered a bor, which would mean that he is exempt from damages to keilim including the damage to the other car, or is he considered an odom hamazik, which would make him liable to pay for the damages? Answer: The Mishnah discusses a case where a potter trips while holding his pots and a person behind him falls over him and gets hurt. The Mishnah says that the first man is chayav to pay for the damages. The Rishonim argue whether the man is liable as a bor or as an odom hamazik, with the practical difference being whether he is liable on keilim. The Shulchan Aruch rules that he is chayav as a bor. This seems to indicate that when someone is in a stationary position, he is classified as a bor, not as an odom hamazik. On the other hand, another Mishnah says that if someone is carrying a beam in the street and stops suddenly, causing a barrel moving behind it to collide and break, the person is chayav to pay for the barrel. The Rishonim note that this indicates that the person holding the beam is considered to be an odom hamazik, who is liable on keilim, rather than a bor. This seems to contradict the other Mishnah. Rebenu Peretz and the Tosafos Rid resolve this contradiction by saying that if a person is lying prone on the floor and is not doing any action, he is considered to be a bor. Whereas, if he is standing and holding something, even though he isn’t moving, holding the item in place is considered to be an action and the person is considered to be an odom hamazik. In our case, it would seem that if the road was inclined and the car would roll down on its own if the driver weren’t sitting there and holding the brake, he would be considered to be doing the action of holding the car in place and would be an odom hamazik. If the road was flat and the car would be stationary or rolling very slowly even if his foot was not on the brake, the driver would not be considered to be doing any action; therefore, the car would only be a bor and the driver would be exempt on damages to the other car. [Of course, the victim may pursue a claim against his insurance. -ed. note]

    5 min
See All (949)

Ratings & Reviews

4.7
out of 5
15 Ratings

About

Business Halacha Daily is a program with daily 3-5 minute "nuggets" on the topic of the week. They are practical questions that come up related to that topic, with a dayan there to answer and explain the reasoning.

Information

  • Creator
    Bais Havaad
  • Years Active
    2020 - 2026
  • Episodes
    949
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © 2026 Business Halacha Daily
  • Show Website
    Business Halacha Daily

You Might Also Like