My landlord, Yaakov, is looking to sell the apartment I have rented for the past twenty years. I am interested in purchasing it, and we are scheduled to sign a contract next week. In the meantime, Shmuel, who owns and lives in the apartment next door, found out about our intentions. He asserts that, as a neighbor, he should have been offered the apartment first.

Q: Is his claim correct, or may I go ahead with the purchase of the apartment?

A: Your question relates to the halachos of bar metzra – lit. the owner of the adjacent property. Based on the principle of v’asisa hayashar v’hatov that obliges a conduct beyond the letter of the law, Chazal granted the owner of the neighboring property the right of first refusal. As such, a neighbor who owns the adjacent property is given the first option to buy it. Furthermore, if someone other than the bar metzra purchases the property and the bar metzra insists on exercising his rights, Chazal dictate that the buyer acts as an agent for the bar metzra. Therefore, upon completion of the purchase, the title is assigned to the ¬bar metzra, who must pay the buyer the amount he advanced for him.

If two neighbors own adjacent properties, both have equal rights for first refusal. Your claim for bar metzra as the current tenant of the apartment is a matter of halachic dispute and is not definitively resolved (C. M. 175:59-63). Shvus Yaakov (3:165, cited by Pischei Teshuvah 175:28) rules that if a tenant and a neighbor express an interest in purchasing the property before it is sold, the neighbor takes precedence, since he is a bar metzra according to all opinions while the tenant’s rights as a bar metzra are subject to dispute. However, if the tenant already purchased the property, he can claim the position of kim li – that he is a bar metzra and is not obligated to transfer ownership to the neighbor.

In your case, since the question arose before the sale of the property, it would seem that Yaakov should sell the property to Shmuel, yet your neighbor’s interest in purchasing the property needs to be determined. If he is interested in purchasing the property to expand his present living space, he may exercise his rights as a bar metzra. If, however, he wants to purchase the property as a business investment, he is not entitled to exercise his rights (175:49). If his intent is to eventually combine the two properties into one, but before doing so he will lease the property to others, he retains his bar metzra privilege to purchase the property.

On the other hand, if you offered to purchase this apartment and pay in full without a mortgage and your neighbor wishes to purchase with a mortgage contingency, you retain the first right for purchase. The preference granted to the bar metzra may never inhibit on the seller’s interest. As such, if the seller prefers to sell this property without a mortgage contingency, he may insist to sell it to you so that he will be paid upfront (175:8).

Q: Can I borrow and repay Israeli shekalim (NIS) in the States even if the shekel rises?

A: This question actually relates to merchandise loans (se’ah b’se’ah), not monetary loans, because foreign currency is considered merchandise or a commodity relative to the local currency (C.M. 203:8). Therefore, it is permitted to borrow foreign currency only in the three situations mentioned last week:

1. Yesh lo: If the borrower already has a shekel, he may borrow more. The lender may even sell or give the borrower a shekel, and then lend him additional shekalim (Y.D. 162:2).

2. Yatza hasha’ar: Some authorities suggest that since NIS are readily available on the foreign currency exchange, it should be considered as yatza hasha’ar. However, most disagree, because the exchange rate fluctuates constantly (The Laws of Ribbis, 14:14).

3. Davar Mu’at: The application of davar mu’at to foreign currency is highly questionable, since it is not common to borrow foreign currency from neighbors.

All these halachos apply, conversely, to borrowing and repaying dollars in Israel.  Although the use of the dollar is fairly common there, it is not a legally acknowledged currency and therefore considered a commodity (Bris Yehuda 20:9).