Moshe and Aharon had learned in Eretz Yisrael for a year and shared a furnished apartment. Their lease ran through July, but they both had summer plans in the States. They sought someone to take over the rental for July, but were unable to find anyone.

Moshe left in mid-June. “I’m leaving you $375 toward July’s rent,” Moshe said to Aharon, who was leaving two weeks later. “See if you can still get someone.”

A week after Moshe left, Aharon received a call from Levi. “Is your apartment still available for July?” Levi asked.

“It is,” said Aharon. “My roommate already left, and I’m leaving in a week. The apartment costs $750 for the month.”

“That’s a lot for one person,” said Levi. “I can pay only half that.”

“If it’s only you, I guess you can take my place for $375,” said Aharon. “But we reserve the right to get an additional person, if we find someone.”

“That’s fine with me,” agreed Levi.

When Aharon returned to the States, he met Moshe. “I found someone to rent the apartment for $375,” he said. “At least it covered my half.”

“We shared the lease till the end of July,” said Moshe. “I should be entitled to half of what you received from Levi. Why should you get the entire benefit? He’s not using only your bed. The kitchen, living area and bathroom are all shared areas!”

“You had already left,” replied Aharon. “I was using the entire apartment myself anyway.”

“I can’t stop you from using the whole apartment,” reasoned Moshe, “but if you’re making money on it, I’m still a partner and entitled to half the amount!”

“Consider that I simply rented him my half, in my stead,” said Aharon.

“I don’t see how you can do that,” argued Moshe.

The two came to Rabbi Dayan and related the case. “Does Aharon have to share with me the rent he got?” asked Moshe.

“Had Aharon rented the apartment to two people who needed full use of the apartment, he would have to share the rent,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “However, if he rented only his half to an individual, and made clear that it was in his stead, he does not have to share the rent” (Rema, C.M. 363:10).

“Could you please explain?” asked Moshe.

“In general, a partner who rents out a shared unit must share the rent,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “We assume that he acted on behalf of the partnership” (Nesivos 171:12).

“What if I intended only for myself?” asked Aharon.

“Even so, if you rented use of the entire unit you must share the rent with the other partner,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “Since the apartment is jointly owned, one partner does not have the right to rent out the entire unit for himself. He is effectively renting out half that is not his” (Responsa Rashba 3:138).

“Moreover, even if the tenant already paid the entire amount to one partner, who acted for himself, he is not exempt from his obligation to the other partner,” continued Rabbi Dayan. “The other partner can still demand his rightful half from the tenant, who would then have to ask for a half-refund from the one whom he paid” (see Gra 363:32).

“And in our case?” asked Moshe.

“Since Levi had rights only to half the use and the option remained to add another person, Aharon can claim that he rented only his share, but he must clearly state that he is renting to Levi in his stead,” concluded Rabbi Dayan. “However, if he simply rented half the apartment, we assume that he did so on behalf of the partnership and has to share with the partner” (Sma 363:25; Beis Shlomo, C.M. #48; Chochmas Shlomo 176:1; Pischei Choshen, Shutfin 4:34[65]).

I opened the windows and did not notice that my friend’s speakers were on the windowsill. The wind blew the curtains, which knocked down the speakers, and they broke.

Q: Am I obligated to pay for the speakers?

A: Last week we addressed the question of liability when the wind caused damage to the speakers. We differentiated between the wind knocking the speakers down directly upon opening the window and a situation where there was a lapse of time between opening the window and the wind blowing down the speakers. In the former case the one who opened the window is liable since it is considered as though he damaged the speakers directly. In the latter case he is exempt because the damage is indirect (grama).

This week we will discuss whether one is liable if the wind blew into the curtain, which then knocked over the speakers.

One of the four general categories of damages is esh — fire. One of the defining characteristics of esh is that there is another force that propels it to result in damage — the wind. The Gemara states that a person is liable if he places on a roof an object that is subsequently blown off by an ordinary wind and it damages an object below (C.M. 418:1). Since the wind propelled the object off the roof, the damage is categorized as esh. Regarding the category of esh, it is not even necessary to own the object that damages, because one is liable for damage caused by fire even if he does not own the fire. One who creates a fire that damages is liable regardless of ownership (Tosafos, B.K. 3b, d.h. U’mamoncha).

Consider the following application of this halachah, which shares a number of similarities to your case: While wind is blowing through an open window, someone hangs a curtain in front of the window. The wind blows into the curtain, which then knocks down and breaks an object. The one who hung the curtain is liable, regardless of whether he owns the curtain. Since he placed an object in a place where another force could propel it, he caused esh-type damage and is liable (Rema 390:5).

However, your case is fundamentally different. In your case you did not create the “fire.” The curtains were already in place and were not in a state in which they would cause damage. Opening the window allowed the wind to blow into the curtains and cause damage to items resting nearby. Since the damage resulted indirectly from opening the window, it is thus not categorized as esh (see Pischei Choshen, Nezikin 9:[7], which expresses uncertainty about the matter).

However, this exemption depends on who owns the curtains. If the one who opens the window owns the curtains as well, as in your case, he must consider whether it is likely that his object will damage someone else’s property. If that is the case, he owns the esh and is therefore liable even though he did not “ignite the fire” (Chazon Ish, B.K. 2:4; Mishpat Hamazik 2:45).

To summarize: When the damage occurs immediately, one is liable. If the damage does not occur immediately and results from the wind or a curtain that he does not own, he is exempt. If he owns the curtain, he is liable even if the damage is indirect. In all cases, if he was negligent he has a moral obligation to pay the owner.

Q: My cousin owns an apartment in Eretz Yisrael that he often rents to visitors. When he heard that we were going there, he offered to let us stay in his apartment. We assumed he meant for free, but when we returned, he asked for rent. Must we pay?

A: Rema (C.M. 363:10) rules that if someone said to his friend, “Live in my property,” he is not liable for rent. However, he rules elsewhere (C.M. 246:17) that one who sustains his friend can charge him, unless the intention was clearly for free.

The Acharonim explain that a guest who typically stays with friends or relatives for free, and therefore did not benefit, is not liable when the owner offered usage without stipulating payment. However, one who typically rents or stays at a hotel, and therefore benefited from the lodging, is liable, unless beis din evaluates that the owner’s original intention was for free, depending on the circumstances and nature of the relationship (Shach 363:13; Ketzos 246:2; Pischei Choshen, Sechirus 8:34[70]).