Responsa for Bava Metzia 216:7
לכרגא ולמזוני ולקבורה לית בה משום דינא דבר מצרא דאמרי נהרדעא לכרגא למזוני ולקבורה מזבנינן בלא אכרזתא לאשה וליתמי ולשותפי לית בה משום דינא דבר מצרא
What is its practical bearing? In respect to pre-emption. When one sells [an estate] that is far [from the vendor's domicile] in order to buy one that is near, or an inferior property to repurchase a better, the law of pre-emption does not apply.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the vendor may suffer through the delay, and no privilege is given to one which entails a disadvantage to another. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A house belonged to three or four partners, one of whom was Leah. An abutting house was sold to Rachel. Leah wanted to buy the latter house and asserted her priority rights as an abutter. Indeed the Talmud rules (B.M. 108b) that an abutter may not assert priority rights, if the buyer is a woman. This law may not apply, however, when the abutter is also a woman.
A. The talmudic law cited above applies even when the abutter is a woman.
SOURCES: P. 285; Mord. B. M. 394. Cf. Agudah B. M. 170.
A. The talmudic law cited above applies even when the abutter is a woman.
SOURCES: P. 285; Mord. B. M. 394. Cf. Agudah B. M. 170.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A negotiated to buy from a Gentile a house which bordered on B's property. After A agreed with the Gentile on the terms of the sale, he withdrew his offer so that the Gentile should lower his price. He warned B not to negotiate with the Gentile since he, A, was still negotiating with him. B, however, disregarded A's warning and bought the house from the Gentile. In defense B claims that he had sought to purchase the house from the Gentile before A began his negotiations. Should B be punished for his act as violating the talmudic injunction against "a poor man turning a cake, and another coming and taking it (Kidd. 59a)?" How long should one refrain from offering to purchase an article which another Jew is seeking to buy?
A. R. Jacob Tam applies the aforesaid talmudic injunction only to mercantile pursuits but not to cases where a person is about to pick up a lost or ownerless object and another snatches it away. For finding a lost object is a rare opportunity and the second person is just as much entitled to the ownerless object as the first person. Buying abutting property from a Gentile is also a rare opportunity and is in the same category as picking up lost objects. Therefore, B is free from any obligation to A. A Jew should not approach a seller where another Jew had already agreed with the seller for the sale of the article, and where the writing of the contract and the scrutiny and transfer of the deed in the Gentile courts are the only things lacking in order to complete the sale. But, the mere offer of a Jew to buy something without the seller's acceptance of the offer, does not restrain another Jew from buying it. If such were the case, it would be very unfair to the seller who would be forced to sell his possessions to the very first bidder, no matter how low the offer, since no other purchasers would dare to buy it. The Torah was very careful, however, not to jeopardize the rights and opportunities of the sellers.
The author claims that the same question was sent to him from Neustadt.
SOURCES: Cr. 276–7; Pr. 1011; Berl. p. 284 no. 334; B. p. 292, no. 366.
A. R. Jacob Tam applies the aforesaid talmudic injunction only to mercantile pursuits but not to cases where a person is about to pick up a lost or ownerless object and another snatches it away. For finding a lost object is a rare opportunity and the second person is just as much entitled to the ownerless object as the first person. Buying abutting property from a Gentile is also a rare opportunity and is in the same category as picking up lost objects. Therefore, B is free from any obligation to A. A Jew should not approach a seller where another Jew had already agreed with the seller for the sale of the article, and where the writing of the contract and the scrutiny and transfer of the deed in the Gentile courts are the only things lacking in order to complete the sale. But, the mere offer of a Jew to buy something without the seller's acceptance of the offer, does not restrain another Jew from buying it. If such were the case, it would be very unfair to the seller who would be forced to sell his possessions to the very first bidder, no matter how low the offer, since no other purchasers would dare to buy it. The Torah was very careful, however, not to jeopardize the rights and opportunities of the sellers.
The author claims that the same question was sent to him from Neustadt.
SOURCES: Cr. 276–7; Pr. 1011; Berl. p. 284 no. 334; B. p. 292, no. 366.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy