Mr. Laufer owned half of a semi-detached house, which he rented out. One day, he mentioned to his tenant, Mr. Gold, that he was planning to sell his half.
“We are interested in buying your house,” Mr. Gold said. “It will save you the need to advertise.”
“How much are you offering?” asked Mr. Laufer.
“Let me think about it for a day or two,” replied Mr. Gold.
Two days later, Mr. Gold made a formal offer. Mr. Laufer gave his approval to the deal. The two worked out the details and signed a purchase agreement.
As the closing date approached, the owner of the adjacent house attached to Mr. Laufer’s came to visit Mr. Gold. After some casual conversation, he said: “I heard that you are planning to buy Mr. Laufer’s house. Is that true?”
“Yes,” replied Mr. Gold. “Why do you ask?”
“I didn’t know that his house was for sale,” said the neighbor. “Was it advertised?”
“No,” replied Mr. Gold. “When Mr. Laufer mentioned that he planned to sell, I immediately made him an offer.”
“Ah, I understand,” said the neighbor. “There is something that I’d like to discuss with you, if you have a few minutes.”
“Sure,” said Mr. Gold. “Sit down.”
The two sat down in the living room. “Thank God, our family has grown,” said the neighbor. “I’ve been thinking of expanding our house.”
“That makes sense,” said Mr. Gold. “How do you plan on doing that?”
“The simplest way is by buying the adjacent house and joining the two,” said the neighbor. “If Mr. Laufer’s half is up for sale, I’d like to buy it. Have you heard of the concept dina d’bar metzra?”
“No, I haven’t,” replied Mr. Gold. “What is that?”
“When a property is available for sale, Chazal instituted that the adjacent owner has first rights to buy it,” explained the neighbor. “This is fair and just, as he can utilize the property most efficiently to expand and it is most valuable to him.”
“I see where you’re heading,” said Mr. Gold, “but it’s too late now. We already signed a purchase agreement and are about to close the deal.”
“Even so, the sages required the buyer to retract his offer in favor of the adjacent owner,” replied the neighbor. “Even after the sale, the neighbor has the right to demand that the buyer sell the property to him.” (C.M. 175:6)
“But I’m already dwelling in the apartment,” said Mr. Gold. “Shouldn’t that count? I’m no worse than a neighbor!”
“I don’t think that makes a difference,” replied the neighbor, “but let’s ask Rabbi Dayan.”
“The rights of dina d’bar metzra of a renter is subject to a dispute between the Rambam and the Rosh,” said Rabbi Dayan. “The Rambam maintains that a renter does not have these rights, whereas the Rosh maintains that he does, since a rental is like a purchase for that time.”
“Whom do we rule like?” asked Mr. Gold.
“The Shulchan Aruch leans toward the opinion of the Rambam, whereas the Rama cites the opinion of the Rosh,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “The acharonim leave this issue unresolved, so that the final ruling depends on who has the more certain claim or is in possession [muchzak]. Thus, an adjacent renter has some rights relative to an outsider, and a current tenant even more, but still less than an adjacent owner. Nonetheless, if the renter already bought the house, an adjacent owner cannot claim dina d’bar metzra rights anymore, since the renter is now in possession. (C.M. 175:59-63; Pischei Teshuvah 175:27-28)
“It would seem that even signing a purchase agreement should suffice for a current tenant, concluded Rabbi Dayan. “Thus, Mr. Gold may follow through on the deal.”