The Greens had bought an apartment in a condominium complex. A few months after they arrived, there were a number of break-ins. One morning, Mr. Green met his neighbor, Mr. Fuchs. “Did you hear the most recent news?” Mr. Fuchs asked. “Another apartment was broken into!”
“Has it always been like this?” asked Mr. Green.
“Not at all,” replied Mr. Fuchs. “Until this year break-ins were few and far apart.”
“We need to do something,” said Mr. Green. “We can’t go on like this.”
“What do you suggest?” asked Mr. Fuchs.
“I’m going to suggest to the managing agent that we hire a doorman over the weekends,” replied Mr. Green. “Most of the break-ins have occurred while people have been away.”
“That’s a big expense,” responded Mr. Fuchs. “I’ve been around a while, and know that some people, including me, will object to any additional expenditure. Although there have been a number of incidents, that doesn’t mean break-ins have become a norm.”
“Well, I’m going to suggest it,” said Mr. Green.
That evening, Mr. Green met with the manager and suggested hiring a doorman for the weekends. “Other people have also mentioned this, but will require an additional $300 per family each month. I’m not sure everyone will agree.”
“Could we send a survey and see?” asked Mr. Green.
“That’s a good idea,” said the manager.
The manager circulated a survey asking people whether they would be interested in hiring a doorman. Most of the tenants were in favor of the idea. He sent out a memo to the tenants: “In light of the recent burglaries, we’ve decided to implement additional security measures, including hiring a doorman for the weekends.”
When Mr. Fuchs received the memo, he wrote back: “This is an extreme expense. I refuse to pay it.”
The manager met with him. “Most of the tenants were in favor,” explained the manager. “You’re part of the building, so you have to pay.”
“I don’t think it’s fair,” replied Mr. Green. “I have a burglar alarm on my apartment, so I don’t need a doorman.”
“The unfortunate fact is that the thieves also broke into apartments with burglar alarms,” said the manager. “Anyway, since most people want it, the minority has to follow.”
“That’s not always true,” objected Mr. Fuchs. “Let’s discuss the issue with Rabbi Dayan. We’ll hear what he has to say.”
Mr. Fuchs and the manager went to Rabbi Dayan. “We’ve had a rash of burglaries and most tenants want to hire a doorman,” said the manager. “Mr. Fuchs does not agree with the expense. Does he have to pay?”
“The answer to this question depends mostly on the common practice and varies from case to case,” replied Rabbi Dayan. ”
“What are some of the considerations?” asked Mr. Fuchs.
“The Mishnah [B.B. 7b] teaches that tenants of a joint courtyard can require each other to build a door and entranceway for the courtyard,” explained Rabbi Dayan. “The Shulchan Aruch, citing the Rambam, expands this to include anything the courtyard has a great need for or that is common to do in that locale.” (C.M. 161:1)
“What does ‘common to do’ mean”? asked the manager. “Most buildings don’t have doormen, but many upscale buildings do.”
“We would look at comparable buildings,” replied Rabbi Dayan.
“What if it is not clear whether there is ‘a great need’?” asked Mr. Fuchs. “Some people think it’s absolutely necessary and others don’t see the point.”
“In that case, there should be a general assembly of the tenants,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “Each person should present his opinion honestly for the joint benefit of the house. The opinion of the majority becomes binding. If the majority agree that it is not a great need but nonetheless would like to do it, they cannot require the minority to participate, unless there is a clear common practice or a contract that the majority opinion or management decision is binding on all issues.” (See Rama C.M. 163:1; Emek Hamishpat, Shecheinim 48:9-12.)
“And how should the cost be split?” asked the manager.
“In principle, partners should share the cost proportional to the benefit that they receive,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “Therefore, the cost should be split based on each tenant’s wealth, since a wealthy person has a greater need for the doorman than a poor person. However, nowadays it is very difficult to evaluate this way. Some have suggested linking the amount to the number of rooms, but this is also questionable. It seems the practice is to share equally, and we already mentioned that the common practice is most significant.” (See C.M. 161; Pischei Choshen, Nezikin 15:81)