Responsibility for Roof Sealing

In the name of God Hello, esteemed rabbis, shlita! We have a question regarding Choshen Mishpat. We understand that a question on the internet is not equivalent to a court ruling where judges have the opportunity to ask and investigate all parties involved, and therefore the answer does not constitute a court ruling. Nevertheless, we wanted to know what the court's ruling would be in the case as we described it. Thank you very much! 1. Reuven and Shimon are the owners of two apartments on the top floor of a building. About four years ago, they hired a company to seal the building's roof and required all the building's residents to finance the work (as required by law). A five-year warranty was given for the sealing. 2. A few months later, Reuven sold his apartment to Levi. In the signed contract, Reuven took responsibility for all leaks into and from the apartment he sold for five years. 3. After receiving the apartment, Levi hired a contractor (Jewish) to close one of the balconies. The construction also included electrical work. 4. The contractor hired a subcontractor (non-Jewish) to perform the work. As part of his work on the electrical connection, the Arab contractor drilled a hole in the roof above an electrical cabinet, thereby voiding the warranty given by the sealing company to Reuven and Shimon. (Levi learned about the drilling and the voiding of the warranty only after the fact.) 5. Shimon rented out his apartment to Yehuda. Now Yehuda claims he has leaks from the roof and demands that Shimon fix them. Question: Who should pay for the repair? - Shimon claims that Levi must pay because the warranty was voided as a result of his actions. If not for Levi's construction, he could have used the warranty and repaired the roof for free. - Levi claims he is not liable because he did not damage the roof with his own hands, nor did he void the warranty through direct action, but only indirectly. - Shimon argues: It is agreed that Levi brought a contractor who caused (through a subcontractor) damage to the common property. But Levi argues: since he did not do it himself, he is exempt from paying. And Shimon argues: since all the work is done by others, according to Levi's words, no one would be able to live. (See Shut Shaarei Shlomo, Siman 43, Ot 5) - Levi argues: a. even the action done by the contractor was not a damaging act, but reasonable work on the roof. b. the action itself did not cause the leak, but only voided the warranty. Therefore, even if Levi had done the act with his own hands, he would be exempt from paying.

Response of the Beit Din

Every time a neighbor brings a craftsman to the building, it is with the understanding that he assumes responsibility for all the actions of the workers. It is not assumed that a person would bring Arab or Jewish workers who do not comply with the law, and then any of the neighbors affected by them would have to chase after them. It seems obvious to me that people bring workers to the building with this understanding.

Therefore, we are not dealing here with the laws of damage and harm, but with the laws of assuming responsibility. Since this is the case, it is clear that Levi, who brought the workers, is responsible for all their damages, and in the event that their actions voided the warranty, Levi is responsible for this and must repair it.