Hezek Re’iyah: The Halachah of Visual Intrusion and Its Contemporary Applications

Although we are currently in the midst of a series of booklets exploring the halachos and minhagim of head coverings, my dear brother, Matisyahu, who is learning in Mir, informed me that the bochurim and avreichim there would greatly appreciate a booklet on hezek re'iyah, the sugya discussed at the very beginning of Bava Basra. In his merit, we will temporarily interrupt our discussion of head coverings and turn our attention this week to the topic of hezek re'iyah, examining both its halachic foundations and its practical applications in contemporary life.

Division of a Courtyard

The Gemara (Bava Basra 2b) records a dispute regarding whether hezek re'iyah (damage caused by visual intrusion) between partners who share a courtyard is considered a genuine form of damage.

According to the opinion that hezek re’iyah shemei hezek (visual intrusion constitutes halachically recognized damage), when partners divide a jointly owned courtyard and each receives his own portion, either party may compel the other to participate in constructing a partition that prevents overlooking and eliminates the damage caused by being observed.

According to the opinion that lav shemei hezek (visual intrusion does not constitute recognized damage), one cannot compel his neighbor to erect such a partition. He may, however, require the installation of a marker identifying the boundary between the two properties.

Hezek Re'iyah in the Time of the Gemara

The Gemara concludes (Bava Basra 3a), and this is the ruling codified by the Tur (beginning of siman 157) and the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 157:1), that hezek re'iyah shemei hezek, and one may compel the offending party to remove the source of the damage.

Accordingly, whenever hezek re'iyah exists, either party may require the other to share in the construction of a dividing wall four amos high, thereby separating the two courtyards and preventing visual intrusion.

The Kehillos Yaakov (Bava Basra, Siman 5) writes at length to show that even the opinion maintaining lav shemei hezek does not fundamentally reject the concept of hezek re'iyah. Rather, that opinion agrees that visual intrusion constitutes damage in situations involving a home, where private activities routinely take place. It likewise agrees regarding a garden, since Chazal prohibit a person from standing and gazing at another’s field while its crops are growing due to concerns of ayin hara. Similarly, it agrees regarding a roof overlooking a house, because the resident cannot know when he must protect his privacy, and regarding a case in which an existing partition collapsed, since the neighbors had already become accustomed to conducting private activities there.

The dispute is limited to the ordinary shared courtyard. According to this opinion, a person can reasonably protect his own privacy in such a setting, and therefore the visual intrusion does not rise to the level of a compensable damage.

Definition of the Damage

The Ramban (Bava Basra 59b, end of d.h. ha) writes that hezek re'iyah falls under the category of nizkei adam b'adam - personal harm inflicted by one individual upon another. He identifies three primary concerns encompassed by visual intrusion: 1) Ayin hara, 2) Lashon hara, 3) Tzniyus.

Is Hezek Re'iyah Direct Damage or Merely a Restriction on Use?

The Even HaEzel (Hilchos Shecheinim, Perek 2) raises a well-known chakirah regarding the nature of hezek re’iyah.

Is visual intrusion considered an actual form of damage, comparable to bodily injury, thereby obligating the offender to remove the source of harm?

Or is the fundamental issue that one person’s constant observation prevents his neighbor from freely using his own property, since he cannot comfortably engage in private activities while being watched?

The Nesivos is famously cited as maintaining that hezek re’iyah is a de'Oraisa concept.

The Kehillos Yaakov (Bava Basra, siman 5) suggests that hezek re'iyah contains three distinct dimensions: 1) Personal harm, 2) Monetary harm, 3) A halachic prohibition (issur).

The Pischei Choshen (Hilchos Nizkei Shecheinim, Perek 14, he’orah 1) concludes that the primary concern is not ayin hara, as in the case of gazing upon another person’s field. Rather, the central issue is that one individual’s observation restricts his neighbor’s ability to use his property as he sees fit.

Liability for Damages

The Pischei Choshen further writes that hezek re’iyah generally does not give rise to monetary compensation.

Rav Shmuel Rozovsky zt"l famously explains in his shiurim that Bava Basra introduces an entirely new category known as nizkei shecheinim - neighborly damages. Although the conduct causing the harm may itself be intrinsically permissible, it nevertheless becomes prohibited because it interferes with a neighbor’s ability to enjoy and utilize his property.

Within this framework, monetary compensation is generally inapplicable.

This differs fundamentally from the damages discussed in Bava Kamma, where a person directly causes prohibited damage and is therefore liable to pay compensation from the best of his property.

Hezek Re'iyah in Houses

A related discussion appears later on in the masechta (Bava Basra 59b), which prohibits opening a window overlooking a neighbor’s courtyard or a jointly owned courtyard.

The Rashbam explains that the reason for this prohibition is hezek re'iyah.

The Mishnah later (60a) rules that one may not open a doorway opposite another person’s doorway, nor a window opposite another person’s window.

Here, the Rashbam attributes the prohibition to concerns of privacy and modesty, whereas Rabbeinu Gershom explains that it is likewise rooted in hezek re'iyah.

The Ramah, cited by the Beis Yosef, maintains that the prohibition indeed stems from hezek re'iyah, but that there is an additional issue of tzniyus. Because of this additional concern, mutual consent (mechilah) is ineffective.

The Chazon Ish (Bava Basra 12:4) cites the Ramah and explains that since the Gemara derives this principle from Bilam’s declaration: “Mah tovu ohalecha Yaakov, mishkenosecha Yisrael" – “How goodly are your tents, O Yaakov, your dwelling places, O Yisrael” (Bamidbar 24:5), there exists an independent prohibition rooted in tzniyus. Consequently, even where both parties willingly consent, the prohibition remains in force.

The Difference Between the Two Sugyos

The Ramban and Rashba explain that the discussion at the beginning of Bava Basra concerns one courtyard overlooking another courtyard. Since the intrusion is only occasional and not constant, the matter is subject to dispute.

The later discussion on 59b-60a concerns a house overlooking another house or courtyard, where the intrusion is significantly more permanent and severe. In such circumstances, all opinions agree that hezek re'iyah constitutes genuine damage.

The Required Distance to Prevent Hezek Re'iyah

Height

According to the Gemara, a wall erected to prevent hezek re'iyah must be four amos high.

According to Rav Chaim Naeh, this measures approximately 1.92 meters (6.3 feet), while according to the Chazon Ish, it is approximately 2.4 meters (7.9 feet).

Notably, this is somewhat lower than the height of a typical modern story of a building.

Distance

When discussing the distance between homes, however, hezek re'iyah has no fixed measurement. The determining factor is not distance itself, but visibility. If one can see into another person’s property, the possibility of hezek re'iyah exists.

The Mordechai (Bava Basra, Perek 1) writes explicitly that wherever visual intrusion exists, one may object, regardless of the distance involved.

Similarly, the Maggid Mishneh (Hilchos Nizkei Shecheinim 3:5) writes that hezek re'iyah has no fixed measurement and applies whenever one can observe another person's activities.

The Aruch HaShulchan adds that if homes are sufficiently far apart such that one cannot see into the other’s residence, no additional distancing is required.

Some authorities suggest that the threshold is reached once a person can no longer determine whether the figure he sees is male or female.

Angle of Vision

When two buildings are not directly aligned, the concern is significantly reduced.

The Pischei Choshen (Perek 14, he’orah 5) explains that viewing another property at an angle generally does not fall within the category of hezek re'iyah.

Nevertheless, he concludes that each case must be evaluated individually, based upon the practical realities of the situation.

Hezek Re'iyah in Contemporary Times

The Maharitatz (Rav Yom Tov Tzahalon, a Talmid of the Beis Yosef and the Alshich HaKadosh and was a leading Rav in Tzfas), cited by the Pischei Teshuvah and accepted by contemporary authorities, writes that although hezek re'iyah technically has no defined limit, local custom plays a decisive role in determining when the halachah applies.

If the accepted practice within a community is not to object unless buildings are extremely close to one another, an individual cannot object merely because there exists some visual access from a greater distance.

The Maharitatz writes: “Otherwise, there would be no end to the matter, for the eye can see for many miles. Reason cannot tolerate that one who lives on the edge of the city should object to someone opening windows in the busy center of the city many miles away.”

He notes that in Tzfas they were unaware of anyone raising claims of hezek re'iyah between properties located far apart.

He therefore concludes: “Everything depends upon the judgment of the dayan and the breadth of his understanding. Where an established local custom exists, it is followed.”

Mechilah

This raises an obvious question: How can local custom effectively override the law established by the Gemara? The Rishonim debate whether one may waive his rights regarding hezek re'iyah. The Ramban maintains that mechilah is ineffective. The Rosh maintains that it is effective. The Shulchan Aruch records this dispute. According to the opinion that mechilah is ineffective, how can local custom eliminate claims of hezek re'iyah?

The Element of Prohibition

The difficulty becomes even greater according to the Rashba and Ramah, who maintain that a doorway facing another doorway involves an independent prohibition rooted in tzniyus. If this is a bona fide prohibition, local custom seemingly should not be able to alter it.

Indeed, the Chazon Ish writes explicitly that when a doorway directly faces another doorway, or a window directly faces another window, the prohibition is based upon tzniyus and is derived from a pasuk. Therefore, even if both parties consent, the prohibition remains. In such a case, he writes, lots should be drawn to determine which party must seal his opening, with both parties sharing the associated expense. If so, why should local custom make any difference?

No Damage Exists

One possible answer is that mechilah is ineffective only where genuine damage exists. Local custom, however, may redefine the situation itself. Nowadays in many places expectations and lifestyles have changed and individuals who desire complete privacy are expected to achieve that privacy through curtains, blinds, shutters, doors, or other reasonable means. As a result, the claim is therefore no longer that a neighbor should not look into one’s property, rather, it is that the homeowner should take normal steps to prevent others from seeing inside his home. Once that becomes the accepted social norm, the conduct is no longer considered damaging in the halachic sense. Accordingly, the entire question depends upon community standards and accepted practice.

A similar approach is suggested by Rav Moshe Sternbuch shlita (Teshuvos V'Hanhagos 3:453) and discussed further in Mishpetei Yaakov.

This explanation is also supported by the Perishah, who writes that when privacy can readily be achieved through a curtain, one generally cannot claim hezek re'iyah.

Purchasing an Apartment from a Developer

High-Density Housing

Under contemporary living conditions, concerns of hezek re'iyah between neighboring buildings are often treated far more leniently than they were in earlier generations. Modern residential developments are typically designed with windows, balconies, and common areas facing one another, and it is difficult to find an apartment complex entirely free of potential hezek re'iyah issues.

The Question

At first glance, this appears difficult to reconcile with the explicit rulings of the Gemara and Shulchan Aruch, which prohibit opening a doorway opposite another doorway or a window opposite another window.

The Answer

The Pischei Choshen (Perek 14, he’orah 4) explains that the prohibition applies only when the openings are directly aligned. If there is even a slight difference in height, angle, or distance, the opening is generally treated as a window rather than a directly opposing doorway. Furthermore, a balcony entrance does not possess the same status as a primary entrance to a residence. Likewise, apartment doors facing one another in a shared stairwell are generally permitted, since the corridor separates the private living area from the common area, and private activities are not ordinarily conducted in the hallway.

Another Difficulty

Nevertheless, many modern apartments have entrances that open directly into a living room, and occasionally even provide a line of sight toward a bedroom. A person standing in the hallway may therefore be able to see into the apartment.

At first glance, this would seem to violate the Mishnah’s prohibition of one doorway facing another.

Some contemporary halachic authorities suggest that this concern is mitigated by the fact that bedrooms usually have their own doors. Whenever privacy is required, the bedroom door can be closed, and the apartment itself can be locked. As a result, there is neither a meaningful concern of tzniyus nor a significant monetary claim of hezek re'iyah.

Local Custom

A somewhat different approach is found in Mishpetei HaTorah (vol. 2, siman 59, note 4) and Emek HaMishpat (Hilchos Shecheinim, simanim 11 and 13) by Rav Yaakov Cohen shlita.

These authorities explain that contemporary practice relies on the principle established by the Maharitatz, namely, that the application of hezek re'iyah is determined largely by accepted local custom.

Accordingly, when a person purchases an apartment in a modern development, he does so with the understanding that a certain degree of visual exposure is unavoidable. By purchasing such a property, he implicitly accepts the ordinary level of visual intrusion associated with contemporary residential living.

This reality developed as increasing population density and limited land availability made detached homes with large private courtyards impractical. As a result, large numbers of people are housed within densely populated neighborhoods and multi-unit residential buildings.

The Difference Between Then and Now

In summary, several factors explain why contemporary communities are generally less stringent regarding hezek re'iyah than the Gemara might initially appear to require.

According to those authorities who understand the primary concern to be one of tzniyus, the answer is straightforward. Modern homes contain doors, shutters, blinds, curtains, and other means through which privacy can easily be maintained.

According to those who define hezek re'iyah as damage resulting from a person's inability to use his property freely, the explanation is different. People purchase homes fully aware of the realities of contemporary urban living. Modern residential construction is designed in a manner that inevitably allows neighbors to see one another to some degree.

This follows the well-known ruling of the Maharitatz that these issues are governed by local custom. Under either approach, a homeowner generally has no valid claim against his neighbor under the ordinary circumstances of modern residential construction.

Danger: Construction Ahead!

It is related that when Rav Yisrael Yaakov Fischer zt"l once walked down the street and observed a massive building project extending in every direction, complete with enormous balconies, he remarked:

“Look! They're building a din Torah here!”

Many apartment buildings originally designed for a secular population were constructed without sukkah balconies. Later, when those buildings became populated by Torah-observant families, numerous disputes arose. One resident wished to build a sukkah balcony, while neighboring residents objected because the project adversely affected them.

Such disputes became especially common in densely populated areas.

Din Torahs in the Wilderness

In a humorous vein, Rav Shmuel Halevi Wosner zt"l, Av Beis Din of Zichron Meir and author of Shevet HaLevi, once commented regarding the pasuk describing Moshe Rabbeinu:

“Moshe sat to judge the people, and the people stood before Moshe from morning until evening” (Shemos 18:13).

He asked, what could the people possibly have had to litigate all day long in the midbar? After all, in the desert there were no balcony extensions to build and no apartment enlargements to dispute!

Building Extensions

A Common Contemporary Case

Everything discussed thus far relates to the original construction carried out by the developer. We now turn to a far more common practical question: building extensions.

The Question

Consider the following scenario.

Reuven builds an addition to his apartment, extends a balcony, or opens a new window at an angle that did not previously exist.

His downstairs neighbor, Shimon, objects:

“You have no right to build in a manner that allows people standing on your balcony to look directly into my bedroom. This constitutes hezek re'iyah.”

Reuven responds:

“You already have shutters that can be closed whenever you desire privacy. Besides, people could already see into your apartment to some extent. What practical difference does it make that the viewpoint is now somewhat closer? Had the developer originally constructed the building this way, you would have had no complaint. Why should it matter that I am the one making the addition?”

Whose argument is correct?

It would seem obvious that if the building had originally been constructed in this manner, or if the addition appeared in the developer's approved plans, every purchaser would have bought his apartment with that understanding.

The question arises, however, when a resident independently creates a situation that did not previously exist by adding a room, constructing a balcony, or opening a new window.

On the one hand, "the Torah does not change," and the halachah remains that hezek re'iyah shemei hezek.

On the other hand, perhaps the Maharitatz’s principle applies here as well. Since modern living conditions already permit some degree of visibility between neighboring homes, one could argue that no legally significant loss has occurred.

The Stringent View

The prevailing view among contemporary authorities is that even today, one may not build an extension that creates new hezek re'iyah for a neighbor.

Similarly, with respect to light and airflow, a person building an extension must generally leave sufficient space between his addition and his neighbor’s windows so that natural light and ventilation are not substantially impaired.

This position is stated explicitly in Mishpetei HaTorah (vol. 2, siman 59, note 4) and Emek HaMishpat (Hilchos Shecheinim, simanim 11 and 13) by Rav Yaakov Cohen shlita.

Likewise, Rav Yaakov Shechnazi shlita writes in Mishpetei Yaakov (pg. 47) that the leniency established by the Maharitatz applies only when homes are being built as part of the development of an entire city, where practical necessity dictates that buildings be constructed in close proximity.

Only in such circumstances can local custom justify reduced privacy standards.

However, once neighboring residences already exist, local custom does not grant an individual homeowner the right to alter his property in a manner that causes new hezek re'iyah to his neighbor.

In such cases, the classical laws of hezek re'iyah remain fully applicable.

Civil Building Regulations

It should also be noted that municipal building regulations often require significant distances between facing structures in order to preserve privacy. Depending on the jurisdiction, these distances commonly range from six to eight meters.

It is well known that Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv zt"l ruled, based on the principle of the Maharitatz, that halachah gives substantial weight to accepted community standards. Consequently, where building regulations are widely recognized and followed, those regulations may have halachic significance as well.

Even according to opinions that limit the application of dina d'malchusa dina within Eretz Yisrael, such regulations nevertheless establish the accepted societal norm. Anyone choosing to live within that society does so subject to those expectations.

Accordingly, if Shimon suffers genuine hezek re'iyah in his home or courtyard and refuses to waive his rights, Reuven may not use the addition, nor even open access to it, until the problem has been remedied.

In practice, this often requires the construction of a partition approximately two meters high, or higher if necessary, sufficient to eliminate any direct line of sight into the neighbor’s property.

The Lenient View

The Minchas Tzvi, however, adopts a more lenient approach.

According to his view, contemporary custom, together with the widespread expectation that homes will have shutters, blinds, and curtains, substantially limits the ability to claim hezek re'iyah today.

[According to this view, there is room to question if there remains a prohibition nowadays to look into a neighbor’s window or courtyard directly opposite. However, it would still seem that the Minchas Tzvi is only being lenient regarding the obligation to build a wall and not in regard to looking into another person’s private area.]

Nevertheless, many authorities strongly disagree.

They argue that the existence of shutters does not eliminate hezek re'iyah, since people purchase homes in order to enjoy natural light, fresh air, and unobstructed use of their property, not in order to keep their shutters closed whenever they occupy a room.

It is therefore difficult to contend that a homeowner purchased his apartment with the expectation that a neighbor might later construct a balcony from which he could easily observe the interior of his residence.

The Insufficiency of Movable Screens

It is clear that movable shutters or screens installed by the offending party are generally insufficient if they can easily be removed or repositioned.

As the Pischei Teshuvah (siman 154:9) notes, only a permanent barrier that cannot readily be moved, and through which one cannot see, effectively resolves a problem of hezek re'iyah.

Where no better alternative exists, the offending party may construct a permanent partition positioned in a manner that preserves light and airflow while simultaneously preventing visual intrusion.

The Public Domain

The Mishnah (Bava Basra 60a) states:

“One may, however, open a doorway opposite another doorway and a window opposite another window when they face the public thoroughfare.”

The Gemara explains:

“For he can say to him: In any event, you must already conduct yourself with privacy because of those in the public domain.”

From here we derive an important principle in the laws of hezek re'iyah: whenever a new doorway or window does not create any additional invasion of privacy, an objection generally cannot be sustained.

The alleged damager may legitimately argue that the neighbor was already unable to engage in completely private activities, since others could see him in any event. In such a case, no new damage has been created.

The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 154:3) extends this principle, ruling that when three houses already overlook a particular area, their presence is treated similarly to a public thoroughfare. Since a person must already assume that he may be observed, an additional observer is generally not considered to be creating new hezek re'iyah.

Existing Visibility

Building on this principle, Rav Yeshayah Blau zt"l (Pischei Choshen, Perek 14, he’orah 31) writes that when a person is already required to maintain his privacy because multiple neighboring buildings overlook his property, he generally cannot claim hezek re'iyah against an additional neighbor. Since he was already compelled to conduct himself privately due to the existing visibility, the new observer is not necessarily creating a new halachic injury.

The general principle that emerges, as discussed at length in Mishpetei HaTorah (vol. 2, siman 59, sif 4 and he’orah 3) and Emek HaMishpat (Hilchos Shecheinim, siman 13), is that where passersby in the street, or residents of neighboring buildings, can already observe activities taking place on an exposed balcony, there is ordinarily no claim of hezek re'iyah. This is derived from the Gemara's ruling that windows may face one another when a public thoroughfare separates the two homes.

Accordingly, the prohibition applies only when the new window, balcony, or opening creates a new and additional invasion of privacy.

Examples include:

1. Where the homeowner was previously able to conduct private activities throughout most of the room and only a small portion required caution.

2. Where only one room was previously exposed, but the new construction now allows observation of the entire house.

In such cases, the injured party may object and prevent his neighbor from opening an additional window or constructing a balcony that creates a significantly greater degree of visual intrusion into his home.

The Prohibition Against Looking into Another Person’s Home

It Is Forbidden to Peek

Beyond the laws of damages, there is an independent prohibition against looking into another person’s property.

As the Rema writes (Choshen Mishpat 154:7), a person may not stand at his window and observe his neighbor’s courtyard, thereby causing harm through observation. Such conduct is inherently prohibited, and therefore no chazakah can ever legitimize it. The owner of the courtyard may object and prevent the observer from continuing this practice (Beis Yosef in the name of the Rashba).

The source of this prohibition is the Gemara in Bava Basra (2b), which teaches that one may not stand and gaze at another person’s field while its crops are standing, lest he cast an ayin hara upon it.

The Aruch HaShulchan writes that one who causes damage through ayin hara is liable in the Heavenly Court. See also Kehillos Yaakov (Bava Kamma, siman 45).

The Shulchan Aruch HaRav (154:7) further writes that this prohibition applies even when the owner notices the observer and remains silent, since it is possible that he is simply embarrassed to protest.

Even from the Public Domain

The Rema further writes (end of sif 3) that a person should be careful not to look into another person’s home even when standing in a public area, even if:

1. He has no intention of observing what is taking place inside.

2. No formal claim of hezek re'iyah exists.

3. No issue of tzniyus is involved.

The reason is that others may suspect him of intending to steal from the homeowner or of prying into the family's private affairs. Unless he has a legitimate reason to look in that direction, he should refrain from doing so.

The Sma (s.k. 14) adds that this concern applies even to occasional or casual observation.

The Imrei Yaakov (s.k. 66) writes that no prescriptive right can ever develop in such circumstances. Since hezek re'iyah is comparable to girai dilei—one who harms another as if by shooting arrows—one can never acquire the right to continue causing such injury.

Similarly, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Hilchos Nizkei Mamon, sif 13) writes that even individuals standing in the public domain may not stop and stare into another person’s property. He qualifies this, however, by noting that brief and incidental observation while simply walking past is unavoidable and therefore permitted. Since no one can reasonably avoid every passing glance, a person must conduct his affairs with sufficient modesty to account for such inevitable observation.

Looking into a Car Parked on the Street

One permissible to look into a vehicle parked on a public street in order to assess its value, inspect its features, or examine various upgrades and modifications.

may wonder whether it is

On the one hand, the owner purchased the vehicle with the knowledge that it would be parked in public view, where anyone passing by could observe it. In fact, some people spend enormous sums on luxury vehicles precisely because they want others to admire them.

On the other hand, perhaps parking a vehicle in a public place does not amount to consent for scrutiny. The owner may simply have no alternative place to park and certainly may not appreciate becoming the subject of unwanted attention or an ayin hara.

A related question is whether one may observe a person sitting inside a vehicle and watch what he is doing.

I heard in the name of Rav Ezriel Auerbach shlita that this does not fall within the category of hezek re'iyah, since the vehicle is situated in the public domain.

Claims of unneighborly damages generally apply only to private property and private spaces, not to items intentionally placed in public view.

Tinted Windows

According to this approach, however, one may question whether the same reasoning applies to vehicles equipped with opaque or heavily tinted windows that are specifically designed to prevent observation, such as: Ambulances, Hatzalah vehicles, ZAKA vehicles and Chevra Kadisha vehicles.

In such cases, it is evident that those responsible for the vehicle are particular about privacy and wish to shield its occupants from public view.

Should looking into such vehicles be treated like looking into a private house or courtyard?

Or perhaps, strictly speaking, it remains permissible, since these vehicles operate in the public domain and are fundamentally designed for public use. According to this approach, refraining from looking would be a matter of sensitivity and proper conduct rather than a formal prohibition.

Medical Emergencies

A further question arises when a person collapses in the street and emergency personnel arrive to treat him before transporting him to the hospital. Is there an actual halachic prohibition against standing and watching the scene because of hezek re'iyah, or is doing so merely improper behavior?

Before discussing the halachic question itself, it is worth mentioning a more important response.

When one encounters such a scene, rather than satisfying his curiosity by trying to discover what happened, he should pause and recite a few Perokim of Tehillim on behalf of the person in distress.

Rav Yitzchak Zilberstein shlita writes (Toras HaYoledes, pg. 179, following Perek 29 in the newer edition) that whenever observation causes embarrassment because others are witnessing a person’s private circumstances, this constitutes genuine personal suffering. The observer is therefore causing harm and violating a prohibition (see the direct quote from the sefer below). See also the Ramban (Bava Basra 59a) and Kehillos Yaakov (Bava Basra, siman 3).

Accordingly, he strongly warns that although when an ambulance arrives to transport a patient or a woman in labor, people often gather simply to watch. Such conduct, he writes, clearly constitutes hezek re'iyah and may even involve the prohibition of embarrassing another person in public.

A person’s most vulnerable moments are not public entertainment. Even when they occur in a public place, the Torah demands sensitivity, dignity, and respect for the privacy of others.

Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer zt"l and the Watermelons in Machaneh Yehudah

The extraordinary sensitivity of Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer zt"l, author of the Even HaEzel, in matters of bein adam l'chaveiro is well known.

The sefer B'Derech Eitz HaChaim (Vol. 2, pg. 449) relates a remarkable story, recounted by Rav Shalom Schwadron zt"l in the name of Rav Dovid Finkel zt"l.

Rav Isser Zalman lived near Machaneh Yehudah and would regularly pass through the marketplace on his way home from yeshivah. One day, after delivering a shiur at Yeshivas Eitz Chaim, Rav Dovid Finkel accompanied him home and was surprised to see him take a much longer route.

When asked why he was avoiding the shorter path through the shuk, Rav Isser Zalman replied:

“It is watermelon season, and the market is filled with beautiful watermelons. Chazal teach that a person should not stand in his fellow’s field while the crops are standing, lest he cast an ayin hara. The merchants display their produce so that people will notice it and purchase it. But I am not going there to buy watermelons. Therefore, I am concerned that by looking at them, I may, Heaven forbid, cast an ayin hara upon them."

Rav Shalom Schwadron added that Rav Isser Zalman was so immersed in Torah that he hardly looked to the right or left while walking, constantly fulfilling the verse, “U'velechtecha vaderech.” Yet despite this, he was concerned that even a passing glance might somehow cause harm to another Jew.

Such was Rav Isser Zalman's extraordinary sensitivity. Even the slightest possibility of causing another person a loss was enough for him to take the longer road home.

Summary of Dinim that Come Out:

Lehalachah:

Hezek re'iyah (visual intrusion) is regarded as genuine damage (hezek), and therefore when partners divide a shared courtyard, they may be compelled to erect a partition wall. This includes both damage to a person’s privacy and damage relating to his property. The poskim debate whether one may waive such rights through mechilah (forgoing one’s claims). In addition, there is an independent concern of tzniyus (modesty), for which a waiver is ineffective.

Required Distances and Measurements:

•

•

•

•

•

•

Wall Height: According to Rav Chaim Naeh, 1.92 meters; according to the Chazon Ish, 2.40 meters. Distance: From the perspective of hezek re'iyah, enough distance must exist so that one cannot observe the ordinary activities of his neighbor. Viewing Angle: In a jointly owned courtyard, even a minimal angle of visibility may constitute a problem. Regarding a separate neighboring courtyard, the requirement is that one should not be able to observe the other’s normal activities. Local Custom: As ruled by the Maharitatz, prevailing local practice is halachically significant in determining acceptable distances. Practical Distancing: Approximately 6-8 meters, depending on local standards and conditions. Light and Air: Construction should not significantly obstruct a neighbor’s light and airflow, generally requiring a distance of approximately 2-3 meters, depending on the circumstances.

Common Practice Today:

The accepted practice is that a developer or builder may construct one house opposite another, and one window opposite another. This follows the ruling of the Maharitatz that such matters depend on local custom, and residents move ~ 21 ~ into an area with that understanding. Additionally, the affected resident has the option of protecting his privacy by closing shutters, blinds, or doors.

Building Extensions:

When a neighbor adds an extension to his home, the adjoining neighbor may be entitled to demand that the construction not create the possibility of overlooking his residence because of hezek re'iyah. In order to uphold such a claim, a dayan should personally inspect the situation and evaluate the actual intrusion created by the construction.

One authority advances the novel position that the burden rests upon the potentially injured party to close his shutters or blinds. According to this approach, claims of hezek re'iyah would generally not exist in contemporary settings.

Looking into Another’s Property:

Even when a structure has been built in a fully permissible manner, it remains forbidden to look into another person's private domain.

There is room to discuss whether this prohibition extends to looking into a vehicle and at those seated within it. Likewise, one who watches while a patient is being evacuated by ambulance may transgress the prohibition associated with hezek re'iyah