A New Thief

Rabbah ruled: If someone stole a barrel of wine from his fellow and it was worth one zuz at the time it was stolen and four zuzim at the end (when it was destroyed), the halachah is as follows: If he broke the barrel or drank the wine, he would pay four (for up until the time of destruction, it belongs to the owner; the thief would have been obligated to return the barrel which was worth four zuzim; if he directly destroys it, he pays four). If it broke by itself, he pays one (for that is what it was worth at the time it was stolen).

The Ketzos Hachoshen explains that the reason he must pay four zuzim when he breaks it or drinks it is because he is regarded as a damager, and he pays for the object’s value at the time of the damage. It cannot be considered stealing at that time, for once an object has left the possession of the owner and enters the thief’s domain, there can be no more responsibility for stealing. This is because it is written: and it was stolen from the owner’s house. The Gemora learns from there that something cannot be stolen if it is in the house of the thief. Here, where, at the time it was damaged, it was in the thief’s domain, there cannot be a new “stealing.” This would be similar to one who steals from a thief, where the halachah is that the second thief is exempt from paying the principle. Therefore, in our case, when the thief breaks it or drinks it, he can only be liable for damaging it, not for stealing it.

The Nesivos Hamishpat disagrees and holds that while it is true that one who steals from a thief is exempt from paying the principle and he is not regarded as a thief, that is only when he did not add anything to the original thievery. This is why the second person cannot be regarded as a thief. However, if he caused a change to the stolen object, he has added to the thievery and can now also be regarded as a thief. Therefore, when the thief breaks it or drinks it, he has added to the original stealing by the fact that he has destroyed the object. He is therefore responsible on account of stealing.

Read more!

Shomer Rulings

Money Matters
The Gemora begins by stating that a custodian should keep deposited money on his body, and then later quotes Shmuel’s statement that money must be buried. The Rambam (She’eila u’Pikadon 4:6) explains that when the money is deposited with the custodian at home, he must bury it, while if the deposit was to transport the money somewhere, he must keep it on his body.

Shmuel states that a custodian must guard money entrusted to him by burying it, and anything short of that is negligence.

The Rosh quotes Ri Barceloni that says that Shmuel is only discussing a situation where burglary is common. However, if it is not common, a custodian need only guard the money as he guards his own. The Gemora implies this in its follow up discussion of different ways of storing the money, which the Gemora explicitly ties to the prevailing form of burglars at the time.

The Rambam (She’eila u’Pikadon) seems to imply that Shmuel’s statement is not subject to variation in different times and situations.

The Shulchan Aruch (HM 291:18) rules like the Rosh. See the Gra (HM 291:28) for a discussion of how this debate depends on differing texts in our Gemora.

The Sma (C”M 291:24) says that now that our houses are much more solid than in the Gemora’s time, and therefore a custodian may store the money in a locked house.

Shmuel is also implicitly stating that if the custodian did bury the money, and it was stolen, he is not liable.

The Rishonim debate what the rule for a paid custodian is. Unlike an unpaid custodian, a paid custodian is fundamentally liable for theft, but he is also not liable for unavoidable loss of the deposited item.

The Gemora states a number of times that a paid custodian is not liable for an item that is taken through armed robbery, since that is unavoidable. When a paid custodian buries money, but it is still stolen, he may be liable, since it is theft, but he may not be liable, since it seems like an unavoidable loss.

Rabbi Akiva Eiger (HM 303:2) lists three positions of the Rishonim on this question:
1. Tosfos (BK 57a K’gon) and the Rosh (BM 3:21) say that a paid custodian is liable, even if he buried the money, since that is included in the liability for theft. Every theft is akin to an unavoidable loss, so a theft that is more unavoidable is still a theft. Only in the case of an armed robber, where the paid custodian was present and powerless to stop the theft is considered truly unavoidable.
2. The Ramban says that a paid custodian must keep the money in his presence. Therefore, theft of buried money is not considered unavoidable, and a paid custodian is liable. However, if something unavoidable occurred to the paid custodian, making it impossible to keep the money with him (e.g., a sudden severe sickness), he is not liable.
3. Tosfos (BM 42a Amar Shmuel) says that a custodian is not liable for unavoidable theft, which includes buried money, as well as an unavoidable event which prevented his guarding.

The Rambam (She’eila uPikadon 4:4) applies Shmuel’s statement to any item that has two things in common with money:
1. Valuable enough that burglars look for it
2. Not ruined by being underground
Therefore, blocks of precious metals and stones also must be buried when being guarded.
Diversification
Rav Yitzchak says that one should split his assets in three, with one third going to land. The Maharshsa offers two explanations for this:
1. Buried underground, as Shmuel requires of the custodian
2. Invested in real estate
Unobserved Blessings
The Gemora says that blessing only occurs to items that are not measured and observed.

The Meiri explains that the Gemora is referring to the blessing of successful returns on investments.

Rabbeinu Manoach says that the Gemora means that the blessing will be that the ultimate measure will be larger than the original estimate, in a miraculous fashion.

The Sfas Emes echoes this position, by explaining that Hashem does not make miracles that openly subvert nature, and therefore this blessing only occurs before the produce is measured.

The Ritva quotes the Ramban who says that one makes a brachah on this occurrence only when measuring produce for the purpose of separating tithes, since Hashem promised us a blessing for fulfilling this mitzvah. When otherwise measuring, one is not certain a blessing will occur, so he may not make a brachah.
Household Custodians
The Gemora states that a custodian may entrust his deposited item with members of his household.

The Rishonim debate what the rule is if the ones entrusted were negligent.

Rabbeinu Tam (42b kol) says that the custodian is ultimately liable for the negligence of members of his household, while the Ramban, Rashba (BM 36a) and Rambam (She’eila u’Pikadon 4:9) say that the member entrusted with the item is liable.
The Ox who couldn’t Eat
Rami bar Chama debates how to judge the case of an estate administrator who gave an ox without teeth to a herdsman, where it died. The Gemora explained that the orphans had already voided the sale, so the potential litigant is the seller.

Tosfos (42b Hacha) explains that Rami bar Chama is assuming that we rule like Rabbi Yosi (35b), who says that an owner of an item can directly deal with a custodian appointed by his custodian. Within Rabbi Yossi’s position, Rami bar Chama was unsure whether the seller can address the herdsman via his appointment by the orphans, or whether the orphans are removed from the transaction, since the sale was retroactively voided. Rami bar Chama’s conclusion is that the orphans are considered unpaid custodians, and the seller does have legal standing vis a vis the herdsman.

Rami bar Chama says that the herdsman must pay the seller the value of the ox, when sold for discounted meat.

Rashi explains that this is a compromise. Technically, the herdsman is not truly at fault and not liable, but he does compensate the herdsman minimally for his loss.

Rabbeinu Tam (42b Demai) says that this rule was a bona fide legal obligation. The herdsman should have notified the seller of the ox’s lack of teeth, and therefore is liable for its death. However, since an ox without teeth must be sold for meat, and may not even wait until the day of the market, it would have only been worth the price of discounted meat.

Read more!

Pain to the Deceased

It was stated (Bava Metzia 38b): If a man is taken captive, Rav said that we would not bring down a relative to his property, and Shmuel said that we would. Now, if it was heard (either by way of a rumor, or through one witness) that the captive was dead, all would agree that we would bring down a relative (for if the captive would return before the relative eats from the produce, he will receive his share like a sharecropper, and if the captive does not return, he inherits it all – either way, he will make sure to do a good job). They disagree where it was not heard that he had died. Rav said that we do not bring down a relative, for he might cause them the property to deteriorate (for he will not fertilize it, and he will constantly plant there – ultimately ruining the land). Shmuel said: We do bring down a relative, for since a master said that we evaluate for them just like a sharecropper, he will not allow the field to be ruined.

The Gemora asks from a braisa: From the implication of the verse (discussing those who oppress widows and orphans): “And I shall become incensed, and I shall kill you with the sword,” I know that their wives shall be widows and their children shall be orphans; why then does the Torah state: “And your wives shall be widows, and your children shall be orphans”? This teaches us that their wives will seek to remarry and we will not permit them (for Hashem is cursing them that they will be taken captive and we will not know if they died or not), and their children will desire to go down to their father’s property and we will not allow them. [This contradicts Shmuel, who rules that we do allow the relatives to go down to the captive’s field!?]

Rava answers: The braisa means that they are not permitted to go down and sell the property.

The Iyun Yaakov asks: What is the curse to the dead sinner if his wife will not be allowed to remarry? There is no pain at all! On the contrary, the Zohar writes that this would be regarded as an honor to the deceased!?

He answers that nevertheless, at the time that the woman desires to remarry, she will be embarrassed, and Chazal say that a man does not want his wife humiliated before a Beis Din!

The Ben Yehoyada writes that these men were killed by sword and buried immediately. There were no witnesses available to verify their identity. It will therefore be necessary to open their graves to see if there are any identifying marks to help us determine who they were. This is considered painful to the deceased, and this is the meaning of the curse.

He adds that these women, who will never be allowed to remarry, will eventually curse their own husbands for being the cause of their present predicament. This will be painful for the deceased!

Read more!

200 - 1,000!!??

The Mishna had stated: Two people deposited money with a guardian, one deposited one hundred and one deposited two hundred, and each claims that he was the one who deposited two hundred. Each one receives one hundred, and the other hundred is left until Eliyahu ha’Navi arrives (to settles the issue for us). Rabbi Yosi says: If this is the law, what does the liar lose by lying? [He will receive his money back, and merely cause the other person to lose!] Rather, all of the money deposited is left until Eliyahu ha’Navi arrives.

Similarly, two people deposited vessels with a guardian, one is worth one hundred and one is worth one thousand, and each claimed that they were the owner of the expensive vessel. The smaller vessel should be given to one, and from the value of the expensive vessel should be given the value of the smaller vessel to the other, and the rest should be left until Eliyahu arrives.

Why by the case of money is the example of “two hundred” given, and by the case of the vessels – “one thousand” is given?

Imrei Daas answers: The Gemora below (38a) states: A person would prefer a kav of his own produce more than nine kavs belonging to his fellow. This is because that which he toils for is regarded as more precious to him.

Accordingly, we can explain as follows: With respect to money, a person is willing to lie that the two hundred is his when, in truth, he only gave one hundred. However, with respect to vessels, if his friend’s vessel is merely worth two hundred, he will not wish to lie, for he would rather have his own although it is worth less. If his friend’s vessel, however, is worth more than nine times the value of his own, he would be willing to lie. This is why the Mishna gives the example where his vessel was worth one hundred and the other vessel was worth a thousand.

This explanation is based upon two assumptions: 1. The logic that a person would prefer to have one of his own than nine of his friend’s is precise, and if his friend’s value exceeds his by more than nine times the value, he would not want his own. It is quite possible that the Gemora means that he would prefer his own over that of his friend’s even if his friend’s vessel is worth ten or twenty times the amount! 2. This logic applies by vessels as well as produce. It is quite possible that the Gemora’s logic applies only with respect of produce, where he toiled in the land – that is why the produce is more precious to him. However, with respect to vessels, it wouldn’t make any difference to him.

Read more!