Anonymous

Being Careful With Other People's Money: Difference between revisions

From Halachipedia
Line 45: Line 45:
<p class="indent">The gemara records a story in which the sharecropper of Mari Bar Isak took fruit to some of Amoraim while Mari Bar Isak was away. Some of the Amoraim ate the fruits, while Rav Ashi did not. Rashi explains that Rav Ashi was concerned that the sharecropper was taking Mari Bar Isak’s fruit without permission and didn’t want to benefit from stolen goods. If so, what were the other Amoraim thinking? Tosfot (Bava Metsia 22a s.v. mar) explains that they assumed that the sharecropper was giving his own fruits. Then Tosfot adds that it would not have been a correct justification if the other Amoraim assumed that the sharecropper took Mari’s fruits, but once Mari would find out about it, he would be okay with it. Tosfot proves that an expression of intent isn’t effective for past events from the topic of yeush shelo medaat, assuming someone would relinquish ownership if an item is lost. </p>
<p class="indent">The gemara records a story in which the sharecropper of Mari Bar Isak took fruit to some of Amoraim while Mari Bar Isak was away. Some of the Amoraim ate the fruits, while Rav Ashi did not. Rashi explains that Rav Ashi was concerned that the sharecropper was taking Mari Bar Isak’s fruit without permission and didn’t want to benefit from stolen goods. If so, what were the other Amoraim thinking? Tosfot (Bava Metsia 22a s.v. mar) explains that they assumed that the sharecropper was giving his own fruits. Then Tosfot adds that it would not have been a correct justification if the other Amoraim assumed that the sharecropper took Mari’s fruits, but once Mari would find out about it, he would be okay with it. Tosfot proves that an expression of intent isn’t effective for past events from the topic of yeush shelo medaat, assuming someone would relinquish ownership if an item is lost. </p>
<p class="indent">Tosfot’s opinion is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch and accordingly it would be prohibited to take someone else’s property even if one assumes that they would be agreeable when he finds out. Even though the Shach (C.M. 358) disagrees, the poskim (Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 182:13, Aruch HaShulchan 358:8) follow the opinion of Tosfot. Nonetheless, Rabbi Bodner (Halachos Of Other People’s Money p. 26) quotes poskim who say that if a friend or relative have allowed you to take a particular item in the past with regularity it would permitted to take it without consent.</p>
<p class="indent">Tosfot’s opinion is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch and accordingly it would be prohibited to take someone else’s property even if one assumes that they would be agreeable when he finds out. Even though the Shach (C.M. 358) disagrees, the poskim (Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 182:13, Aruch HaShulchan 358:8) follow the opinion of Tosfot. Nonetheless, Rabbi Bodner (Halachos Of Other People’s Money p. 26) quotes poskim who say that if a friend or relative have allowed you to take a particular item in the past with regularity it would permitted to take it without consent.</p>
==Zeh Neheneh Zeh Lo Chasar==
# You have the right to prevent anyone from using your property even if you don’t lose if they were to use it. Zeh Neheneh Zeh Lo Chasar is only after the fact.<ref>Tofsot bava kama 20b, Tosfot bava batra 12b, Mordechai bava kama n. 16, Rama CM 363:6, Biur HaGra there, Pitchei Choshen Genevah 8:3. None of the sources quote someone who argues besides the Gra cites the Rosh and disagrees. Either way the Rosh is only potentially allowing it because he is watching the house and helping out but generally he agrees with Tosfot. Nodeh Beyehuda CM 24 applies the rule even if the property can’t be sold. Pitchei Choshen discusses that perhaps that’s a difference between Tosfot and Mordechai and the Rama followed the Mordechai.</ref>


==Stealing Sleep==
==Stealing Sleep==