In last week’s lesson, the first on the topic of Lifnm Mishrath Hadin, I cited a few Talmudic passages that dealt with this subject. I shall commence this lesson with a few more of the Talmudic and post- Talmudic cases dealing with this subject.

In the last lesson I cited a Talmudic incident that dealt wit Rav Pappa. The Talmud (Berachot 45b) relates another incident involving Rav Papa. When three or more men eat together they must at the completion of the meal say Grace (Birchat Hamazon) together, that is one acts as the leader and invites the other two to join him in saying Grace. If three men ate together and if two of them completed their meal and the third did not complete his meal, he must interrupt his meal and respond to the call of one of the other two to say the Grace after the meal with them. If one of the three finished his meal first, the other two need not interrupt their meal to respond to his call to say Grace, Rather he must wait for at least one other person to finish. The Talmud questions this latter statement by citing an incident when R. Papa was eating together with his son and another person. The son finished his meal first and Rav Papa and the other person interrupted their meal to answer the invitation of Rav Papa's son to say Grace. The Talmud then explains that this incident regarding Rav Papa should not be used "as precedent since he might have been acting lifnim mishurath hadin.

It seems to me that the Talmud selected this last cited incident to teach us several things, amongst which are that a father may waive his parental privileges and act with deference to his child, and that this is accounted as lifnim mishurath hadin. Also a person may be polite and not demand that if one finished eating sooner that he must wait for at least one other of the three persons to finish before he can call them to say Grace. It teaches that the concept of lifnim mishurath hadin extends to every day living; not only to those situations when a person is actually being judged in a Beth Din of law whether it be the Heavenly Beth Din or the Beth Din of men. (There are several reasons given why at the conclusion of studying a tractate of the Talmud the names of Rav Papa and his sons are mentioned as part of the concluding prayers. I submit that he and his sons are there mentioned since the Talmud cites only a few cases where the concept of lifnim mishurath hadin are shown and Rav Papa is mentioned in two of those cases including the case where he showed deference to his son whose name is also included together with his brothers in the concluding prayers. After having completed the study of a tractate of the Talmud not only should one be aware of the principles of justice therein discussed, but one should also learn how to act in a manner which is lifnim mishurath hadin, with mercy and compassion.)

There are just three more places in the Talmud where the concept is mentioned:

The Torah commands that one may not disregard lost property but must pick it up; and also that after one picks up the lost object it must then be returned to its owner.

There are certain situations, however, when a person may keep that which he found without having to attempt to find the owner, since it is assumed that the person who lost the object has abandoned any hope of ever having the object returned to him. One of these situations is where the object is lost in a place frequented by multitudes of heathens and there is thus no likelihood of the object being returned. The Talmud (Baba Metzia 24b) relates an incident where Rav Yehuda was walking with his teacher Samuel in the wholesalers' market and asked Samuel what the law would be if one found an object in that market? Samuel answered that the finder would be able to keep the found object without the necessity of having to look for the owner.

R. Yehuda then asked what if the owner appeared and gave the. finder an identifying mark, would the finder have to return the found object? Samuel answered that the finder would have to return the found object. Rav Yehuda then asked are not the two statements of Samuel contradictory since if the person had found the object in a place where people are assumed to abandon hope of having the object returned, then the object belongs to the finder. The giving of the identification mark should not change the law.

Samuel answered that the person who found the object should act lifnim mishurath hadin. The Talmud then relates this discussion between Rav Yehuda and Samuel to an incident wherein Samuel's father also acted lifnim mishurath hadin. Samuel's father returned donkeys he had found after the time for returning them had expired. It is to be noted that in the cased which I have cited until now the Talmud does not cite any Torah verse to show why the person should act lifnim mishurath hadin.

Similar to the requirement to return that which one finds, is the requirement to assist a person in lifting up his burden whether he is loading up his beast or himself. In both situations, that of stooping to pick up someone else 's lost object, or in helping to load someone else or his animal, the commandment for assistance need not be observed if the person would not do the same for himself, that is, where the person would not have stooped down to pick up his own object which had fallen, or he would not have loaded himself or his animal with a load.

The Talmud (Baba Metzia 30b) further relates an incident where the old sage Rabbi Ishmael b. Rabbi Yosi was walking down a path and approached a wood carrier who was resting. When the wood carrier saw Rabbi Ishmael he asked his to help load the wood upon his shoulders.

Rabbi Ishmael asked the wood carrier what was the value of the wood and when he was told that it was half a zuz. Rabbi Ishmael paid him half a zuz and thus avoided the necessity for his having to help the wood carrier load the wood, which Rabbi Ishmael would not have done for himself. When Rabbi Ishmael wanted to leave, he declared the wood that he had just purchased to be abandoned so that if someone would find the wood he could keep it without being guilty of stealing Rabbi Ishmael's wood. When the wood carrier heard that the wood was now abandoned he quickly re-acquired the wood and once again asked Rabbi Ishmael to help him load the wood. Once again Rabbi Ishmael paid the wood carrier half a zuz. But now Rabbi Ishmael declared the wood to be abandoned for all the world to be able to acquire it with the exception of the wood carrier. (The Talmud explains that such an abandonment is not effective and that in fact Rabbi Ishmael had abandoned the wood without condition but had merely advised the wood carrier that he made an exception.) The Talmud poses the question why Rabbi Ishmael had to go through all this when he could have merely refused to help the wood carrier load the wood since it was not in keeping with the dignity of Rabbi Ishmael to load the wood since he would have not done it for himself? The Talmud answers that Rabbi Ishmael was acting lifnim mishurath hadin.

IYH in the next lesson there will be shown the Torah basis for acting lifim mishurath hadin.

Questions to quint@inter.net.il

[The Sh'lach Homepage]
[The TORAH tidbits Homepage] [How to use TORAH tidbits]
[About The OU/NCSY Israel Center] [About TORAH tidbits]