The subject matter of this lesson is, may a person intervene in the negotiations being conducted by someone else to purchase something by purchasing it for himself? For example, Reuven is negotiating with a seller to purchase a used automobile, but Shimon makes the seller an offer and purchases the automobile instead. The topic of hiring teachers to teach youngsters Torah is unique, since teaching Torah to one's children is one of the most important responsibilities that a parent has.

The entire subject matter is based on a Talmudic passage (Kiddushin 59a) that states that one of the rabbis (the first rabbi) was negotiating to purchase a field from the seller, but a second rabbi bought the field. When the first rabbi complained to the chief rabbi, the chief rabbi asked the second rabbi the following question: If a poor person was turning over (examining) a cake to purchase it and another person came along and took it away from him, how would he characterize the actions of the second man? The second rabbi answered that the second person is a wicked man.

The chief rabbi asked the second rabbi why he had done the same thing to the first rabbi in buying the field for which the first rabbi was negotiating. The second rabbi replied that he was not aware of the fact that the first rabbi was negotiating for the field. The second rabbi offered the field as a gift to the first rabbi, who refused to accept it as a gift because it is written, But he that hates gifts shall live (Proverbs 15:27). The second rabbi would not sell the field to the first rabbi since he felt it was not a good omen to sell the first field he had ever purchased. Neither took possession of the field, and it was used instead by the students of the school.

What is seen from the Talmudic passage is that while the second person is called a wicked person, his purchase is nevertheless valid because the first person was only negotiating, or even may have completed the negotiations but failed to perform an act of acquisition to acquire the thing for himself.

As stated above, Reuven is negotiating with the seller (whether a Jew or Gentile) to purchase the latter's automobile. Shimon comes along and purchases the automobile from the seller instead. The automobile belongs to Shimon, and Beth Din cannot undo the sale. However, Beth Din can designate Shimon to be a wicked person. Shimon is designated as a wicked person whether the thing that he purchased is real estate or personal property.

The situation is similar, if Reuven is negotiating employment with a potential employer and Shimon takes the job, Reuven is negotiating with a landlord to lease a house and Shimon comes along and leases it instead, and in all similar situations. Such as the secular ruler has designated Reuven to be the official money lender to the government, a not uncommon situation in the middle ages in many countries. Shimon cannot intrude on this monopoly. The transaction with Shimon remains in effect, but he is designated a wicked person. In all of these situations, it is assumed that Shimon could find a comparable deal somewhere else.

There is an opinion that if the thing that Shimon purchased or leased is unique, or if a job was unique and it could not have been obtained somewhere else, Shimon is not designated a wicked person. Since finding an abandoned object in the street is something unique, and if Reuven is about to approach such an object to acquire it for himself but Shimon runs quickly and acquires it before Reuven does, the object belongs to Shimon, and he is not designated a wicked person. The finding of an abandoned object is unique. Shimon cannot be expected to find another abandoned object to acquire and leave this abandoned object for Reuven.

There is another opinion that rejects this distinction and holds that whether the object is unique or not is not determinative, and in all events Shimon is designated as wicked.

There are some examples where Shimon is not designated as wicked. There is an opinion that Shimon is not designated as wicked in any of the cases where the seller and Reuven have not yet completed their negotiations as to price and that all of the laws apply only if the seller and Reuven have completed their negotiations as to price and Shimon acquires the thing from the seller before Reuven performed the act of acquisition.

However, even this opinion admits that if the thing being sold is readily available in the market, Shimon should not purchase the thing if Reuven is negotiating to purchase it.

As stated above, Shimon is not designated as wicked if the thing he acquires is unique and he cannot reasonably be expected to find such a thing elsewhere. Beth Din must determine if the effort to be made by Shimon can be reasonably expected. For example, a vintage automobile is for sale in New York, and Reuven, a collector of such automobiles, is negotiating to purchase it from the seller. Shimon, who is also a collector, purchases the automobile. If there is a similar automobile available in New Zealand, Beth Din must determine if it is reasonable under all the circumstances to expect Shimon to travel to New Zealand to acquire the comparable automobile.

As stated above, there is a conflicting opinion that Shimon is designated a wicked person even if the object is unique. Reuven is negotiating to purchase a piece of land from the seller. Shimon owns the adjoining piece of land, but under the facts of the sale, he does not have the right of first refusal to purchase the land.(See lessons 130-136, TT 513-519) Shimon purchases the land, but he is not designated as wicked, since the halachah recognizes the desirability for a person to acquire land contiguous to his own.

There is an opinion that if the thing being sold is a bargain that usually costs more in the marketplace, and if Shimon buys that thing for which Reuven is negotiating, Shimon is not designated as wicked. There is also a dissent that holds the low price should not make any difference and Shimon is still designated as wicked.

Shimon is not designated as wicked if he was not aware that Reuven was negotiating to purchase the item. However, it is praiseworthy for Shimon to sell the item to Reuven when he becomes aware of the fact that Reuven was negotiating for the item.

Reuven is negotiating to purchase an item. Shimon enters into negotiations with the seller to purchase the item, and they agree on the terms. Before Shimon performs an act of acquisition, Yehuda purchases the item from the seller. Yehuda is not designated as wicked.

If Reuven is a wealthy person and Shimon is not, there is authority that Shimon is not designated as wicked if Reuven can acquire the item elsewhere.

Assume that the father of young children engaged Reuven to teach them.

Shimon may not offer to teach the father's children unless the father has dismissed Reuven prior to Shimon making the offer. The converse is not true. That is, although father A is negotiating with Reuven to teach his children, father B may hire Reuven instead. Torah education is so important that father B has to look out for the education of his children as his primary concern. Also, there is no monetary benefit to the father in this case, but rather the performance of the obligation to teach one's children Torah. However, if father A has already concluded the hiring of the teacher, with a binding kinyan, father B may not hire him.

The subject matter of this lesson is more fully presented in Volume VII Chapters 235 of"A Restatement of Rabbinic Civil Law" by E. Quint, published by Jason Aronson, Inc. and on sale at local Judaica bookstores.
Questions to quint@inter.net.il

[The Parshat Eikev Homepage]
[The TORAH tidbits Homepage] [How to use TORAH tidbits]
[About The OU/NCSY Israel Center] [About TORAH tidbits]
[www.ou.org]