Lesson # 221 (part one) • Spying an Object deliberately placed The last two lessons set forth seven criteria required for the finder to be obligated by Torah Law to pick up the object that he spied on the ground and restore it to the owner. In the last lesson, criteria (4) states that, "Only an object that was lost (and meets the other criteria) must be picked up and restored to its owner. If it was not lost, for example, if it was or appears to have been deliberately placed by the owner where it is now located, the finder must not pick it up." If the owner deliberately placed the object at the location where the finder spied it, it must not be picked up by the finder. Even with an identifying mark, the owner would be subjected to the expense and trouble of locating the finder identifying the marks and retrieving the object. Perhaps more importantly, if the object has no identifying marks, it most likely will be lost to the owner forever. The finder is therefore admonished not to pick up such objects. This lesson and the next offers guidelines to the finder:
(1) when to pick up an object because it was or appears to have been
deliberately left by the owner; (2) when to pick up the object with the
intent to restore it to the owner; and (3) when to pick up the object to
keep for himself or leave it rest. According to (1) above, if the object was deliberately placed in a spot privately owned, the finder must not pick up the object since the owner of the object will come back to that location to retrieve it. What if the object was deliberately left such a long time
ago that neither the current owner nor any of his forebears left the object
there? Does the object belong to the finder or the current owner where the
object was found? Fully supervised: Assume that Shimon spies an object in a fully supervised area. For example, Shimon finds a garment or an ax next to a fence or a building where men working in that building leave their belongings. Shimon must not pick up the object if he concludes that the owner deliberately placed the object at that location, whether he is positive of his conclusion or even if he possesses doubts about its certainty, or whether or not the object has an identifying mark. The appearance that the object was deliberately left in a fully supervised place is sufficient reason for Shimon not to pick up the object. In this situation, Shimon does not transgress the Torah commandment not to turn away from picking up lost objects because the object is not lost. If Shimon does pick up the object, he may not leave the area unless he returns the object from where he picked it up. If Shimon picks up the object and removes it, he should care for it as he would any found object. If it possesses an identifying mark, he should announce that he found the lost object. If it has no identifying mark, he should keep the object in his care (but not use it) until the true owner is identified. Partially supervised: Assume that Shimon spies an object in a partially supervised location. Whether the finder is certain that the owner deliberately placed the object there or only thinks that he may have deliberately placed the object there. With an identifying mark, the finder must pick up the object and announce the find. Without an identifying mark, the finder must not pick up the object. If the finder does retrieve the object, he must keep it (but not use it) until he ascertains the owner's identity Unsupervised: Assume that Shimon spies an object in an unsupervised place. With no identifying mark, it belongs to the finder, Shimon, even if it appears that the owner deliberately placed the object with the intent to return and retrieve it. If it has an identifying mark, the finder must pick it up and make the appropriate announcements. Assume that Shimon finds an object in a rubbish heap. If this location is not ordinarily cleared away and if the object appears to be concealed, he must not pick up the object since it is presumed that the owner left the object for safekeeping. If the rubbish heap is ordinarily cleared away, Shimon may presume that the owner abandoned the object and he Shimon may keep it. If the community decided to clear the rubbish heap, Shimon should pick up the object and treat it as any other found object. If it has an identification mark, it should be announced. Even without an identification mark, the place where it was concealed may serve as the identification mark. For example, Reuven may come forward and state that he concealed a pistol without any identification mark at the southern end of the rubbish heap. That specific location, the southern end of the rubbish heap, together with the fact that Reuven knows that he concealed a pistol there, would be considered as an identification mark. While passing a rubbish heap, Shimon finds a covered vessel. If the rubbish heap is not regularly cleared away, he must not pick it up because the presumption is that it was deliberately placed there by its owner. However, if this rubbish heap is regularly cleared away, Shimon may keep the object, confident in the assumption that the owner realized the abandoned object would be lost when the heap was cleared away. Next week, part #2 of this series will focus on the following topics: objects found in a wall, money found in store or a bank, and fruit found alongside an orchard. The subject matter of this lesson is more fully discussed in
Volume VIII Chapter 260 of A Restatement of Rabbinic Civil Law by E. Quint.
Copies of all volumes can be purchased via email:
orders@gefenpublishing.com
and via website:
www.israelbooks.com and at local Judaica bookstores. [The Parshat B'shalach Homepage]
|
