Lesson # 226 (part one) • Priority in Picking Up Lost Objects
The most likely scenario for the type of a situation described in this lesson would be where a river is sweeping away objects belonging to many people. Among them is an object belonging to Reuven, an object belonging to his father, and an object belonging to Reuven's teacher. Reuven is in a position to save only one object. The teacher spoken of here is his pre-eminent Torah teacher from whom he learned most of his knowledge of the Torah and to whom he owes his total allegiance and total respect. If only his father's object and his teacher's are involved, and Reuven can save only one object, whose object has priority?

The Torah states, "However, may there be no destitute among you" (D'varim 15:4). The Talmud explains this to mean that the material object of the person in a position to save it takes precedence over the objects of all others.

There are times when the finder has the option to save his own object or to save the object of another person other than his teacher or his father. His own takes priority. As is stated in many places in this work, a person should, and in certain circum- stances, must act beyond the requirements of the law - in halacha,this is known as acting lifnim mishurat hadin. Thus Reuven in many of the examples given below should save his neighbor's object rather than his own if it will not cause a monetary loss to Reuven. Otherwise, in most situations regarding lost objects, the finder will find enough reasons why he is too busy with his own livelihood to take the time to restore a found object.

The Talmud states, "Jerusalem was destroyed because they [the judges] based their judgments [strictly] on Torah law, and did not go beyond the requirements of the law."

Reuven loses his own object and finds it and at the same time he finds the lost object of another person. If he can restore both of them, he must do so. However, if he can restore only one of the lost objects, his own object takes precedence over any other person's objects, even over the lost objects of his father or his teacher.

Reuven can insist on saving his own object instead of Shimon's, even if Shimon, who is unable to save his own object, offers to pay to Reuven the value of Reuven's object to save Shimon's object. Reuven can insist that he wants his object rather than the money value of his object.

Lost objects of his father and his teacher
Reuven finds the lost object of his father and of his teacher and can only restore one of them. If his father is a scholar of stature equal to that of his teacher, he must restore the object of his father.

If not, he must restore the object of his teacher. Rabbi Yosef Karo writes in Shulhan Aruch Hoshen haMishpat 266,"lf a father tells him [the son] not to restore a lost object, he should not listen to him." However, the lost object of his teacher has priority only if his teacher was not paid for teaching him. But if he was paid by his father for teaching him, the father's lost object has priority. Similarly, if some other person other than Reuven's father paid the teacher, such other person's lost object and the father's lost object have priority over the teacher's object.

Two objects are being swept away by a river, Reuven's and Shimon's. Shimon can with great effort possibly save his own object. (If Shimon cannot save his own object it is deemed abandoned, and if Reuven saves Shimon's object it belongs to Reuven.) Reuven can save only one object; he saves Shimon's object and loses his own object. He is paid by Shimon only that which he would have been paid (in those instances where payment is permitted as shown in a later lesson) and is not compensated for the loss of his own object.

The example given in the Talmud and codes is as follows: The river is sweeping away Reuven's donkey worth $100 and Shimon's donkey worth $200. Reuven rescues Shimon's donkey and loses his own donkey to the river.

The foregoing holds true only if Shimon is present to see that his object is being swept away and Reuven did not stipulate with Shimon that he expects to get reimbursed for the value of Reuven's object that will be lost. Reuven under such circumstances could have stipulated with Shimon that he will rescue Shimon's objectif Shimon will pay to Reuven a certain compensation and also for the value of Reuven's object that is being swept away; Reuven states to Shimon that he will rescue Shimon's object, and charge him a certain compensation and also for the value of Reuven's object, and Shimon remains silent. If Shimon sees Reuven perform the rescue, Shimon's silence will be deemed a sign of assent to the statement of Reuven.

Reuven's failure to so stipulate evidences a waiving of any rights that Reuven may have to receive payment for his own lost object. However, if Shimon is not present to negotiate with Reuven, and Reuven saved Shimon's object, Shimon must pay to Reuven the value of Reuven's object together with the compensation, if Reuven would be entitled to and as shown in a future lesson.

Similarly, Reuven in front of three people (three men constitute a Beth Din) states that he will rescue Shimon's object in order to be compensated for the value of his own object that will be lost, and for compensation for recovering Shimon's object; Reuven will be so com- pensated. One opinion states that this last law holds true only if Shimon is not present, and another view holds that this holds true even if Shimon is present. Since Reuven could have so stipulated with Shimon, then why the necessity for the three men? It is answered that the stipulation that Reuven makes with Shimon is valid only if there are no other men present. In those situations when Shimon must pay Reuven for Reuven's lost object, he will still have to make the payment even if Reuven later recovers his own lost object. In those instances in which payment is permitted under the law, Reuven is not successful in rescuing Shimon's object, Shimon need pay to Reuven only that which any person would have been paid for an attempted rescue that did not succeed. If the stipulation between Reuven and Shimon is that Reuven will be paid whether or not he succeeds in rescuing Shimon's object, Shimon must pay Reuven even if Reuven is not successful in rescuing Shimon's object.

Conversely, if the stipulation is that Reuven will be paid only if he succeeded in rescuing Shimon's object, then Shimon does not have to pay Reuven if he is not successful. Beth din will have to determine the intent of the parties in each case. Also, Beth Din will have to determine if the rescue effort is successful, for example, if Reuven rescues the object and then it is swept away from the place where Reuven places it. If there is no stipulation between the parties, and the efforts by Reuven to save the object are not successful, Shimon need not pay Reuven anything, not even for the time and effort expended.

The subject matter of this lesson is more fully discussed in Volume VIII Chapter 261 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.
Questions to quint@inter.net.il

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