web analytics
April 28, 2015 / 9 Iyar, 5775
At a Glance
Judaism
Sponsored Post


Home » Judaism » Parsha »

Returning A Non-Jew’s Lost Item

Taste-of-Lomdus-logo

In this week’s parshah, Yosef is the ruler of Mitzrayim and his brothers come to purchase food from him, not realizing with whom they were dealing. On the return from their first trip to Mitzrayim, Yosef’s brothers realized that the money that they paid for their food was returned to them in their sacks of food. Immediately upon their return to Mitzrayim, they were sure that they would be reprimanded for not having paid for their purchased food.

So they confessed to Yosef, and explained to him that they had brought back the money intended for the first acquisition in addition to the money they intended to use to purchase more food. Yosef assured them that everything was okay and that their God and the God of their father must have gifted them by placing money in their sacks. Keep the money, he told them.

The Ohr HaChaim explains Yosef’s response. He says that Yosef was telling his brothers that some other person must have placed the money in their sacks, and that Hashem gave it to them by means of yiush ba’alim (the owner relinquishing his ownership). He was also saying to them that bnei Noach are not commanded to return a lost object that they find.

The Gemara in Sanhedrin 76b says that one is not allowed to return a lost item to a non-Jew. The Gemara speaks very harshly of one who does this. The Rambam (Hilchos Gezeilah 11:3) codifies this prohibition, but adds that it is praiseworthy to return the item if this will make a Kiddush Hashem. Perhaps Yosef’s brothers felt that returning the money would create a Kiddush Hashem, and therefore decided to return the money. Alternatively, they may have felt that if they did not return the money they would be penalized – and perhaps even killed.

Some have asked why the Ohr Hachaim felt it necessary to write that Yosef’s brothers could keep the money due to yiush ba’alim. Why would it not suffice to say that bnei Noach are not commanded to return a lost object that they find?

The Bach (Yoreh De’ah 266) explains that although one may keep a found lost item that belonged to a non-Jew, nonetheless the item still belongs to the non-Jew. The finder does not become the item’s new owner even though he is not obligated to return it. But if the non-Jew had relinquished his ownership before the item was found, the finder would be allowed to keep it.

This is in fact a machlokes. The Machaneh Efraim (Hilchos Gezeilah, siman 31) disagrees with the Bach, saying that one acquires a non-Jew’s lost item when he picks it up – even before he relinquishes ownership.

According to the Bach, perhaps the reason why the Ohr Hachaim says that Yosef told his brothers that the owner had relinquished ownership was because the brothers otherwise would have felt that the money was not theirs to keep. Even though they did not have to return the money, they would not have acquired it. Therefore Yosef assured them that the owner had already relinquished ownership.

If this is so, why did the Ohr Hachayim have to write that the bnei Noach are not commanded to return a found lost object? It would have sufficed to write that the owner has already relinquished ownership.

Perhaps the reason for this is because the Ramban, in Baba Metzia (Milchamos Hashem 26b), explains that when one finds a lost object he becomes a shomer over the object until it is returned to its owner. Whenever one is guarding an object for another we consider the object to be in the domain of the owner. When an object is in its owner’s domain he cannot relinquish ownership. Ownership can only be relinquished when an item is lost; when it is in his domain it is not considered lost and thus he cannot relinquish his ownership. Consequently, if one finds a lost object before the owner relinquishes his ownership, he must still return the object.

Yet since there is no obligation to return a lost object to a non-Jew, the one who finds it will not become a shomer for the non-Jew. Therefore, even if the non-Jew relinquishes his ownership after the object is found, the finder is permitted to keep the object. It is for this reason that the Ohr Hachaim added that bnei Noach are not commanded to return a lost object that they find. It is this fact that permits one to keep a non-Jew’s lost item, even if the non-Jew only relinquished his ownership after the item was found.

About the Author: For questions or comments, e-mail RabbiRFuchs@gmail.com.


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

2 Responses to “Returning A Non-Jew’s Lost Item”

  1. Yechiel Baum says:

    It should not be returned to a non-Jew since non-Jewish leaders have stolen Jewish property and stores them in their churches and mosques and temples so lets do an exchange or swap?

  2. Ed says:

    It is disappointing that the article omitted any reference to the meiri’s comment to Bava Kamma קיגb. There is no question that a Jew, who is light upon all nations, should do a kiddush Hashem and return the item.

Comments are closed.

Current Top Story
The Straits of Hormuz
Iran Seizes Cargo Ship Under US Protection in Strait of Hormuz
Latest Judaism Stories
“Thou shall not reap all the way to the edges of thy field.”

Putting parents before oneself is a step toward putting the more abstract concept of God before self

Torat-Hakehillah-logo-NEW

In her diary, Anne Frank wrote words that provided hope for a humanity faced with suffering.

Leff-042415

The Arizal taught this same approach, making the point that the Torah would never mention wicked people and their sins if there was not great depth involved from which we are to learn from.

Staum-042415

Humility is not achieved when all is well and life is peachy but rather when times are trying and challenging.

In order to be free of the negative consequences of violating a shvu’ah or a neder, the shvu’ah or neder themselves must be annulled.

“I accept the ruling,” said Mr. Broyer, “but would like to understand the reasoning.”

He feared the people would have a change of heart and support Rechavam.

Ramifications Of A Printers Error
‘The Note Holder’s Burden of Proof’
(Kesubos 83b)

Question: If Abraham was commanded to circumcise his descendants on the eighth day, why do Arabs – who claim to descend from Abraham through Yishmael – wait until their children are 13 to circumcise them? I am aware that this is a matter of little consequence to our people. Nevertheless, this inconsistency is one that piques my curiosity.

M. Goldman
(Via E-mail)

In this case one could reason that by applying halach achar harov we could permit the forbidden bird as well.

“What a way to spend a Sunday afternoon,” my husband remarked. “Well, baruch Hashem we are safe, there was no accident, and I’m sure there is a good reason for everything that happened to us,” I mused.

The answer to this question is based on one of the greatest shortcomings of man – self-limiting beliefs.

Myth that niddah=dirty stopped many women from accepting laws of family purity and must be shattered

In every generation is the challenge to purge the culture of our exile from our minds and our hearts

Rabbi Fohrman connects the metzora purification process with the korban pesach.

More Articles from Rabbi Raphael Fuchs
Taste-of-Lomdus-logo

In this case one could reason that by applying halach achar harov we could permit the forbidden bird as well.

Taste-of-Lomdus-logo

Why would it not be sufficient to simply state lehoros from which we derive that in such a state one may not issue any psak?

The Netziv answered that there is a difference between a piece of bread that was cut already in front of you, and one that was cut from beforehand.

Why is it necessary to invite people to eat from the korban Pesach?

The Ran asks why the Gemara concludes that since we are unsure which two of the four we must recline for, that we must recline for all four.

The Chasam Sofer answers that one of only prohibited from wearing a garment that contains shatnez if he does so while wearing the garment for pleasure purposes.

The Aruch Laner asks: How can Rashi say that the third Beis Hamikdash will descend as fire from heaven when every Jew prays several times a day for the rebuilding of the Beis Hamikdash?

The Ohr Hachayim rules that one may not manipulate the system; rather he must state his opinion as he see the ruling in the case; not as he would like the outcome of the verdict to become.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/judaism/parsha/returning-a-non-jews-lost-item/2013/11/27/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: