Question:

A. In this weeks Parsha, Yehuda gave Tamar his signet ring and staff as collateral, with the express condition that it be returned when he sends payment to her. Tamar brought the items home and kept them for herself in case she would need them to save her life, as she ultimately did. Considering that Yehuda only gave them to her for a short while and to be kept in a specific place, were her actions Halachically correct?

B. If a person is trying to save his friend’s possessions from flood or fire, etc., and in the process caused damage to his friends other possessions (e.g. he hosed down his home to put out a fire and in the process caused a great amount of water damage), does he have to pay for the damages that he has caused?

Answer:

1. A. What Tamar did was Halachically correct. A person may save her (or his) life by taking someone else’s items without permission, on condition that after the threat to her (or his) life has passed, the item must be returned, or paid for if it has been damaged or is no longer available. (1)

2. B. A person that hurriedly extinguishes a fire in his friend’s home, and in the process causes extensive water damage that was not necessary in order to extinguishing the fire, is exempt from paying for the damage that he caused. This is true whether the damage was caused to the property of the person in whom’s home the fire was, or to a neighbor. This is a Takanas Chachomim (Rabbinic Injunction) which was made because if a person would be held liable in such a case, people might hesitate before going to save their friend’s property from loss. (2)

Sources:

(1) The Gemara in Sanhedrin (74a) states that it is forbidden for a person to save himself from danger by causing damage to his friend’s property. However, Tosafos (Bava Kamma 60b D”H Mahu L’Hatzil) qualify this by saying that if he pays for the damage that he has caused to his friend afterwards, he may do so.

Therefore, since Tamar knew that if she would not have proof that she had become pregnant from Yehuda she would be killed, as we see that she was actually being taken out to be killed, and only by showing the collateral could she prove that her child was from him and save her life, she was permitted to keep Yehuda’s possessions. Although keeping a collateral in an unauthorized manner is considered theft (Shelichus Yad B’Pikodon), and Sho’el Shelo MiDaas (a borrower without permission – see the Shulchan Oruch in Choshen Mishpat 292:1), she was in a situation of danger and was permitted to do so, as long as she would eventually return it. At that time, she would have a right to claim the goat’s kid (Gdi Ha-Izim) that he had pledged to give to her.

(2) The source for this injunction is also in the above mentioned Gemara in Sanhedrin.

Feedback is appreciated! It can be sent to[email protected].

This week’s class is based on a column by Rabbi Tzvi Shpitz, who is an Av Bais Din and Rosh Kollel in the Ramot neighborhood of Jerusalem. His Column originally appears in Hebrew in Toda’ah, a weekly publication in Jerusalem. It has been translated and reprinted here with his permission and approval.

We hope you find this class informative and stimulating! If you do not see a subscription form to the left of the screen, access the Advanced Learning Network to subscribe to Business-Halacha.

For information on subscriptions, archives, and other Project Genesis classes, send mail to [email protected] for an automated reply. For subscription assistance, send mail to [email protected].

Please Note: The purpose of this column is to make people aware of Choshen Mishpat situations that can arise at any time, and the Halachic concepts that may be used to resolve them. Each individual situation must be resolved by an objective, competent Bais Din (or Rabbinic Arbitrator) in the presence of all parties involved!