The day was getting longer and the weather warmer. A group of boys got together in the park after school to play ball. They piled their knapsacks together in the corner of the court.

After a few games, the sky grew dark. “It looks like it’s about to pour,” Aharon said.

The boys gathered their belongings and headed home. Aharon was the last to leave. He noticed a book lying where the knapsacks had been piled, but ignored it and hurried off. Ten minutes later, the skies opened and it began to rain heavily.

The following day, Aharon saw that his friend Shimmy looked upset. “What’s the matter?” Aharon asked.

“A book fell out of my knapsack yesterday in the park,” Shimmy replied. “I went back to check this morning, but the book got completely ruined in the rain.”

“I saw a book lying there yesterday,” Aharon said. “I was worried about the rain.”

“You saw it?!” exclaimed Shimmy. “Why didn’t you take it with you?”

“I didn’t realize it was yours…” Aharon answered.

“You still should have taken the book,” said Shimmy. “Whoever it belonged to, you could have saved it.”

“You’re right,” acknowledged Aharon. “I wasn’t thinking and didn’t want to be bothered.”

“It was an expensive book and cost almost $100,” added Shimmy. “I need it for class and will have to buy a new one. It’s a shame that you didn’t take the book; you knew that it belonged to one of the group. Anyway, there’s a mitzvah of hashavas aveidah.”

Although Shimmy didn’t ask, Aharon wondered whether he owed Shimmy anything. He called Rabbi Dayan and asked: “Does a person who ignored a lost item or neglected to prevent a loss carry any liability?”

“Preventing loss is also included in the mitzvah of hashavas aveidah,” answered Rabbi Dayan. “Nonetheless, one who neglected doing so is not liable, but there might be a moral obligation.”

“One example discussed in the Poskim is a person who was entrusted with chametz before Pesach,” explained Rabbi Dayan. “The Shulchan Aruch writes that when Pesach arrives, the guardian should sell the chametz to a non-Jew. If he did not, he must burn it when the time for biur chametz arrives, and cannot assume that the owner sold it. [The halachah might differ nowadays when the vast majority of people sell chametz.] Magen Avraham (443:5) writes that if the guardian neglected to sell the chametz and had to burn it, he is liable, because even an unpaid guardian is expected to take basic measures to protect the entrusted item.

“However, most authorities disagree and maintain that even a paid guardian is not liable for the loss of the chametz,” continued Rabbi Dayan. “The guardian was entrusted to safeguard the chametz for the owner, not to sell it. The obligation to sell the chametz and prevent its loss is rooted in hashavas aveidah. One who sees a lost item and neglects to return it is not liable, unless he picked it up and thereby became responsible for it. (Gra, C.M. 348:23; Ketzos 61:21; Mishnah Berurah 443:12).

“Is there any moral obligation?” asked Aharon.

“Payment lifnim mishuras hadin (beyond the letter of the law) is mentioned regarding a highly respected person who finds a lost item that is beneath his dignity to retrieve,” answered Rabbi Dayan. “He is not obligated to tend to it, but one of the Amora’im compensated the owner lifnim mishuras hadin. However, he may have paid to relieve himself of any responsibility whatsoever to retrieve the item. It remains unclear, though, whether one who neglected to tend to a lost item as required and it got ruined has a moral obligation afterward; the Ketzos and other Acharonim indicate that there would be some moral obligation” (see Rama, C.M. 2663:3; Pischei Choshen, Aveidah 1:3[8]; Pischei Teshuvah, C.M. 28:4).

Due to health considerations I cannot make it to the Rav to sell my chametz.

Q: Is it acceptable to arrange for the sale of my chametz by phone or is it necessary to appear personally to execute the kinyan?

A: First, it is imperative to note that the Rav does not purchase anyone’s chametz (even though there was such a practice). Nowadays, the Rav is empowered to act as an agent to sell others’ chametz. A kinyan or even witnesses are not necessary to appoint an agent. Merely indicating that one wishes for someone to act as his agent is sufficient (C.M. 182:1). [Even if the principal erroneously thinks that he is selling his chametz to the Rav, one may assume that the sale performed by the Rav on his behalf is valid. This is based on the principle of zachin l’adam shelo b’fanav — one may act for the benefit of another, even without his consent (Be’er Yitzchak 1; Sdei Chemed, Chametz U’matzah 9:2). This is especially true in our case where the person indicated his intent to sell his chametz (see Magen Avraham 436:11).] Consequently, it is acceptable to empower a Rav as one’s agent by phone. Once appointed, the Rav will perform all of the proprietary acts on behalf of the principal. However, as we will explain, there are a number of reasons why one should make an effort to sign a power of attorney to formally appoint a Rav as his agent.

1. One advantage to signing a power of attorney is that it demonstrates the intent (gemiras daas) of the principal. This is also the reason why a kinyan is made, and there are many instances when a kinyan is made in order to be certain that the party has full intent and knows that what is happening has halachic basis (Rambam, Mechirah 5:13). This is especially true regarding the sale of chametz, which, according to many opinions, involves subterfuge: haaramah (Maharsham 2:223 based on Ritva, Kesubos 56a).

2. Formally giving the Rav power of attorney also demonstrates to the gentile who is purchasing the chametz that the participants take the transaction seriously, and also gives it greater validity from a legal secular perspective.

3. Many details related to the sale are spelled out in the power-of-attorney document, which would otherwise not be mentioned or discussed. For example, people discuss “selling their chametz” but do not also include in their related conversations the fact that it is necessary to lease the place where the chametz is located, which is an essential prerequisite for the sale for several reasons (Divrei Malkiel 4:22[11]).

4. One of the means by which ownership of the chametz is conveyed is with a contract. There are authorities who maintain that an agent may not sign this contract on behalf of the principal since the kinyan is not evident in the wording of the contract (Mekor Chaim 448:9; Rav Akiva Eiger, C.M. 191:1). When the Rav includes the signed power-of-attorney document together with the contract, there are authorities who maintain that this is effective to make a valid kinyan with a contract (Reishis Bikkurim 5; see also Davar Lamishpat 3).

5. One of the kinyanim utilized to sell chametz is called odaysa (acquisition by admission) in which the seller admits that the chametz belongs to the gentile. According to some, this is the most effective kinyan used to sell chametz (Ketzos 194:3). However, in order for this kinyan to be effective, the buyer must have written proof (i.e., an admission) or witness testimony that there was an admission, and this would be lacking without a signed power of attorney (Mishkan Shalom 42).

For these reasons one should make an effort to sign a power of attorney, but in a difficult circumstance, it is sufficient to appoint the Rav as his agent by telephone (see Chut Shoni Ribbis, p. 217).

Q:  I share a hallway with my neighbor in a two-family house. He likes to leave his bike in the hallway, and now wants to install a bike stand. Can I prevent him?

A: Partners are required to use the joint property according to the common custom. Thus they are allowed to leave in the hallway items that partners typically do. Other items cannot be left there unless the other partner gives permission or it is something that he is not particular about (C.M. 161:5; Shach, Y.D. 226:8).

If both partners want to use the area simultaneously and there is not sufficient room for both, such as a one-car driveway, they should take turns. Even if one partner used the area exclusively in the past, the other partner cannot demand to use it now for an equivalent time, but they should divide evenly from now on. If they cannot agree who should use it first, they should draw a lottery (C.M. and Rema 171:8).

Permanent fixtures may not be installed without permission of the other partner (Sma 140:22).