Mr. Eric Roth lived in Israel.

“I’m flying to America next week,” he told his neighbor, Shraga. “My niece is getting married!”

“Mazal Tov!” said Shraga.

“Do you want anything while I’m there?” Eric offered.

“I need a new zoom lens for my Nikon camera,” said Shraga. “It’s hard to get that part here.”

“I’ll try,” said Eric. “How much does it cost?”

“Between $150 and $200,” said Shraga. “I’ll give you money.”

That evening, he brought $200 cash to Mr. Roth.

“Do you want me to keep the money separate?” asked Eric. “I may prefer to use my credit card for the purchase and save the cash for other expenditures.”

“Either way is fine,” said Shraga. “You can use the money if you want.”

Mr. Roth put the money in his wallet. He wrote down the specifications of the lens that Shraga wanted.

When Mr. Roth landed, he took a taxi to his sister’s house.

“The ride will cost $40,” said the taxi driver.

“That’s fine,” Mr. Roth said. He opened his wallet and pulled out two of the $20 bills that he had received from Shraga.

The following day, Mr. Roth went shopping for the lens.

As he turned off the main avenue and walked onto a side street, two men accosted him. One of them pulled a knife. “Gimme your money!” he ordered.

Eric took out his wallet, shaking. The men grabbed the cash and ran off.

Eric flagged down the next police car and reported the mugging.

“There’s not much we can do other than taking a description of the men and fingerprints from the wallet,” said the policeman. “If we should later catch the muggers, we can possibly charge them for this also.”

Mr. Roth was dazed by the experience and decided to cut his day short. As he headed back to his sister’s house, he wondered, “What do I about the $200 that Shraga gave me? Do I have to buy the lens with my own money?”

That evening, Eric saw Rabbi Tzedek in shul. He related the whole story and asked, “Am I responsible for the money that was stolen from me in the mugging?”

Rabbi Tzedek replied, “Since you requested permission to use the money for your own purposes and even used some of it for the taxi, you are responsible for the entire $200.”

Rabbi Tzedek then explained. “An armed mugging is considered an oness, uncontrollable circumstance, for which only a borrower is responsible, not a shomer chinam (unpaid watchman) or shomer sachar (paid watchman) (303:3). However, if a person is entrusted with money that he is allowed to use and uses it, he is considered a borrower and is fully responsible, even if lost through oness (292:7).”

“I used only $40 of the money,” argued Roth. “Why should I be responsible for the full amount?”

“A number of authorities write that by using even a small part of the money, you are considered a borrower of the entire entrusted amount,” replied Rabbi Tzedek. “The reason is that by spending some of it, you indicate readiness to use the money as your own (Nesivos 292:10; Pischei Choshen, Pikadon 5:17[63]).”

“What if I hadn’t used the money for the taxi?” asked Roth.

“That’s a complex issue,” answered Rabbi Tzedek. “When a person is entrusted with money in an open manner that implicitly indicates permission to use it, he is considered a shomer sachar because of the privilege of using the money, even if he did not use it. He is then responsible for regular theft, but not for armed mugging. If the person already had the status of a shomer sachar, it is questionable whether he now becomes a borrower on account of the privilege to use the money (292:7; 267:25; P.C., Pikadon 1:[14]).

“However, if someone entrusted money and then gave explicit permission to use it,” continued Rabbi Tzedek, “the Shach (72:31) writes that the guardian, whether a shomer chinam or shomer sachar, becomes fully responsible for the money as a borrower, even for circumstances beyond control. Other authorities disagree, but the Tumim (72:19) concludes that the dispute is only when the owner granted permission on his own. If the guardian initiated the request for permission, though, he is certainly liable. Here, you asked for permission to use the money; this is an additional reason to hold you liable (P.C., Pikadon 5:18).”

Mr. Roth thanked Rabbi Tzedek. The following day, he bought the lens with his credit card.

Reuven was in need of a loan. The local Gemach (free-loan fund) requires two guarantors, referred to in the loan document as arev kablan. Levi and I agreed to guarantee the loan for him.

When the loan came due, Reuven was unable to repay it. The administrator of the Gemach called me, and I told him that I am willing to pay half the loan. I see no reason that I should be liable to pay the entire amount, since there is a second guarantor, Levi. The administrator insists that I repay the entire amount.

Q: Am I obligated to repay the entire loan?

A: There are two different categories of guarantors in halacha: arev and arev kablan. A standard arev is not obligated to repay the loan until the lender has exhausted all possible efforts to collect the loan from the borrower. If the lender did all that he could and the borrower still did not repay, the lender may then demand payment from the guarantor. An arev kablan accepts a higher degree of responsibility for a loan. The lender may approach him to collect payment even without approaching the borrower first. For all intents and purposes, the arev kablan is considered the borrower.

In your case, since you signed as an arev kablan, the Gemach has the right to ask you to repay the loan even without first approaching Reuven. But there is another matter that must be addressed, an issue that applies even in a case of a regular arev where the lender failed to collect from the borrower: how do multiple areivim share the burden of repaying a loan? May the lender collect the entire amount from one guarantor, or do all of the guarantors share the burden of repaying the loan equally?

This topic is the subject of debate amongst halachic authorities (C.M. 132:3). In the opinion of some authorities, each guarantor is wholly responsible for the loan; the lender can choose to demand payment from any one of them. The essential definition of an arev is that he accepts responsibility for the loan, and if two people serve as areivem, they each become responsible for the full amount of money (also see Sema 77:3). Others disagree and maintain that the lender may not collect from one guarantor when both are capable of repaying the loan. Since both guarantors knew that they were jointly guaranteeing the loan, it is assumed that each one accepted responsibility for only half the amount as long as the each is capable of repaying his half (see Shach 132:4, who seems to agree with this opinion. See also Ketzos 77:3).

Since the matter is subject to debate, the Gemach administrator cannot demand payment of the full amount from either guarantor, whether they are regular areivim or areveim kablanim. In the event that a Gemach wants to reserve the right to collect the full amount of the loan from any guarantor, it should be clearly written in the arev agreement that the Gemach has the right to collect jointly or severally from either guarantor (C.M. 132:3).

Q: What are the basic rules of entrusted items?

A: There are four types of shomrim (guardians) for entrusted items: shomer chinam, shomer sachar, socher, and shoel (B.M. 93a).

A shomer chinam is a guardian who does not receive any payment or benefit for his service. He is responsible only for negligence (p’shia), but not for theft or natural loss (C.M. 291:1).

A shomer sachar is a guardian who receives payment or benefit for his service. He is responsible for negligence, theft and natural loss (geneivah va’aveidah), but not for uncontrollable circumstances (303:2-3).

A socher is a guardian who rents an item. He is as responsible for the item as a shomer sachar, i.e. for negligence, theft and natural loss, but not for uncontrollable circumstances (307:1).