Although this article may seem futuristic, we pray daily for the return of the service of the Beis Hamikdash...

•  •  •

Two weeks before Purim, flyers were posted on billboards: “Bring your machatzis hashekel for purchase of korbanos.” The flyer listed the exact amount that each person was required to donate, as well as the local collection point.

The day after Purim, the collection points opened to receive the machatzis hashekel. People lined up excitedly to donate their coins. Many inquired about the availability of a machatzis hashekel app to pay by credit card. (What’s the answer? Be”H, we’ll find out…) As Nisan approached, the coins were exchanged for large bills. The townspeople hired a messenger to bring the machatzis hashekel money to the Beis Hamikdash. He put it carefully into a special pouch.

Along the way, the messenger was accosted at gunpoint. Unfortunately, the money was stolen. The messenger reported to the Beis Hamikdash treasurer that the machatzis hashekel money he was bringing was stolen by armed robbers. He also informed the townspeople of the incident.

A tumult arose in the town. “What about our machatzis hashekel?” the people clamored. “We also want to have a share in the korbanos!”

“Have no fear,” Rabbi Dayan calmed them. “When the Beis Hamikdash treasurer takes the money out of the drop-off room on Rosh Chodesh Nisan — this is called terumas halishkah — he does so also on behalf of those who sent their machatzis hashekel but it hadn’t arrived yet or was lost on the way, and those who still intend to send” (B.M. 58a).

Nonetheless, the question arose of what to do about the donation. “Do we have to donate again?” some people asked. “Is it fair that we should have to pay twice?”

“Why should the Beis Hamikdash treasury lose out?” argued others.

“Maybe the messenger should have to pay?” suggested someone. “He was entrusted with the money. Maybe he made up a story that he was robbed and pocketed the money!”

The townspeople turned to Rabbi Dayan. “What happens now?” they asked. “Do we have to donate again?

“The Mishnah (Shekalim 2:1) addresses this case, and the ruling depends on when the money was stolen or lost,” answered Rabbi Dayan. “Once the Beis Hamikdash treasurer did the terumas halishkah on Rosh Chodesh Nisan, machatzis hashekel money that was on its way comes under the responsibility of the Beis Hamikdash. Thus, if it was stolen afterward, the people do not have to donate again and the messenger must swear to the treasurer. However, if the terumas halishkah was not yet done when the money was stolen, it remains under the responsibility of the townspeople. Thus, they have to donate again and the messenger must swear to them.”

“I thought, though, that there is neither liability of guardianship nor requirement of oath for hekdesh, money dedicated to the Beis Hamikdash?” someone asked.

“That is correct, mid’Oraisa, according to Torah law,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “However, the Sages instituted that one should not be exempt from hekdesh money without an oath. Thus, the messenger has to swear that he did not use the money and he is not holding it, but rather was robbed at gunpoint” (B.M. 56a; C.M. 95:1, 301:1).

“Does it make a difference whether the messenger was hired or appointed without pay?” someone asked.

“According to Rashi, there is no difference in regard to the liability of the townspeople,” answered Rabbi Dayan. “However, the Rambam maintains that the townspeople are always liable to donate again if they sent the money with a shomer chinam, since they were not careful with the money. The distinction of the Mishnah —whether the loss occurred before or after terumas halishkah — is only when they sent the money with a paid messenger, when they did their best.” (See Hil. Shekalim 3:8-9; Mishpetei Uziel 4:misc. #7; Aruch Hashulchan He’asid, Hil. Shekalim 86:6-8).

A group rented a two-hour slot at the local matzah bakery. We contacted Moshe, an expert at inserting and removing matzos from the oven, and for a fee he agreed to join us. He came an hour late, so we only used the second hour of our slot. The owner insists on payment for two hours.

Q: Are we obligated to pay for both hours? If so, is Moshe obligated to reimburse us for the loss he caused by his lateness?

A: This week we will focus on the question of whether you must pay the bakery for the two-hour slot when you only used one hour. There are several types of agreements you may have made with the owner.

1. The agreement may have been made orally and never confirmed with a kinyan. Not paying for the unused hour in such a circumstance does not constitute a material loss; it is a loss of rental income. Such a loss is categorized as grama (indirect loss), even if the owner had other groups that would have rented the factory during that time. The loss he suffers is potential income rather than out of pocket, and one who causes such a “loss” is not obligated to pay the “damaged” party (C.M. 363:6). (For nuances that are beyond the scope of our brief discussion, see Shaar Mishpat 312:2; Erech Shai 312:14; Nachalas Tzvi 292:7; and Mishpat Shalom 176:4).

2. You may have given the owner a deposit. Poskim debate whether a deposit is considered a kinyan that confirms the agreement, or is given simply as a nonrefundable deposit to secure the time slot (Pischei Teshuvah 207:13 and Minchas Pitim 190:10). The matter is subject to how people understand the intent of the deposit.

3. Even if the deposit constitutes a kinyan, the group may not be obligated to pay for the unused hour since it was caused by circumstances beyond their control — oness [whether this is oness is obviously debatable]. If one hired a worker for the day to water his field and at midday the river dries up, the employee is not paid for the second half of the day except when the employer knew that the river dries up and the employee was unaware of that fact (Bava Metzia 77a).

There is a disagreement whether the same guidelines apply when leasing real property. For example, if a tenant dies, are his heirs obligated to pay for the remainder of his lease? Some authorities see the landlord as a “worker” who suffers the loss when due to circumstances beyond anyone’s control he will not be able to complete the term of his employment. Others see the lease of land as a sale for the duration of the lease, and as such the terms of the sale must be completed even though circumstances changed and the lease is no longer necessary (C.M. 334:1).

In your case, if you did not pay up front, it is possible that you are not obligated to pay for the unused hour. If you paid up front, the owner is not obligated to refund the unused portion — due to the opinion that maintains that the lease of land is a sale and since paying up front indicates an understanding that you will not receive a refund even if circumstances dramatically change (see Shach, C.M. 334:2 and Erech Shai).

Next week, iy”H, we will address the question of whether Moshe is obligated to pay if the group suffered a loss.

Baking Matzos Part II

Q: I live in a remote place where there is no beis din. May I adjudicate in civil court?

A: The Rema (C.M. 8:1) writes that where there are no Rabbis qualified to adjudicate, the community should appoint the most qualified people among them to rule, so that people should not turn to civil court. Aruch Hashulchan (C.M. 22:8) writes that this is not practiced nowadays, most likely because of the lack of communal authority.

Where there is no beis din reasonably available, arbitration is preferable, but it is permissible to turn to civil court to uphold justice. Presumably, the Torah does not prohibit turning to civil court when there is no beis din before whom to adjudicate; this is not viewed as a rejection of Torah law (Orach Mishpat, Rav Chazan, B.Y. 26:5). Given the ease of travel nowadays, though, this halachah has limited applicability.