4

Suppose Aaron leaves something in a public place, where people often leave such things without intending to forfeit them.[1] Baruch then puts a sign on the item indicating that it's forfeit and whoever wants to can take it. Gideon then consumes, damages, or simply takes the item.

What is the degree of responsibility of Baruch and of Gideon to restore the item, or its value, to Aaron?

(I can imagine that the answer may possibly depend on the credibility of the sign. I imagine it may also possibly depend on whether the item is intact. And it may possibly depend on other factors. I'd appreciate if any answer would indicate which such factors are relevant and how.)


[1] Possible examples are a car in a parking spot on the street and food in a workplace refrigerator. But perhaps those examples don't work well with the rest of my question, and you shouldn't restrict your attention to them.

  • 2
    Baruch = גרמא בניזקין = פטור בדיני אדם, וחייב בדיני שמים / Gideon = גנב בשוגג. Argument between קצות החשון, סי' רצא, ס"ק ד, who holds פטור, since he didn't intend to steal, and the Nesivos שם, ס"ק י, who holds that the act of stealing doesn't require intent to make a קנין. – IsraelReader Jun 6 at 23:25
  • @IsraelReader Answer? – DonielF Jun 7 at 0:46
  • Similar: judaism.stackexchange.com/q/101596 – DonielF Jun 7 at 0:49
  • To elaborate on IsraelReader - as B didn't do anything on the body of the item he's necessarily Potur. 2. All he affected was other's Daas, which is עצה רעה but no monetary damage. – Al Berko Jun 7 at 7:03
  • A similar case: B tells A the items is worth nothing and convinces him to throw it out. While A lost the item, B is Potur (unless עצה רעה). I don't think it counts as Gramah really, but less. – Al Berko Jun 7 at 7:05

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .