If one paid someone with a check, and the recipient lost the check, does the giver have to write up a new check?

One can say its like cash and if he lost then its not my problem, or one can say if I didn't receive cash from the bank then he would have to write a new one.

  • related: judaism.stackexchange.com/q/6418
    – msh210
    Jun 23, 2014 at 4:15
  • 1
    related: judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/7649/… Jun 23, 2014 at 12:34
  • I can't open the torah.org link, and I saw the other Mi Yodeya posts that don't quite answer this question. So, my comment is based on my own deduction. A check is somewhat similar to a promisary note. It is not actual cash, as the check has no value or use until the bank pays out its value even after you deposit it. If the check writer has no money in his account, even if the bank credited your account, it will be debited, anyway, so essentially, the check was worth nothing. Similarly, the writer can stop payment on the check before you deposit it. In short, it is not cash.
    – DanF
    Jun 24, 2014 at 14:27
  • The specific parameters of your question ask about responsibility for your losing the check, not, necessarily what the check is "worth" in terms of cash. If I give you the check, I imply that will pay it, and I assume that you will deposit that check. I met my obligation - my side of the "promise". If you lost your side of the "contract", i.e., the check, am I responsible for that? It's a different question than what the title states.
    – DanF
    Jun 24, 2014 at 14:32

1 Answer 1


As stated on Torah.org (as translated) by Rabbi Aaron Tendler the conclusion is:

[I]f the seller approaches the buyer and requests a new check because he had lost the previous check, the buyer has no obligation to provide the seller with a new check.


It would be proper, however, for the buyer to go Lifnim MiShuras HaDin (beyond the letter of the Halacha) and issue a new check if he is given guarantees that he will incur no loss by doing so.

Basically the idea is that since there is some possibility of loss to the check writer by writing a second check, the check writer isn't obligated to take that risk.

Given the analysis there, it relies on some assumptions about check writing and liability that seem tenuous at best given the way that banking has changed in the last 5/10 years. It can't be that the slightest and most remote chance of double cashing is a problem - there has to be some substance to the concern. Given the legal changes (in the United States anyway) the conclusion there may, or may not, hold.

  • Sorry I downvoted your answer. It's the only answer here and it's very one sided. For an average reader it is important to preface the answer with "there's one opinion" and then "... however there are many others".
    – Al Berko
    Oct 19, 2019 at 19:11

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .