A Grab Bag Of Halachos

However, Rav Elchanan questions this logic. What would the halachah be if a person’s property was already flooded? Would he be allowed to empty the water into the street when he knows that as a result his neighbor’s property will be flooded? The Talmud Yerushalmi says no. Here too, the sister already signed away her property to Rav Tovi, thereby besmirching Rav Achadvoi’s reputation. Rav Achadvoi would not be allowed to spare himself the shame he already received by shaming his brother.

Therefore, Rav Yaakov Emden concludes that in fact the Gemara simply means that Rav Achadvoi’s suggestion was that instead of giving all the property to Rav Tovi, her property should be split between the two. This way no one’s reputation will be harmed.

However, there is another issue to contend with, namely the halachah of “ani mehapech bacharara,” whose source is a passage in Kiddushin (59a). Rashi explains there that it refers to a poor man who found an ownerless loaf of bread and made some effort to acquire it. Another individual suddenly notices the bread and manages to snatch it first. The Gemara states that the second individual is called a rasha. The S’ma writes that we announce publicly in the synagogue that he committed an act of wickedness (although no further legal action can be taken against him).

Yaakov Gross, a former talmid of mine at Mesivta Kesser Yisrael of Willowbrook, hailed from Montreal. He was the proud owner of a Curtis MP3 player capable of playing the latest in Torah shiurim. One day he found himself the proud owner of two Curtis MP3 players because his friend had given him a newer model as a present. He told Avi Berkovitz, another fine talmid at our yeshiva, that he could have his old MP3 player as a gift. Another classmate heard the exchange and offered Yaakov a small sum of money for the old player. However, Yaakov kept his word; he refused the temptation of the money and he gave the MP3 player to Avi. He credits his exemplary behavior to the fine middos he learned from the yeshiva and his extended family.

Halachically speaking, Yaakov would not have been called a rasha if he reneged on his offer. It was his MP3 player and he had the right to do with it as he sees fit. The real question was regarding the other classmate’s actions: Did he have a right to offer money for the MP3 player after it had already been offered to another individual? My initial reaction was that it depends on the understanding of the Gemara in Kiddushin. According to Rashi’s explanation mentioned above, under all circumstances you should not become involved in getting an item where it was already headed to another individual. So the classmate’s actions would seem to be improper. However, Tosfos there disagree. They say that regarding an ownerless item, every individual has full rights to try to grab it first, even if someone else already exerted some effort to acquire it.

The Gemara’s halachah is limited to a situation where one person is looking for a job and is ready to sign a contract. Another individual comes and says, “Wait! Don’t sign the contract yet. See what I can do!” Potentially, that individual can be called a rasha (if he gets the job) for taking parnassah away from another Jew. However, when it comes to a unique opportunity like a hefker item, or a tremendous bargain, all are equal. For example, if a store is having an amazing sale on floor models, those bargain prices are not likely to be found anywhere else. A shopper may then, according to Tosfos, swoop in and buy an item from under the nose of a different shopper, because when it comes to bargains, it’s each man for himself! It would seem, according to Tosfos, that what the classmate did was proper, since the MP3 player was a tremendous bargain for the money being offered.

However, from our daf in Bava Basra, we can justify the classmate’s actions even according to Rashi. R’ Elchanan Wasserman asks, “Wasn’t Rav Achadvoi in violation of ‘ani mehapech bacharara’? Rav Tovi was slated to get all the property as a gift and Rav Achadvoi managed to convince the giver to retract. Granted, according to Tosfos, who hold that when it comes to a bargain or unique opportunity, ani mehapech does not apply, Rav Achadvoi’s actions are clearly justified. This deathbed gift certainly qualifies as a unique opportunity. But Rashi holds that ani mehapech applies even in those situations! So why was Rav Achadvoi permitted to convince his sister to retract?”

R’ Elchanan explains that ani mehapech only applies if the buyer or recipient exerted some effort to acquire the item. After an attempt was made to secure the item, it is inappropriate for an interloper to endeavor to acquire it. However, in our case Rav Tovi did not exert any effort at all. His sister just wrote him up in her deathbed will! So even according to Rashi, ani mehapech does not apply in this case.

Similarly, Avi Berkovitz did not exert any effort to convince Yaakov to give him the MP3 player as a gift. It was just a magnanimous offer by Yaakov. So even according to Rashi, anyone may make an attempt to obtain the MP3 player from Yaakov. Baruch Hashem, I had a class of talmidei chachamim who are aware of these finer points of halachah. ™