Lost in the Shuffle

Roy Pearson, who had been out of work for about three years, was appointed to be an administrative law judge. He had gained weight, and he realized he needed to have his suit pants let out. He brought in a pair of pants to be altered, and he planned on wearing them three days later. But a couple of days later, he was told that they weren’t ready. And the day after that, they were nowhere to be found.

Pearson claims that Soo Chung, the proprietor, promised to keep looking for them. But when he returned to the store a week later, Chung tried to give him what she said were the missing trousers. But Pearson said they were not the pants he had left to be altered. Not only was the pattern different, but the pants proffered as his also had, of all things, cuffs. Only once in his adult life, he said, had he worn cuffed pants, and never, he suggested, would he have so altered his treasured Hickey Freeman suit.

Pearson wrote to the Chungs, demanding $1,150 to buy a new suit. When the Chungs did not respond, Pearson swung into action, filing a $67 million lawsuit (the demand was later decreased to $54 million) that would eventually make him the talk of the town and provide fodder for comedians. The case was eventually dismissed. His appeals case likewise went nowhere. To make matters worse for Pearson, he was again unemployed. He sued the District of Columbia for wrongful termination after the district declined to reappoint him to his prior position as an administrative law judge. That case was dismissed as well.

Now, let’s suppose that the customer who was given the wrong pants did not sue the dry cleaners but instead took them home. May he use those pants, which he knows are not his? Further, if the true owner comes to him to claim his pants, may he withhold them until his own pants are found?

A similar case was brought to the author of Terumas HaDeshen. He ruled that someone may not use a garment which was mistakenly given to him by a launderer. Further, he certainly may not withhold the garment until his own garment is located. What right does he have to hold someone else’s garment for his own selfish reasons?

The Terumas HaDeshen bases his decision on a Gemara in Bava Basra. The Gemara says (46a) that if a utensil was accidentally switched at a house of mourning or a wedding, you may not use the remaining utensil without permission.

A similar situation is very common in inclement weather: A person comes to shul with a raincoat, only to discover on his departure that there is a similar coat to his own left on the rack. Facing the prospect of walking home in the rain, his judgment may be easily clouded. It is very clear from the Gemara that you may not use an item without the owner’s permission just because he took yours.

The Gemara offers no exception to this rule. However, modern poskim have noted some leniencies. If the coat left behind has the owner’s name in it (or is any way recognizable), and the individual who wishes to use the coat knows that the owner would surely let him use his coat and other similar items without explicit permission, then it is permitted to do so.

Further, the Pischei Choshen offers another leniency in a situation where enough time has elapsed that the person who took the wrong coat surely realized his mistake. In that case, it can be assumed that he would consciously permit the stranded shul-goer permission to use his coat. Indeed, he can rely on this assumed permission without actually hearing it.

Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt”l, advised that every shul should post a sign informing all that if someone takes the wrong coat, then they grant the other person permission to use their coat. This would solve the above dilemma.

What should a person do if he posted signs about the wrong coat he took, and the owner never came to claim it? Rav Asher Weiss, shlita, says that a person can simply write down the value and then keep it or sell it. If the owner comes at some point, he will have to provide restitution. This is true for any lost item where the owner is not particular that the original item be returned. The owner only cares about the value. Indeed, Rav Asher Weiss suggests that most lost items fit into this category. A rare sefer that cannot be replaced would be a notable exception. Tefillin may also be an exception. A particularly notable G-d fearing scribe may have written the parshiyos and the owner may not be able to procure an similar replacement. However, most commonly lost items such as toys and coats can easily be replaced.