By Rabbi Yair Hoffman for 5tjt.com
It happened in Massachusetts in a store called �Lucky Spot.�
A woman, Lea Rose Fiega, had tried to throw out a lottery ticket worth $1 million but had thought that it was a loser.� She did not fully scratch off the ticket.
�I was in a hurry, on lunch break, and just scratched it real quick, and looked at it, and it didn�t look like a winner, so I handed it over to them to throw away,� Fiega said Monday.
The ticket sat in the store for 10 days until Abhi Shah, son of the store owners, noticed the not fully scratched off ticket.
�I scratched the number and it was one million dollars underneath,� Shah told a local TV station (WWLP).
WHAT IS THE HALACHA?
The family knew that the ticket belonged to Fiega, but wasn�t sure what to do.� Ultimately, they decided to give it back to her.� Our question, however, is what is the halacha in such a case?� [This is, of course, assuming that all involved were followers of halacha.]
THE SHORT ANSWER
The short answer is that it is complicated and seems to involve a debate between the Ktzos and the Nesivus.� Who knew that the million dollar lotto case would involve such a classical halachic debate?
THE LONG ANSWER
There is a fascinating debate between the Tur and the Rambam (CM 261:4) in regard to someone who throws his wallet in the public thoroughfare.� Is it hefker � ownerless, like the Tur and the Ramah hold? Or is it considered a lost object, the position of the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch, it is just that there is no obligation to return it, because the owner willingly threw it.� The latter authorities hold that the finder may not take it because it is not considered Hefker � ownerless.
THE KRISUS GEMORAH
There is another relevant Gemorah in Krisus 24a, where there is a debate between Rav Yochanan and Raish Lakish regarding an ox that was killed and the owner relinquished ownership.� Afterward, the witnesses testifying about the ox were found to be aidim zomemim � they were seen elsewhere � not at the place where they had given testimony that they were there.� Was the relinquishing of ownership valid?� Rav Yochanan rules that it nonetheless is considered relinquishes. �Raish Lakish rules that it is an erroneous yei�ush and invalid.
Most of the Poskim who deal with the Gemorah in Krisus distinguish between a lack of existent knowledge and something that developed afterward, such as that the aidim became invalid afterward (See Pischei Teshuvah CM 241:3).� These Poskim hold that if the yei�ush was on account of an error � it is not considered yei�ush.
The Gemorah in Bava Metziah 66b deals with the issue of mechila in error, initially wanting to conclude that it is still considered mechila. And there is a debate as to how to understand Rashi�s position in that Gemorah.� The debate is between the Rosh and the HaGaos Ashri.
THE KTZOS VERSUS THE NESIVUS
Rav Aryeh Leib HaCohen Heller (1745�1812), author of the Ketzos HaChoshen, in CM 142:1, understands the Hagaos Ashri as holding at the end that a Yei�ush that was based upon an error is still considered Yei�ush.� There are two elements involved in a transfer � the thoughts of the �giver away� and the thoughts of �the receiving party.�� Granted that the �giver away� person�s thoughts may not be effective, but the thoughts of the �receiving party� do work � according to the Ktzos.
Rav Yaakov ben Yaakov Moshe Lorberbaum of Lissa (1760-1832), author of the Nesivus HaMishpat, writes (CM 142:3), following the Rosh, on the other hand, would hold that it would not be effective and that there was always an obligation to return the item.� He holds that an erroneous renouncement of ownership is not considered a renouncement.� He rules with the Rosh�s understanding of Rashi.
HOW DO WE PASKIN?
The Shach (CM 209:5) seems to hold with the Nesivus�s understanding, as does the Vilna Gaon (in CM 66:78).
KIM LI K�HANI POSKIM
There is a concept in halacha (See EH Bais Shmuel 159:56) that the person who is muchzak, or holding onto the item can say, �I hold like the position of Posaik X � even if Posaik X is a minority opinion � as long as it does not go against the Shulchan Aruch or established halacha.� This is called, �Kim Li.�� The question is, does the position of the Shach, Vilna Gaon and Nesivus, set aside that of the Ktzos to the point where Mr. Shah [were he a halacha following individual] would be unable to use Kim Li?
I posed this question to Rav Herschel Ausch Shlita, formerly the Av Beis Din of Dayan Roth zt�l.� He ruled that in such a case, one cannot say Kim Li against these three Gedolei HaPoskim � notwithstanding that the Posaik one is holding with is the Ktzos.
A STUDENT�S QUESTION
A student of mine, Nechama Kolodny, posed the following question:� Let�s say the store owner wants to give the money entirely to Tzedakah?� Would the use of Kim Li, if it were applicable, be justified and warranted then?�� Rav Ausch explained that Kim Li means that it is entirely yours from the perspective of halacha.� It would therefore be fully counted as Tzedakah and a Mitzvah to do.
BACK TO OUR BODEGA
If, however, the ticket was already thrown out and not found in a pile in the bodega � and it was lost to him and to all people, the halacha would be that the son of the owners could have kept the ticket.� It is just that it would be lifnim m�shuras hadin, beyond the letter of the law � but the right thing to do – to give it back to her.
===PLEASE HELP!� THERE IS A FAMILY IN NEED OF ASSISTANCE WITH A CHILD IN DIRE NEED. Insurance will not cover it.===
https://thechesedfund.com/zechornilah/adifficultsituation
The author can be reached at [email protected]
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
One Response
The person who threw away the lottery ticket did not know it held money, so it’s like giving away a coat and not knowing that there is a ring in the pocket, or like the recent stories with the desk and the couch. The money found was returned to the owner.