From RabbiKaganoff.com
It had already been a really tough day. Now, on top of that, Mrs. Gartenhaus (all names in this story have been changed) was very unhappy with the cab driver she had hailed. Aside from his discourteous behavior, she sensed a certain shadiness to his personality. She just couldn’t wait to get home and get out of his vehicle.
To complicate everything, on her way home Mrs. Gartenhaus realized that she had no more money in her wallet — and she also realized that Mr. Gartenhaus would not be home from his
chavrusa for a while. She really did not want to disturb his learning just because she had forgotten to bring enough money for the cab home. But what was she to do?
She wondered whether one of the neighbors might be home, and whether she could remember their phone numbers. Sure enough, Mrs. Horowitz’s phone number popped into her head — if only she were home. Mrs. G. dialed the number on her cell phone, and
Baruch Hashem, Mrs. Horowitz answered! Mrs. G. quickly explained her predicament, and Mrs. Horowitz answered, “No problem. I have a 100
shekel bill in my wallet. That will be more than enough for your fare.”
Mrs. G. breathed an audible sigh of relief. “The fare should actually not be more than 40
shekalim, so I don’t need to borrow that much,” she told Mrs. Horowitz.
“I happened to check my wallet this morning and noticed that I have only one single 100
shekel bill,” Mrs. H. replied. “But feel free to borrow it. I have to go to the bank later today, anyway, to withdraw some money. I’ll send my daughter Channie outside to meet your cab.”
Mrs. Horowitz asked 13-year-old Channie to fetch the bill from her wallet and meet Mrs. Gartenhaus’s cab. Mrs. G., who was very relieved to escape the sleazy driver’s vehicle, paid little attention to the bill that she transferred from Channie’s hand to the cabby’s outstretched paw. Before receiving her change, she gratefully began to exit the cab.
“One minute,” the driver shouted gruffly, brandishing a 20
shekel bill in his hand, “You owe me another 20
shekalim!”
Mrs. Gartenhaus was at a loss. She assumed that Channie had given her the 100
shekel note her mother promised, but maybe there was some mistake. In the meantime, Channie had returned home, the driver was hissing, and Mrs. G. just wanted to get home and climb into bed.
Noticing one of her neighbors on the curb, she embarrassingly called out the window, “Do you, perhaps, have 20
shekels I can borrow?” Having successfully borrowed the additional 20
shekels, she paid the cabbie, and struggled into her house. Meanwhile, she was trying to figure out what went wrong in her communication with her wonderful neighbor, Mrs. Horowitz. And, only later, did she realize that she should have taken down the cabby’s license number and the name of his company.
After resting a while, she called Mrs. Horowitz to ask her if she could send one of her children over in order to repay her loan. “By the way, how much money did you send with Channie?” She inquired.
“I sent 100
shekel,” came the swift reply. “Why? Was there some problem?”
Mrs. G. told Mrs. Horowitz what had happened. “I’ll check with Channie, but I am pretty certain that I had only one 100
shekel bill in my wallet.”
Channie confirmed that she had found only one 100
shekel bill in the wallet.
How much must Mrs. Gartenhaus pay back to Mrs. Horowitz?
Does Channie have any legal responsibilities in this case?
Mrs. Horowitz called Rav Cohen to ask how much Mrs. Gartenhaus owes her. Although it might seem like an open-and-shut case, the
halacha is anything but obvious, as we will see.
Rav Cohen mulled over the case, thinking over the complicated
halachic topics this event encompasses. Clearly, both women want to do what is correct. Is it clear that Mrs. Gartenhaus owes 100
shekalim?
Legally, in this case, the claimant, usually called the plaintiff, is Mrs. Horowitz. She is placing a claim that Mrs. Gartenhaus borrowed 100
shekalim that Channie delivered. Mrs. Gartenhaus’ response is that she does not know how much money she borrowed. It might seem that Mrs. G. has a very weak defense: After all, Mrs. Horowitz is making a definite claim that Mrs. Gartenhaus owes her 100
shekalim, while Mrs. Gartenhaus’ only response is that she did not pay attention.
Halachically, Mrs. Horowitz’s position is called a
bari, a person with a definite claim. Mrs. Gartenhaus’ response that she is unaware how much she owes makes her a
shema, a defendant stating that she is uncertain. This case is the subject of a
Talmudic dispute. Here is one case where this question is discussed:
Reuven borrowed a cow from Shimon and also rented a different cow. One of the cows died in a way that would make Reuven liable if he had borrowed it, but he would not have to pay if it was rented. Unfortunately, Reuven does not remember which cow was borrowed and which was rented, but Shimon is certain that the dead cow is the one that was borrowed and that Reuven is obligated to pay. Must Reuven compensate Shimon for the dead cow?
The
halacha is that
bari ve’shema lav bari adif, the certain claim of the
bari is insufficient on its own to win the case. This rule is true even in a case where the
shema should have known for certain whether the claim against him is valid, as in the situation of the dead cow (
Bava Metzia 97b).
Therefore, Reuven does not have to pay for the dead cow.
Applying the principal to our case, it could be that Mrs. Horowitz would have to prove that she loaned 100
shekalim in order to require Mrs. Gartenhaus to pay the full amount. But this is true only when the claim is challenged.
Ah, but you’ll tell me, Mrs. Horowitz has a witness on her side which Shimon did not have. Channie can testify that the loan was indeed 100
shekalim!
By now, the yeshiva minds among us are racing with valid reasons why Channie’s testimony is insufficient to prove her mother’s case. Firstly, a single witness is not enough. Secondly, Channie is related to one of the interested parties. Furthermore, Channie herself is an interested party, nogei’ah be’eidus
, in the litigation. If she denies that she received a 100
shekel bill from her mother, she exposes herself to a lawsuit from her mother claiming that she received money as an agent for which she cannot account. Although the likelihood of Mrs. Horowitz suing her own daughter for 100
shekalim is slim, it is still sufficient reason for Channie to be considered a
nogei’ah be’eidus, making her testimony inadmissible
.
Mrs. Horowitz has not yet exhausted her legal approaches. She may still stake a claim against Mrs. Gartenhaus, based on either of the following reasons:
1.
Modeh bemiktzas. Mrs. Gartenhaus agrees that she borrowed money, but is challenging the amount of the loan. The
Gemara calls this
modeh bemiktzas, acknowledging part of a claim. The Torah requires someone who acknowledges part of a claim, and denies part, to swear an oath he does not owe the balance (
Bava Metzia 3a
et al.). If he does not want to swear, he must pay the balance of the claim.
2.
Shevuas hesses. Based on Mrs. Horowitz’s definite claim that Mrs. Gartenhaus owes her 100
shekalim, Mrs. H. can insist that Mrs. G. swear an oath denying that she owes money. The
Gemara calls this
shevuas hesses, an oath to discourage defendants from denying claims that lack sufficient evidence (
Shevuos 40b; Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 87:1).
We will examine each of these legal arguments. In the first argument,
modeh bemiktzas, Mrs. Horowitz is claiming 100
shekalim. Mrs. Gartenhaus acknowledges that she owes 20
shekalim, but is uncertain about the remaining 80
shekalim. Thus, to fulfill the Torah’s requirement to swear an oath, Mrs. Gartenhaus would have to swear that she
definitely does not owe more than 20
shekalim, something she cannot do. What is the
halacha in this situation?
The
Gemara discusses this exact case: Reuven claimed that Shimon owed him 100
dinarim. Shimon responds, “I know that I owe you fifty, but I do not know about the other fifty.” Is Shimon obligated to swear on the remaining balance? And if so, what does he swear?
The
Gemara rules that since Shimon cannot swear that he does not owe the balance, he is obligated to pay the full 100
dinarim (
Bava Metzia 98a).
Thus, Mrs. Horowitz seems to have her case wrapped up. Mrs. Gartenhaus cannot swear that she definitely does not owe 80
shekalim. Consequently, she should be required to pay the full 100
shekalim.
Except for one detail: Has Mrs. Gartenhaus paid back the 20
shekalim? If she already paid back 20
shekalim, the case is
halachically different. Now, Mrs. Horowitz is claiming 80
shekalim and Mrs. Gartenhaus is denying the entire claim. Thus, Mrs. G. is no longer
modeh bemiktzas, someone who acknowledges part of the claim, but
kofeir hakol, someone denying the entire claim. Although it may seem that there is not much difference between the two scenarios,
halachically someone who acknowledges part of a claim must swear an oath
min haTorah, whereas someone who denies the entire claim does not. The rationale for this distinction is beyond the scope of this article (
Bava Metzia 3a).
This is where the other type of oath,
shevuas hesses, comes into play. Since Mrs. Horowitz claims that Mrs. Gartenhaus definitely owes her 80
shekalim, she can insist that Mrs. G. swear an oath about the claim.
But one minute! Either way, there would be a technical responsibility to swear an oath. What is the difference whether Mrs. Gartenhaus is being asked to swear a oath because of
modeh bemiktzas or as a
shevuas hesses? Either way, there is an oath that she cannot swear!
However, there is a significant difference in
halacha between the two oaths, which makes a big practical
halachic difference in our case. If the oath is
min hatorah, the fact that Mrs. G. cannot swear for certain to deny the claim works against her, as we explained above. However, if the oath is of the
hesses variety, it is sufficient for Mrs. Gartenhaus to swear that she is unaware how much she owes (
Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 87:1). Thus, Mrs. Horowitz cannot insist that Mrs. Gartenhaus pay her the full sum. She must be satisfied with 20
shekalim and an oath from Mrs. Gartenhaus that she truthfully does not know how much she borrowed.
Rav Cohen reflected over the fact that
batei din do not usually insist on oaths, but instead will suggest some form of compromise. Not that these two well-meaning ladies were about to pursue this matter in a
beis din setting — they are two fine ladies who want to do what is
halachically correct.
Then he realized that since Mrs. Gartenhaus should have checked how much money Channie gave her and she did not, that this factor is probably sufficient to make her obligated to pay.
The Rav asked Mrs. Horowitz to have Mrs. Gartenhaus give him a phone call.
The phone rings. Mrs. G. is on the phone. Rav Cohen asks her what happened, to see if the versions substantiate one another. They do. And it is also clear that Mrs. Gartenhaus wants to do what is correct.
Mrs. Gartenhaus paid the money in full, and as you can imagine, she never heard from the cabby again. Besides the
halacha principles gleaned from her story, an added lesson is to check before handing over a bill, especially to an unscrupulous cab driver!
