If one deposited money with a money-changer, and it was tied up in a bundle, the money-changer may not use it. Therefore, if the money-changer spent the money, and it was later discovered that it belonged to the Temple, he is liable for misappropriation. However, if the money was loose, the money-changer may use it, and if it was the Temple's, it is the depositor who is guilty of misappropriation. The money-changer's main occupation is to deal with money, and it is presumed that he has the permission to use the loose coins deposited with him.
If one deposited money with a private householder, whether it was tied or untied, the householder may not use it. Therefore, if the householder spent the money, and it belonged to the Temple, the householder has committed misappropriation.
A storekeeper is treated like a private householder. Even though he often gives change, money-changing is not his main occupation – these are the words of Rabbi Meir. However, Rabbi Yehudah treats a storekeeper like a money-changer: since he often gives change, it is presumed that he can use loose coins that are deposited with him. Appropriate laws of misappropriation apply to him.
Art: Frederick Childe Hassam - Provincetown Grocery Store
No comments:
Post a Comment