Detailed Explanation
Rolex or Buick! implicates two distinct issues
I Is Brian entitled to a recourse to reclaim his money?
II Is Brian guilty of "stealing" the heart of his prospective supervisor?
Let us focus on each issue independently.
I Introduction:
Here is a quote from Britannica Encyclopedia (Mortgage Law).
"If the
mortgagor failed to repay the debt by the time that was specified in the
mortgage, the land became the mortgagee's absolutely....In the 16th and
17th centuries, however, the English equity courts intervened on the side of
the mortgagor. Equity first gave the mortgagor a right to redeem the land by
paying the amount that was owing, even after he had defaulted on the debt..."
Consider the
following albeit different, yet similar Talmudic scenario.
"A bailor
(depositor) delivered jewelry to a bailee (custodian) for safekeeping. Upon the
bailor's return, the bailee fails to locate the jewelry. The court requires the bailee to compensate
the bailor for the value of the jewelry. The bailee defaulted and the court mortgaged
the bailee's real estate to the bailor. Subsequently, the bailee found the jewelry
in his possession. We deem the compensation a faux - pas (blunder) and the bailee
retains the right to redeem his or her real estate from the bailor." [Bava Metzia 35a,
Choshen Mishpat 103: 11]
So, the progressiveness
of sixteenth and seventeenth century English Equity courts, was in fact a
rediscovery of sorts of a theory directly reflecting the age-old Talmudic
concept. "Although a debtor compensated the creditor with alternative means, he
or she does not necessarily lose the right to reclaim the "alternative compensation"
with due payment at a later date."
Now, while generally,
Talmudic Law only obligates the creditor/bailor (depositor) to comply
with such compulsory recourse in an instance of faux - pas, and not
in an instance of blatant default of payment, we will allow for history play
out its course and see if Anglo-American Law progresses further in the
direction it seems to be taking.
Application:
- Must Fred accept the watch and
return Brian's cash?
Fred must
accept the watch and return Brian's cash.
As a bailee, Brian
was responsible to return the goods Fred deposited by him. Monetary compensation as a form of alternative
compensation is due should Brian not produce the deposit. In our faux - pas situation, where Brian
subsequently discovered the deposit amongst his belongings, he may return it to
Fred and require Fred to return to him his cash. Rolex or Buick? Buick!
II Is Brian guilty of "stealing" the heart of his prospective supervisor?
Background:
1. Deceiving any human being in a manner is a form of theft and is a biblical prohibition [Maseches Chulin 93b].
2.Additionally, tricking any human being even without causing him or her a financial loss or damage is a rabbinical prohibition.
This includes garnering undeserved praise or
feelings of gratitude through feigning a false impression of benevolence and
virtue.
Explanation: Just as one may not steal another's
money one may not manipulate another's feelings of gratitude and steal his or
her heart. [Shulchan Aruch HaRav: Hilchos Ona'ah U'Genevah 11, 12]
Exception: Creating an atmosphere within which the victim
is to blame for not thinking responsibly is not included in these prohibitions.
[Maseches Chulin 93b (See Issue # 46 for
more exceptions and details)
Application:
- May Brian appear to an interview wearing Fred's
Rolex?
While "dressing the part" clearly makes a
striking impression, which might positively influence the outcome of an
interview, it is widely accepted for a prospective candidate to groom himself
or herself fashionably for such a meeting. A supervisor's responsibility is to appreciate
that candidates portray themselves in a superior manner within reason of
their means and see beyond the outside trimmings.
Consequently, sporting finer wear for an
interview does not convey a false impression of the manner in which the
candidate appears on a day-to-day basis.
Instead, the supervisor suffers the
consequences of his or her failure to consider these factors accordingly. Hence, as a Rolex was within reason of Brian's
means, although he did not own one, he may appear to his interview sporting
Fred's Rolex.
