Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day - Daily Torah Study

1The three laws that the Torah states with regard to the four watchmen apply only with regard to movable property that is not consecrated and which belongs to a Jew. This is derived from Exodus 22:6, 9, which mentions: “money or articles and any animal.” This excludes landed property and slaves, for they are equated with landed property. And it excludes promissory notes, for they themselves are not money. And consecrated property is excluded, for ibid.:6 states: “When a person will give to his colleague.” And this also excludes property owned by gentiles.אשְׁלֹשָׁה דִּינִין הָאֲמוּרִין בַּתּוֹרָה בְּאַרְבָּעָה הַשּׁוֹמְרִין, אֵינָן אֶלָא בְּמִּטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְשֶׁל הֶדְיוֹט, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "כֶּסֶף אוֹ כֵלִים" (שמות כב, ו) "וְכָל בְּהֵמָה" (שמות כב, ט) - יָצְאוּ קַרְקָעוֹת, וְיָצְאוּ הָעֲבָדִים שֶׁהֻקְּשׁוּ לְקַּרְקָעוֹת, וְיָצְאוּ הַשְּׁטָרוֹת שֶׁאֵין גּוּפָן מָמוֹן. וְיָצְאוּ הַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת, שֶׁנֶאֱמָר "כִּי יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ" (שמות כב, ו; שמות כב, ט). וְיָצְאוּ נִכְסֵי עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים.

Accordingly, our Sages stated: An unpaid watchman need not take an oath with regard to claims involving slaves, promissory notes, landed property and consecrated property. Similarly, a paid watchman or a renter need not pay if they are destroyed. If the watchman performed a kinyan confirming his responsibility for such articles, he is responsible for them.מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: הָעֲבָדִים וְהַשְּׁטָרוֹת וְהַקַּרְקָעוֹת וְהַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת - שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם שֶׁלָּהֶן אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע, וְנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר אוֹ שׂוֹכֵר אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם; וְאִם קָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ, חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן.

2Our Sages ordained that the oaths required of watchmen should be taken with regard to consecrated property in the same manner as required by the Torah with regard to other property so that people should not deal lightly with consecrated property.בוְתִקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּעִין עַל הַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת שְׁבוּעַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִין כְּעֵין שֶׁל תּוֹרָה, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְזַלְזְלוּ בַּהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת.

3It appears to me that a watchman who was negligent with regard to the care of slaves and the like is obligated to make restitution. For he is freed of responsibility with regard to slaves, landed property and promissory notes - only for the obligations stemming from theft, loss, death and the like. For if he was an unpaid watchman for movable property, and it was stolen or lost, he would be required to take an oath; but for slaves, landed property and promissory notes, he is not required to take an oath.גיֵרָאֶה לִי, שֶׁאִם פָּשַׁע הַשּׁוֹמֵר בַּעֲבָדִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן - חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם, שֶׁאֵינוֹ פָּטוּר בַּעֲבָדִים וְקַרְקָעוֹת וּשְׁטָרוֹת אֶלָא מִדִּין גְּנֵבָה וְאֲבֵדָה וּמֵּתָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. שֶׁאִם הָיָה שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם עַל מִּטַּלְטְלִין וְנִגְנְבוּ אוֹ אָבְדוּ, יִשָּׁבַע, וּבַעֲבָדִים וְקַרְקָעוֹת וּשְׁטָרוֹת, פָּטוּר מִשְּׁבוּעָה.

Similarly, if he was a paid watchman, he would be required to make restitution for movable property that was stolen or lost, but for these he is freed of liability.וְכֵן אִם הָיָה שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר שֶׁמְשַׁלֵּם גְּנֵבָה וַאֲבֵדָה בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין, פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם בְּאֵלּוּ.

If, however, he was negligent, he is required to make restitution. For everyone who is negligent is considered to be one who damages property, and there is no difference between the laws applying to a person who damages landed property and one who damages movable property. This is a true judgment, as those who understand will see, and this is the appropriate way to rule.אֲבָל אִם פָּשַׁע - חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם, שֶׁכָּל הַפּוֹשֵׁעַ מַזִּיק הוּא, וְאֵין הֶפְרֵשׁ בֵּין דִּין הַמַּזִּיק קַרְקַע, לְדִין הַמַּזִּיק מִטַּלְטְלִין. וְדִין אֱמֶת הוּא זֶה לַמְּבִינִים, וּבוֹ רָאוּי לָדוּן.

Similarly, my teachers issued the following rulings with regard to a person who entrusts his vine to a sharecropper or to a watchman and stipulates that he dig, prune or dust it from his own resources. If the watchman is negligent and does not perform the required task, he is liable as if he destroyed it with his hands.וְכֵן הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי, שֶׁהַמּוֹסֵר כַּרְמוֹ לְשׁוֹמֵר, בֵּין בַּאֲרִיסוּת בֵּין בִּשְׁמִירַת חִנָּם, וְהִתְנָה עִמּוֹ שֶׁיַּחְפֹּר אוֹ יִזְמֹר אוֹ יְאַבֵּק מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, וּפָשַׁע וְלֹא עָשָׂה - חַיָּב, כְּמִי שֶׁהִפְסִיד בַּיָּדַיִם.

Similarly, he is liable in all instances where he causes a loss through his actions.וְכֵן כֹּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָזֶה, שֶׁהִפְסִיד בַּיָּדַיִם, חַיָּב עַל כָּל פָּנִים.

4When a person entrusts produce that is growing on land - even grapes that are ready to be harvested- to a colleague to watch, they are considered to be landed property with regard to the laws of watchman.דהַמּוֹסֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ דָּבָר הַמְּחֻבָּר לַקַּרְקַע לִשְׁמֹר, אַפִלּוּ הָיוּ עֲנָבִים הָעוֹמְדוֹת לְהִבָּצֵר - הֲרֵי הֵן כְּקַּרְקַע בְּדִין הַשּׁוֹמְרִין.

5The following principle applies if a person entrusts consecrated property to a watchman and then redeems it, and so it is no longer consecrated at the time the owner takes it from the watchman, or he lends it to a person when it was not consecrated and then consecrates it while it is in the borrower’s possession, or a gentile entrusts property and then converts. In all these situations, the laws of watchmen do not apply, unless the article was not consecrated property and belonged to a Jew from the beginning of the time the article was entrusted until the conclusion of that period.ההִפְקִיד הֶקְדֵּשׁ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ פָּדָהוּ וַהֲרֵי הוּא חֻלִּין בְּעֵת שֶׁנְּטָלוֹ מִיַּד הַשּׁוֹמֵר, אוֹ שֶׁהִשְׁאִילוֹ חֻלִּין, וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְדִּישׁ וְהוּא בְּיַד הַשּׁוֹאֵל, וְכֵן עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁהִפְקִיד, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְגַּיֵּר - כָּל אֵלּוּ אֵין בָּהֶן כָּל דִּינִי הַשּׁוֹמְרִין, עַד שֶׁתִּהְיֶה תְּחִלָּתָן וְסוֹפָן נִכְסֵי הֶדְיוֹט וְנִכְסֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.

6The laws applying to borrowers apply equally to men and to women. This applies if the woman is the owner of the entrusted article, or an article was entrusted to her care.ואֶחָד הָאִישׁ וְאֶחָד הָאִשָּׁה בְּדִין הַשּׁוֹמְרִין, בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה הַדָּבָר הַשָּׁמוּר שֶׁל אִשָּׁה, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה בְּיַד הָאִשָּׁה.

7When a minor entrusts an article to an adult or lends it to him, the adult must take the oaths required of a watchman to the minor.זקָטָן שֶׁהִפְקִיד בְּיַד גָּדוֹל אוֹ הִשְׁאִילוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה הַגָּדוֹל נִשְׁבָּע שְׁבוּעַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִים לַקָּטָן.

My teachers ruled that the adult is not taking the oath because of the claim of the minor in which instance, the oath would not be required. For an oath is never taken with regard to a claim made by a minor. The rationale is that all the oaths taken by watchmen are taken because of an indefinite claim.הוֹרוּ רִבּוֹתַי שֶׁאֵין זֶה נִשְׁבָּע בְּטַעֲנַת הַקָּטָן, כְּדֵי שֶׁנֹּאמַר אֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עַל טַעֲנַת קָטָן, שֶׁכָּל הַשּׁוֹמְרִין, שְׁבוּעָתָן שְׁבוּעַת שֶׁמָּא הִיא.

8Just as our Sages ordained that a purchaser must finalize his acquisition of an article through meshichah;1 so, too, they ordained that a watchman’s responsibility for an article is established through meshichah.חכְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁתִּקְּנוּ חַכָמִים מְשִׁיכָה בְּלָּקוֹחוֹת, כָּךְ תִּקְּנוּ מְשִׁיכָה בַּשּׁוֹמְרִין.

When a person tells a colleague: “Watch an article for me,” and he tells him: “Place it down in front of me,” he is an unpaid watchman.הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ 'שְׁמֹר לִי זֶה', וְאָמַר לוֹ 'הַנַּח לְפָנַי' - הֲרֵי זֶה שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם.

If he tells him: “Place it down before yourself,” or “Place it down” without saying anything else, or tells him: “My house is before you,” he is neither a paid watchman nor an unpaid watchman, nor is he obligated to take an oath at all.אָמַר לוֹ 'הַנַּח לְפָנֶיךָ', אוֹ 'הַנַּח סְתָם', אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ 'הֲרֵי הַבַּיִת לְפָנֶיךָ' - אֵינוֹ לֹא שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וְלֹא שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר, וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב שְׁבוּעָה כְּלָל.

The owner of the article may, however, have a ban of ostracism issued applying to anyone who took his article and did not return it to its owner.2 Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.אֲבָל מַחֲרִים עַל מִי שֶׁלָּקַח הַפִּקָּדוֹן שֶׁלּוֹ, וְלֹא יַחֲזִירוֹ לִבְעָלָיו. וְכֵן כֹּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָזֶה.

Whenever a person entrusts, lends or rents an article to a colleague, the same laws apply whether or not the transfer was observed by witnesses. When the watchman himself admits that he served as a watchman, or he borrowed the article, he is required to take the oath required of watchmen. We do not employ the principle of miggo to absolve a person of the responsibility for an oath,3 but only to free him of the responsibility to make restitution.4אֶחָד הַמַּפְקִיד אוֹ הַמַּשְׁאִיל אוֹ הַמַּשְׂכִּיר אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בְּעֵדִים אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּעֵדִים - דִּין אֶחָד יֵשׁ לָהֶן. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהוֹדָה זֶה מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ שֶׁשָּׁמַר לוֹ אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁאַל מִמֶּנּוּ - הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע שְׁבוּעַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִין, שֶׁאֵין אוֹמְרִים מִגּוֹ לְפָטְרוֹ מִשְּׁבוּעָה אֶלָא לְפָטְרוֹ מִלְּשַׁלֵּם.

Even if the article that was borrowed, entrusted or rented was worth only a p’rutah,5 the watchman is required to take an oath concerning it. None of the watchmen are required to admit to a portion of the plaintiff’s claim before being required to take the oath.אַפִלּוּ הָיָה הַדָּבָר הַשָּׁאוּל, אוֹ הַמֻּפְקָד, אוֹ הַמֻּשְׂכָּר שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה - הֲרֵי זֶה הַשּׁוֹמֵר נִשְׁבָּע עָלָיו. וְאֵין אֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוֹמְרִים צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדָיָה בְּמִקְצָת.

9An unpaid watchman may make a stipulation to be freed of the responsibility to take an oath, and a borrower may make a stipulation to be freed of the responsibility to make restitution. Similarly, the owner of the entrusted object may make a stipulation that an unpaid watchman, a paid watchman or a borrower will be liable in all situations as a borrower is. This is acceptable, for any stipulation regarding money or an oath that involves money that is agreed upon by both principals is binding.6 Neither a kinyan to affirm it nor witnesses are required.טמַתְנֶה שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם לִהְיוֹת פָּטוּר מִשְּׁבוּעָה, וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל לִהְיוֹת פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. וְכֵן מַתְנֶה בַּעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן עַל שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם אוֹ נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְשׂוֹכֵר לִהְיוֹת חַיָּבִין בַּכֹּל כַּשּׁוֹאֵל. שֶׁכָּל תְּנַאי שֶׁבְּמָמוֹן אוֹ בִּשְׁבוּעוֹת שֶׁל מָמוֹן, קַיָּם; וְאֵין צָרִיךְ קִנְיָן, וְלֹא עֵדִים.

10When the owner claims that there was a stipulation made requiring the watchman to undertake more responsibility, and the watchman denies that such a stipulation was made, the watchman must take the oath required of a watchman, and on the basis of the principle of gilgul sh’vuah,7 he must includein his oath that there was no stipulation involved.יטָעַן זֶה שֶׁהָיָה שָׁם תְּנַאי, וְהַשּׁוֹמֵר אוֹמֵר 'לֹא הָיָה שָׁם תְּנַאי' - נִשְׁבָּע הַשּׁוֹמֵר שְׁבוּעַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִין, וּמְגַלְגֵּל בָּהּ שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה שָׁם תְּנַאי.

11If the owner of an object claims that he entrusted it to a watchman, and the watchman answers that he said merely: “Place the article down before yourself,” and thus never became obligated as a watchman, the defendant is required to take a sh’vuat hesset8 that this was the manner in which he received the article. He should include in his oath that he did not use it for his own purposes, destroy it with his own hands or cause it to be destroyed in a manner that would obligate him to make restitution.יאטָעַן שֶׁהִפְקִיד אֶצְלוֹ, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר 'לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָא הַנַּח לְפָנֶיךָ, וְלֹא נַעֲשֵׂיתִי לוֹ שׁוֹמֵר' - נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁלֹּא קִבְּלוֹ אֶלָא בְּדֶרֶךְ זוֹ, וְכוֹלֵל בִּשְׁבוּעָתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא שָׁלַח בּוֹ יָד, וְלֹא אִבְּדוֹ בַּיָּדַיִם, וְלֹא בִּגְרָם שֶׁגָּרַם לוֹ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם.

12If the owner of an object claims: “I lent it to you,” “I rented it to you,” or “I entrusted it to you,” and the defendant responds: “This never took place,” or “That is true, but I returned it to you, and my responsibility was concluded. There is no obligation between us at all,” the defendant must take a sh’vuat hesset. He is then freed of responsibility.יבזֶה אוֹמֵר 'הִשְׁאַלְתִּיךָ' אוֹ 'הִשְׂכַּרְתִּיךָ' אוֹ 'הִפְקַדְתִּי', וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר 'לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם', אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר 'כֵּן הָיָה אֲבָל הֶחֱזַרְתִּי לָךְ וְנִסְתַּלְּקָה הַשְּׁמִירָה וְלֹא נִשְׁאֲרָה בֵּינֵינוּ תְּבִיעָה' - הֲרֵי הַנִּתְבָּע נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת, וְנִפְטָר.

When does this apply? When the watchman’s responsibility is not recorded in a legal document. If, however, a legal document recorded that the article was entrusted, rented or lent, and the watchman claims that he returned the article, he must affirm his statement with an oath taken while holding a sacred article.בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? כְּשֶׁלֹּא הָיָה שָׁם שְׁטָר. אֲבָל אִם הִפְקִיד אֶצְלוֹ אוֹ הִשְׂכִּיר אוֹ הִשְׁאִיל בִּשְּׁטָר, וְאָמַר לוֹ 'הֶחֱזַרְתִּי לָךְ' - הֲרֵי הַשּׁוֹמֵר נִשְׁבָּע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ.

The rationale for this ruling is that since an unpaid watchman could claim that the article was stolen or lost, and a borrower could claim that it died because he was working with it, his word is accepted when he says he returned it. But just as if he claimed that it was destroyed by forces beyond his control, he would have been required to take a Scriptural oath while holding a sacred article; so, too, when he claims to have returned it, he is required to take an oath resembling a Scriptural oath. The rationale is that the plaintiff has a legal document recording that the article was entrusted.שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד, וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל מֵתָה בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה - נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר הֶחֱזַרְתִּי; וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁאִם טָעַן שֶׁנֶּאֱנַס, נִשְׁבָּע מִן הַתּוֹרָה בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ - כָּךְ אִם טָעַן הֶחֱזַרְתִּי, יִשָּׁבַע כְּעֵין שֶׁל תּוֹרָה, הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ שָׁם שְׁטָר בְּיַד הַתּוֹבֵעַ.

When does the above apply? When the watchman could have claimed that the article was destroyed by forces beyond his control without having to bring proof of his claim.בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? כְּשֶׁהָיָה הַשּׁוֹמֵר יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן וְלוֹמַר נֶאְנְסוּ, וְלֹא נַצְרִיךְ אוֹתוֹ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה עַל טַעֲנָתוֹ.

If, however, he would have to bring proof of his claim,9 as will be explained, his word is not accepted if he claims that he returned the article. Instead, the plaintiff in possession of the legal document should take an oath while holding a sacred article that the watchman did not return anything to him.10 The watchman is then required to make restitution.אֲבָל אִם הָיָה חַיָּב לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה עַל טַעֲנָתוֹ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר - אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר הֶחֱזַרְתִּי, אֶלָא יִשָּׁבַע בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ שֶׁלֹּא הֶחֱזִיר לוֹ, וִישַׁלֵּם.

There is no other instance where a defendant is obligated to take an oath while holding a sacred article because he could have used another argument, except a watchman against whom a legal document serves as evidence.אֵין לְךָ מִי שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּע מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר כָּךְ וְכָּךְ וְיִשָּׁבַע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ, אֶלָא זֶה הַשּׁוֹמֵר בִּלְבָד שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו שְׁטָר.

Whenever any other defendant is obligated an opportunity to take an oath, because he could have used another argument, all that is involved is a sh’vuat hesset.אֲבָל שְׁאָר כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין בְּדִין מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר - אֵינָן נִשְׁבָּעִין אֶלָא הֶסֵּת.

Footnotes

See Hilchot Mechirah, Chapter 3, which explains that according to Scriptural Law, the sale of movable property is finalized through the payment of money. Nevertheless, our Sages ordained that the sale not take effect until the purchaser performs meshichah, pulling the article after him.

The Geonim allowed the plaintiff to issue such a ban in situations where he cannot require the defendant to take an oath. Although the ban is not specifically directed at the defendant, if he is in fact liable, it falls upon him. It was hoped that the dread of the spiritual punishment such a ban carries would be enough to intimidate the defendant and prevent him from lying.

The principle of miggo can be explained as follows: We accept the defendant’s statements, because had he desired to lie, he could have offered a more powerful defense. For example, in the case at hand, in an instance where there were no witnesses who observed the transfer, had the watchman desired to lie, he could have denied ever serving as a watchman. There would be no way that the plaintiff could prove that the defendant had ever accepted responsibility. Hence, in that instance, an oath would not be required of him. Therefore, one might be inclined to accept the defendant’s statement that the article was destroyed by forces beyond his control without requiring an oath, for had he desired to lie, he could have denied the matter entirely.
Similarly, if the article was entrusted to the watchman in the presence of witnesses, if he had desired to lie, he could have claimed that he returned it. For he would not have been required to return it in the presence of witnesses.

The Rambam does accept the principle of miggo with regard to financial responsibility, but not with regard to the obligation to take an oath. The difference between the two situations can be described as follows. When there is a financial obligation under discussion, and the plaintiff desires to expropriate money from the defendant, the principle of miggo is employed as a means of clarifying whether the defendant is under obligation or not. An oath, however, is itself a means of clarifying whether an obligation exists, and it is a more effective means of clarification than the principle of miggo. Hence, we employ it, rather than the principle of miggo (Sefer Me'irat Einayim 296:1).

A copper coin of minimal worth. If, however, the article was not worth a p’rutah, the claim is not considered significant and an oath is not required of the watchman (Hilchot To’en V’Nit’an 3:6).

Agreeing to the stipulation is considered equivalent to waiving a financial obligation that is due one. Therefore, we do not say that following the stipulation runs contrary to Torah law.

As the Rambam explains in Hilchot To’en V’Nit’an 1:12, whenever a person is required to take an oath, the plaintiff can compel the defendant to include in the oath a response to any other complaint the plaintiff lodges against him.

As required of a person who denies entirely a claim that is being made against him.

I.e., witnesses to testify to that effect, as explained in Chapter 3, Halachah 1.

10.

As is required when a person takes an oath and then expropriates property, as stated in Hilchot To'en V'Nit'an 1:2.

Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

Sechirut - Chapter 2

Sechirut - Chapter 2

Quiz Yourself on Sechirut Chapter 2