petuate the Torah is to follow it in its entirety.
DIVINE REWARD In a similar vein, we are forbidden to count
Searching For Hashem
By Rav Moshe Shternbuch
The following was written by Rabbi
Daniel Yaakov Travis based on a drasha
given by Rav Moshe Shternbuch, Rosh Av
Beis Din of the Eidah Hachareidis of
Yerushalayim, on leil Shabbos Parshas
Va’eschanon.
•••••
JUST GETTING STARTED
“My Master Hashem, You have started
to show your servant (Moshe) Your greatness
and Your mighty hand, and proven that there
is no one in the Heavens or Earth as great as
You “ (Devorim 3:24).
Moshe Rabbeinu’s words are difficult to
understand. Previously, he had spent forty days
in the Heavens speaking directly to Hashem
and receiving the Torah, and he had seen the
miracles in and leaving Mitzrayim. After all
that Moshe had witnessed, how can he only
say now that he started to see Hashem?
Moshe Rabbeinu had just been moser
nefesh to recite over five hundred tefillos to
Hashem to permit Him to enter Eretz Yisroel.
Chazal tell us that Moshe Rabbeinu was cer-
tainly not interested in the physical benefits
of being there, such as eating the delicious
fruit which could not be matched in any other
country. Rather, he wanted to fulfill the
mitzvos of Eretz Yisroe, and achieve a greater
level of closeness to his Creator.
Moshe Rabbeinu had seen many of
Hashem’s miracles. Yet, with all that he had
seen, it was not enough. No matter how much
Choshen Mishpat Through the Lens of Daf Yomi
Bava Metziah 94: Wages for
Wasted Work
Delivered by Rav Yonason Dovid Hool
Archives of Ethics Series
THE EXEMPT SHOMER SOCHOR
A shomer sochor, who is paid to look af-
ter an object, is ordinarily obligated to reim-
burse the owner if the object is lost or stolen
under his care. The poskim discuss two cases
in which a shomer sochor would be exempt
from this obligation.
In the first case, Shimon agrees to watch
Reuven’s object for pay, on the condition that
he will not be held responsible if the object is
stolen. When Reuven returns for his object,
it is, in fact, missing. Shimon is exempt from
reimbursing Reuven for the object.
Must Reuven pay Shimon for watching
the object, even though it is now missing?
In the second case, Reuven entrusts an
object to Shimon to be repaired. At the time
that he gives Shimon the object, Reuven does
some sort of work for Shimon. According to
the Gemara (Bava Metziah 80), one repair-
ing an object is considered a shomer sochor,
and Shimon should be held responsible for
geneivah vea’aveidah, but this is a case of
“ba’alav imo;” the owner of the object was
working for the shomer at the time of the
shomer’s responsibility. Shimon indeed per-
forms the necessary work, but when Reuven
returns for the object, it has been stolen.
Shimon is exempt from reimbursing Reuven
in such a case as well.
Must Reuven pay Shimon for fixing the
Page 44
a person experiences of Hashem’s glory, he
has not even witnessed an iota of His infinite
Magnitude. After all of His tefillos, he
achieved an even greater level of perception,
and it was as if he was only starting to wit-
ness Hashem’s greatness.
LOOKING AT THE STARS
The Almighty has placed billions of stars
in the universe, each one bigger than our
planet. The Rambam writes in the second
perek of Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah that a per-
son is meant to gaze into the cosmos and see
the stars and all of His wonders. Immediately,
he should tremble in amazement after wit-
nessing such glory and splendor, and recog-
nizing his own tininess.
The main purpose of the stars is to express
Hashem’s glory. Hashem set them in the sky
For only this is called true life.
for us to perceive His greatness. At the time of
the final din, we will all be questioned why we
didn’t make use of such an opportunity.
The Rambam’s directive to gaze into the
heavens is not a suggestion. We are obligated
to think about that which we see every day
and take for granted. We should not squan-
der such an opportunity to imbue our lives
with fear and recognition of Hashem.
object? After all, even though it was stolen,
Shimon did perform the necessary work!
A COMPARABLE CASE
The two cases of the exempt shomer men-
tioned on our daf are comparable to a third
case mentioned in an earlier Gemara (Bava
Metziah 55). The Mishnah says that the laws
of shomrim do not apply to certain types of
objects, such as hekdesh, and one looking
after such objects is not obligated in the nor-
mal responsibilities of shomrim. If a messen-
ger is designated to bring machatzis hashekel
coins to the Bais Hamikdosh and the coins
are stolen, the messenger is not obligated to
pay, even though he is a shomer sochor. If he
cannot swear that the theft was unpreventable
(ones), he does not receive his payment, be-
cause he cannot prove that he has fulfilled
his duty to watch over the entrusted objects.
Thus, we have here a third case in which
a shomer sochor is exempt from reimburs-
ing the owner after a theft. In this case, he
forfeits his right to be paid. Can this conclu-
sion be extended to the other two cases of
exempt shomrim?
DOING THE JOB RIGHT
According to the Shach (305:2), the
shomer who made a precondition would not
be paid for watching the stolen object; after
all, he didn’t do his job very well. However,
in the ba’alov imo case, the Chut
Hameshulash rules that the craftsman should
be paid for his work. Since the owner was
YATED NE’EMAN
Chazal tell us that although Moshe
Rabbeinu had great merit, he did not request
compensation for his actions in this world.
He wanted to save all of his reward for the
World to Come. Moshe was only interested
in a gift from Hashem.
The Yerushalmi explains that it is impos-
sible to compensate a person for his mitzvos
in this world. Olam Habah is an eternal spiri-
tual existence. This world is transient and
physical, with no permanence at all.
The Alter of Novardok explained that this
world is like an expensive restaurant. Pleasures
can be enjoyed without limit, but they all must
be paid for at the end. Moshe Rabbeinu wanted
to save all of his reward for the next world and
therefore asked that he should be a recipient
of Hashem’s Divine favor.
ADDING IS SUBTRACTING
Even while searching to perceive
Hashem’s Greatness in this world, one must
be wary. The way to find holiness is to fol-
low the Torah’s guidelines to the tee. Adding
or subtracting from the mitzvos is forbidden,
even if the intention is to achieve a greater
fulfillment of the Torah.
In our day, Reform and Conservative Jews
have changed the mode of Torah observance.
They justify their actions with the above claim
that in a modern world, it is impossible to keep
all of the laws that the Torah lays down. The
Torah makes it quite clear that such an argu-
ment is baseless, and that the best way to per-
working for the shomer at the time of the
shemirah, the worker is not obligated to pay
in a case of theft, but he performed the crafts-
manship required and so he is given his
wages. The Ketzos Hachoshen explains that
a case of ba’alav imo should be no different
than the hekdesh case. In this case, however,
he agrees with the Chut Hameshulash, be-
cause the shomer is an uman, a skilled worker.
Even though such a worker is automatically
considered a shomer sochor in terms of his
responsibilities, he is actually paid for his
work, not for watching the object. The mes-
senger transporting hekdesh is paid for look-
ing after it, which he failed to do; a watch-
maker is paid to fix an object, which he did,
and thus should be paid his wages.
Nevertheless, the Ketzos objects to the
conclusion of the Chut Hameshulash. Even
though the skilled worker receives his wages
for performing his work, he is only paid when
he concludes the job. If the work he did is not
productive, the owner does not have to pay
him. If the worker was at fault for not watch-
ing the object properly, even if he is not obli-
gated to pay because of ba’alav imo and even
though he is generally paid for his work and
not for watching the object, the owner does
not have to pay. According to the Ketzos, an
uman loses his wages because didn’t com-
plete his job properly.
AN IMPORTANT PRECONDITION
The Machane Efrayim (Hilchos Shomrim
22) agrees with the conclusion of the Ketzos
Hachoshen: the worker loses his wages, just
like in the hekdesh case. In the case of the
shomer sochor who made a precondition with
the owner, however, the Machane Efrayim
argues that he does get paid. In the cases of a
shomer sochor with ba’alav imo or if he is
Klal Yisroel. Numbering gives importance to
quantity, while the Jewish people’s distinction
is qualitative and cannot be perceived numeri-
cally. Only by keeping the Torah in its com-
plete form can we achieve this greatness.
After relating the prohibition to add or
subtract from the commandments, the Torah
immediately mentions not to follow Baal
Pe’or. The juxtaposition implies a connec-
tion between these two concepts. How does
adding to the Torah relate to worshiping idols?
Generally, an idol was served by bowing
down, kissing, or sacrificing to it. Baal Pe’or
was unlike all other idols in that it was wor-
shipped by disgracing it in the most vile way.
At first glance, one might think that this form
of service is actually praiseworthy, for it
shames the idol. However, since this is the
form of worship, the Torah prohibits this, and
acting in such a manner arouses Divine wrath
as by any other type of idol worship.
The message of the Torah is clear. Any
philosophies that propose changing the Torah
are prohibited, even if they seem logically cor-
rect. Although we must love all Jews, all as-
pects of Reform and Conservative philoso-
phies must be avoided. In doing so, we will
merit to see the fulfillment of the verse, “And
you shall cling to Hashem your G-d and you
will be alive,” for only this is called true life.
•••••
Rabbi Travis is a rosh kollel of Kollel Toras
Chaim in Yerushalayim, and is the author of
Shaylos U’Teshuvos Toras Chaim and “Pray-
ing With Joy - A Daily Tefilla Companion,”
a practical daily guide to improving one’s
prayers, available from Feldheim Publish-
ers. For more information about his work,
contact dytravis@actcom.com.
looking after hekdesh, the shomer is paid to
look after the object. But a shomer sochor
who wants to be exempt for a different rea-
son and who stipulates that he will only watch
the object on condition that has no responsi-
bility in essence declares that he is a shomer
sochor who wants to be treated like a shomer
chinom, who is only responsible for negli-
gence. He does not want to exert the effort
usually required of a shomer sochor. In such
a case, he is paid even if he does not do extra
shemirah. Even though he failed to protect
the object from being stolen, he is paid for
the easier exertion involved in looking after
it as a shomer chinom and for rental of the
space in which he kept it.
Returning to our original two cases, the
Shach argues that the shomer sochor who
made a precondition would not receive his
wages because he didn’t look after the ob-
ject, while the Machane Efrayim argues that
he is paid because he made it clear from the
outset that he did not plan on guarding the
object. In the case of ba’alav imo, a shomer
sochor would not get paid. If his responsibil-
ity is due to the fact that he is a craftsman, the
Chut Hameshulash argues that the shomer
should be paid, as he performed the work that
he was paid to do. The Ketzos concludes that
he is not paid because ultimately he did not
return the repaired goods to its owner.
•••••
Apart from the Archives of Ethic series,
the Bais HaVaad also offers numerous
educational and practical halachic ser-
vices, including a Choshen Mishpat con-
sultation line. For more information about
the Archives of Ethics shiurim, the Bais
HaVaad and additional services, contact
the office at 888.ITL.VAAD or email
info@BaisHaVaad.com.
10 Av 5769 • July 31 2009