Mr. Zrizi was always among the first at shul. One afternoon, he arrived for Mincha early, as usual.
As he headed to his seat, Mr. Zrizi noticed a $20 bill lying near the bimah. He picked it up and put it in his pocket. After davening, he approached the gabbai, Mr. Shatz.
“I found $20 near the bimah,” Mr. Zrizi said. “Do you know who may have lost it?”
“No one said anything to me,” Mr. Shatz answered. “There are a few minyanim each morning. Often people who are not members daven here; there are also people who come to collect tzedakah. The money could belong to anybody.”
“I’ll put a sign on the bulletin board in any case, even though I don’t think it’s necessary,” said Mr. Zrizi. “If no one claims it, I’ll keep the $20.”
“If no one claims the money,” replied Mr. Shatz, “I think that it should belong to the shul.”
“Why?” asked Mr. Zrizi. “I found it!”
“You found the money this afternoon, but it was lying all day in the shul’s premises,” replied Mr. Shatz. “I locked the shul after the last Shacharis minyan, so – if there is no obligation of hashavas aveidah – the shul should acquire the $20 bill, since it was secure in the shul’s premises.”
“Who is ‘the shul,’ anyway?” countered Mr. Zrizi. “I’m a member of the shul, as are many others!”
“Undoubtably,” replied the gabbai. “However, the shul is a financial entity, with its own bank account and expenses that need to be covered.”
Mr. Zrizi and Mr. Shatz met with Rabbi Dayan and asked:
“Whom does the $20 bill belong to?”
“A person’s secure property (chatzer) can acquire a lost item for him, even without his awareness,” replied Rabbi Dayan, “provided that the person would likely find it later.” (C.M. 268:3).
According to Rema (C.M. 260:4), a joint property acquires on behalf of both owners jointly, but Ketzos (260:1) disagrees.
However, regarding a shul, Magen Avraham (154:23) cites from Agudah that if someone found something (without identifying features) in the shul’s premises, he can keep it, and the shul does not acquire the item. This is because a person’s chatzer is an extension of his hand (yad), which does not apply to hekdesh – the Temple treasury (see Tosafos B.B. 79a), and similarly to a shul.
Ketzos (200:1) refutes this reason, since some Rishonim explain that yad does apply to hekdesh. Furthermore, our shuls are not comparable to the Temple and are not considered hekdesh, but rather are treated as joint, communal property. However, he agrees that usually the shul does not acquire the item for other reasons, so that the finder can keep it. Other Acharonim uphold the Agudah’s reason (see Nesivos 200: intro.).
Pis’chei Choshen (Aveidah 9:13[35]) addresses the case of a private shul, and suggests that the rationale of the Agudah applies also here, since – despite the private ownership – the shul or beis medrash is used for the sacred purposes of davening and learning, similar to hekdesh. Furthermore, most often, even private shuls are financed through collection of tzedakah.
However, he suggests, based on Keren L’David (O.C. 43), that in areas of the shul or yeshiva that do not have sanctity, such as the social hall, dining room, or dormitories, which are not similar to hekdesh, perhaps the administration of the institution would acquire the lost item. All the more so in institutions that do not have the inherent sanctity of a shul or beis medrash, such as schools or a mikveh. This, of course, is if the administration is likely to find the lost item; otherwise, chatzer does not acquire for them, regardless, as mentioned above.
“Thus,” concluded Rabbi Dayan, “the money belongs to Mr. Zrizi, who found it.”
Verdict: A person who finds an item in shul, in situations when hashavas aveidah does not apply, may keep it. Some maintain that in other public institutions that are not of sacred nature, the administration acquires the item if they are likely to find it.
To receive BHI’s free newsletter, Business Weekly, send an e-mail to [email protected].
This article is intended for learning purposes and cannot be used for final halachic decision. There are also issues of dina d’malchusa to consider in actual cases.
