Q. I was in a store, and a woman suddenly noticed that she was missing a hundred-dollar bill. She searched all over for it, but eventually gave up and left. I was also looking for it and eventually found it. May I keep the money, given that the woman was meya’esh (despaired of finding it) and I was the first one to lift it, or did the storeowner take possession of it since it was on his property when the woman was meya’esh?
A. The halachah of kinyan chatzer (lit. acquisition by a courtyard) stipulates that a person’s property automatically acquires any objects abandoned on it.
A store, however, is a chatzer that is open to the public, not a secure location with access limited to the owner. A chatzer of this sort does not automatically acquire objects left on it (Choshen Mishpat 260:5, with Shach 18). Therefore, if you were the first to lift the bill, you are not obligated to give it to the storeowner.
Whether you are allowed to keep it is a complex she’eilah.
It is possible that the woman’s yi’ush was inconsequential, because generally speaking, any money a woman has rightfully belongs to her husband. Even if she earns money from her job, the halachah is that her earnings (maasei yadeha) belong to her husband. Even if her husband gave her the money she lost to spend as she sees fit, it remains his, and her yi’ush does not cause the money to become hefker (ownerless), because her husband would not want to give it up so easily (Kesef Hakodashim 262:5; see Shu”t Magen Shaul 162, which cites this ruling in the name of Harav Yitzchak Elchanan of Kovno).
Although there are instances in which a woman’s money belongs to her (see Even Ha’ezer 80, with Beis Shmuel 2), we would assume that the money the woman lost belongs to her husband, since that is generally the case with a woman’s money (see Choshen Mishpat 62:1 with Shach 7).
We find a similar deliberation in Nachlas Tzvi (259) regarding a shaliach (courier) who lost money that was sent with him. There, too, some poskim rule that the finder must return the money even if the shaliach despaired of finding it, because his yi’ush cannot cause the owner to lose his rights to his money (see Shu”t Shevet Halevi 3:140).
Other poskim rule, however, that his yi’ush does render the money hefker, because when the owner entrusted the money to him, relying on him for its safety, he became the de facto owner of the money, for all practical purposes (Divrei Mishpat 260:1, Ulam Hamishpat 262; Shu”t Maharil Diskin, Psakim 1:189, Chayei Aryeh, Chullin 139a; Shu”t Igros Moshe, Choshen Mishpat 1:82). Some say that this is subject to a dispute between Rishonim regarding a case in which one partner was meya’esh after a shared asset was lost (Gidulei Shmuel, Bava Metzia 26a).
The poskim discuss a similar she’eilah regarding money found in a yeshivah. Most money found in a yeshivah is presumably pocket money that fathers gave to their sons to spend as they see fit. If we assume that when the father gives his son the money, he is makneh (transfers ownership of) it to him (which is likely what happens in most cases nowadays), then it is obvious that if the son (who is not a minor) lost money and was meya’esh, his yi’ush renders the money ownerless. But if the father did not intend to be makneh the money to his son, then it would depend on the dispute above as to whether yi’ush by someone other than the owner can affect the money that was lost.
If money is found in an elementary school, then the halachah is exactly the opposite: If the father was makneh the money to his son, who is a minor, then the finder is not permitted to keep the money, since it belongs to the minor and a minor’s yi’ush is inconsequential (Nesivos 260:11; Gilyon HaShas, Bava Metzia 21b, but see Milu’ei Mishpat on Nesivos ibid.). But if the father was not makneh it to his son, then the finder may keep it even without the father’s explicit yi’ush, since the very act of giving the money to a minor is akin to willfully forfeiting it, because if he loses the money, there is no obligation of hashavas aveidah (see Ketzos and Nesivos 261:1; cf. Imrei Yosher 2:117).
In all of the above cases in which there was yi’ush, but not by the owner, many poskim lean toward ruling stringently, requiring the finder to return the money, especially because there might be a mitzvah of hashavas aveidah involved (see Beis Yosef 260:9, and Mishnas Hamishpat p. 35). In addition, in many cases, it is proper for the finder to go lifnim mishuras hadin (beyond the letter of the law) and return the money, such as if the finder is wealthy and the person who lost it is not (Choshen Mishpat 259:5).
