In the year ב"תשפ, in the month of Av, some people were vacationing in a resort, and it was time to daven minchah. One man who was cautious to wash his hands before Minchah went to the lake to wash his hands there. He saw a head bobbing up and down in the water. He swam out and brought a young girl to shore. Being a Hatzalah volunteer, he was also able to revive her. From this story we see that when one has a kabbalah tovah, one good deed will lead to another. In this case, due to his good kabbalah, he merited to save a Jewish child.
Reb Tuvyah Weiss zt'l (av beis din of Yerushalayim) tells that when he lived in Antwerp, the following halachic shaalah came before him: Someone had some money in his wallet that his friend had asked him to hold on to. Later that day, he checked his back pocket for the wallet, but it wasn't there. His friend's money was lost. Does he have to pay for the loss he caused his fellow man?
He was a חנם שומר (which means he was watching the money as a favor. He wasn't paid to watch the money.) Therefore, he would only have to pay for the loss if he was פושע, guilty of not guarding the money adequately. The question was whether keeping the money in the wallet, in his back pocket, was considered watching the money well enough or not?
Rav Weiss ruled that it depended on what type of jacket he was wearing. If he wore a long jacket, the money was well-guarded and he doesn't have to pay for it. But if he was wearing a short jacket, others can see that he has a wallet in his back pocket, which attracts thieves to pickpocket and take the money away. Therefore, He will be held guilty and have to pay for the loss. As Chazal (Succah 26) say, לגנב קורא פרצה, when a thief sees an opportunity, he takes advantage of the situation.
Later that same day, an esteemed guest arrived in Antwerp, Rav Shlomo of Bobov zt'l. When Reb Tuvya Weiss met with the Rebbe, the Rebbe told him about a din Torah that came before the בשמים הרי (Reb Aryeh Leib Horowitz, rav of Striya, zt'l). The shaalah was about a shaliach who was sent to deliver money. The shaliach placed the money in his pocket and lost it.
Reb Tuvyah was amazed. The Bobover Rebbe didn't hear about the din Torah that he had that day, yet he was discussing the same question.
The Bobover Rebbe said that the בשמים הרי ruled that he wasn't guilty. He watched the money well enough in his back pocket and didn’t have to pay for the loss. The תובעים (those who wanted he should pay) showed the הרי בשמים that the Chasam Sofer zt'l was asked the same question in Pressburg, and the Chasam Sofer ruled that he was guilty because he didn't watch the money well enough. The Chasam Sofer said that he does have to pay for the loss!
The בשמים הרי replied that in Pressburg, most people wore short jackets. Therefore, placing the money in the back pocket wasn't considered watching the money properly. However, the בשמים הרי lived in an area where most people wore long jackets. The wallet was concealed from thieves, and therefore, it can be considered that he watched the money sufficiently.
When Reb Tuvyah Weiss repeated this story, he would say that this was a "Bobover Mofes (miracle)" because, on his own, the Rebbe discussed the very same question that he had ruled on that day and indicated to Reb Tuvyah that he had ruled correctly.
Let us learn the following lesson from this story: There are times when a person does an aveirah by accident. He didn't want to perform the aveirah, but it came to him. One example is if one is by his computer and a forbidden sight accidentally pops up. Is he held responsible for this slip, or can he claim that he didn't want it, it came up on its own, and it isn't his fault?
Another example is if someone finds out that he ate something that wasn't one hundred percent kosher. He claims he didn't want the aveirah, and it happened to him by accident. Is that a legitimate claim?
It will largely depend on how cautious he was and the types of gedorim (safeguards) he set into place to protect himself from aveiros. If he does everything he should do, he isn't responsible for the accidents that occur. But if he wasn’t cautious, he didn't take sufficient precautions, he can't excuse himself that it was an accident. He could have safeguarded himself. In the story, wearing a long jacket was a sufficient precaution, and he doesn’t have to pay. A long jacket can represent when one covers his body with proper coverings and gedorim. In those cases, he is deemed innocent. He did as much as he could.
It states (Devarim 11:22) כָּל ֶתא ְרוּןְׁמִּשת ָמֹרׁש ִםא כִּיִּצְוָהַמה, "For if you keep all these commandments..." The Or HaChaim discusses the double expression ְרוּןְׁמִּשת ָמֹרׁש. He writes, "ָמֹרׁש if you make safeguards and protection to keep the mitzvos, ְרוּןְׁמִּשת, you are guaranteed that you will be able to keep all of the mitzvos. But when you don't make safeguards, you will transgress some of the mitzvos. Such as Shabbos, if you don't add on from the week onto Shabbos, he may transgress the Shabbos itself."
