Q&A: Metastability in Jewish Law
Metastability in Jewish Law
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I came across an interesting case today in Bava Metzia 43a: “If they are permitted, he may use them,” etc. Rav Huna said: “Even if they were lost through circumstances beyond his control.” But doesn’t it say “lost”? — In accordance with Rabbah, for Rabbah said: “Stolen” means by an armed bandit; “lost” means that his ship sank at sea. And Rav Nachman said: “If they were lost through circumstances beyond his control, no.” Rava said to Rav Nachman: According to you, who say that if they were lost through circumstances beyond his control, no, then evidently he is not considered a borrower with regard to them. If he is not a borrower, then he should not even be a paid custodian! He said to him: In this I agree with you, that since he benefits and also provides benefit, through that benefit—that if a profitable deal happens to come his way, he can buy with them—he is considered a paid custodian with regard to them.
According to Rav Nachman’s view, one has to distinguish between the time before the moneychanger uses the deposited money and the time after he uses it. As for the period before he uses it, Rav Nachman sees the moneychanger as a paid custodian because the benefit belongs both to the moneychanger and to the owner of the money (the moneychanger benefits from the future potential to use the money, and the owner benefits from the fact that the moneychanger accepts liability for theft and loss). But after the money is used, a kind of metastable loop is created, in which the moneychanger at first becomes a borrower because the added benefit helps only him. But by becoming a borrower he also takes on liability even for unavoidable accidents, so an additional benefit is created for the owner of the money as well; and since there is also benefit to the owner, then in fact the moneychanger should no longer become a borrower, because he is not the sole beneficiary, and the loop repeats itself. In the end, Rav Nachman settles this loop on the state in which the moneychanger becomes a borrower. And that seems difficult, because the owner of the money also gains a benefit from the fact that the moneychanger is liable even for unavoidable accidents. If so, the moneychanger is not the only one benefiting, so why should he be considered a borrower? In practice, any state we choose would run into a similar problem. It’s a bit reminiscent of a NOT gate whose output is connected to its input. So how is such a situation resolved, and why did Rav Nachman resolve it דווקא according to the state of borrower?
Answer
Hello,
I didn’t understand where you derived this distinction in Rav Nachman’s view between before he spent the money and after he spent it. The Talmudic passage later there discusses a treasurer, and on the face of it that seems to be a different discussion. As I understand it, according to Rav Nachman he is a paid custodian both before and after he spent it. And so too in the Shulchan Arukh and Maimonides, who rule like Rav Nachman.
We do not make a distinction over time, because the transaction is assessed in light of the full consideration over the entire period. When the money was deposited, he was given permission to use it, and therefore he became like a paid custodian. Even if there is a point from which onward all the benefit is his, that does not matter, because overall there was also benefit to the depositor.
As an aside, offhand I also did not understand what “liability” (for theft or unavoidable accidents) means after he already used the money. After all, once he used it, it is no longer with him, and he will return different money to the depositor. I haven’t looked into it now.
And regarding your claim: even if there were such a distinction between before and after spending it, I did not understand the argument. In every ordinary borrower case, the lender also benefits from the fact that the borrower is liable even for unavoidable accidents, and nevertheless the borrower remains a borrower and does not become a paid custodian.
And in general, what here is metastable? The moment there is benefit to the depositor, the custodian becomes a paid custodian, and the loop stops there. Even if the custodian is not liable for unavoidable accidents, he is still liable for theft and loss, so we are still dealing with a paid custodian (and it does not revert to being a borrower).