Q&A: Money That Was Lost — He Remains Liable for It
Money That Was Lost — He Remains Liable for It
Question
In the Mishnah, Bekhorot 8:8, and likewise in Eduyot 7:1, it is explained that if a father set aside five sela’im for the redemption of his son, and they were lost before he gave them to the priest, the father is obligated to set aside and give the priest another five sela’im. It is also explained, by contrast, that with money used to redeem second tithe, if the redemption money was lost, he is not liable for it, and he is no longer required to set aside other money to bring up to Jerusalem.
I don’t understand the whole discussion at all. Money is something abstract; what matters is the value of the money, not the specific coins, so how does it even make sense to talk about “money that was lost”? If the coins were lost, so what—let him take other coins?! The physical coin was lost, but the value was not; he can just take another one in its place and that’s that.
And the same with redeeming one’s son—what was the initial assumption even supposed to be? If I buy something for €10, and I lose one €10 note, I just take another note and that’s it.
Answer
If someone deposits an envelope of money with me, and it burns up—do I need to give him other money back? It seems that according to your view, the answer would be yes.
Once money has been paid, it physically belongs to the one holding it. Before it has been paid, I simply owe you money, and it makes no difference which coins they are. In redeeming the son, this is a debt, and therefore other money can be given. With second tithe, however, this is money that has already been given, since it already bears the status of second tithe; so if it was lost, it was lost to the second tithe, not to the owner.