Print this Article
A Shiur Halacha by Dayan Shlomo Cohen on Parashat Lech Lecha
Avraham excelled in the Middah of Hessed: lovingkindness. Yitzhak excelled in the Middah of Pahad: fear of G-d. It is interesting to note, that although Yitzhak grew up in the house of Avraham, he nevertheless excelled in his own Middah and didn’t just copy his father’s traits (similarly, Yaakov’s main trait is Emet, in contrast to his father’s Middah of fear).
As descendants of Avraham we possess an inherent inclination to do Hessed and are expected to act as such. We tend to think of Hessed as ivarious acts of kindness in the home –opening the door, helping or giving charity. But in business? We think business is business and one can must be aggressive in order to thrive. But there is a concept of Hessed in business as well!
The Gemara in Bava Metzia discusses two workers who, while carrying barrels for their boss, trip and break the barrels. Are they liable? How about their wages, do they get paid?
In Halacha, there are various categories of liability: an unpaid guardian (Shomer Hinam), who is only liable for negligence, and a paid guardian (Shomer Sachar) who is liable for theft and loss even if they were not negligent (only if the damage was caused by an occurrence completely out of one’s control, is a paid guardian exempt).
One such example is a shepherd who passes his flock over a narrow bridge. If one of the sheep falls, the unpaid guardian is exempt, whereas the paid guardian would be liable.
The Gemara in our case of the barrel-carriers, tries to determine whether or not tripping is considered to be negligence. The Gemara concludes that a paid guardian is liable for tripping, and therefore the barrel-carriers must compensate their boss for the value of the barrels. Accordingly, they should also not receive their wages.
Still, the Shulhan Aruch rules that it is fair to exempt them from damage and also to pay them their wages! Because of the risk involved in such a job and their dealing with expensive merchandise constantly, we must have mercy on them and not withhold their wages. This is an example of going beyond the letter of the law.
Similarly, the Poskim discuss a case of a money-manager that didn’t invest the money of his boss properly. The Pithe Hoshen writes that he should also be considered like these poor barrel-carriers and be exempt and paid his wages (there are obvious limits to this Halacha).
There are other examples of going beyond the letter of the law. The Gemara in Bava Batra states that one is allowed to open a shop next to his friend’s shop because customer always have a choice to shop where they want. The Aviasaf writes that if one should not open a shop if it will cause a clear loss to the other store owner (i.e. opening a shop at the entrance of a dead-end street). Although Maran doesn’t codify this Aviasaf, the Poskim’s discourage such practices. Similarly, although a large supermarket may open next to a small grocer, it is a form of Hessed not to do so (perhaps they can hire the grocer as a manager).
Another example, is one finding two lost objects: theirs and their father’s, which should they tend to first? Technically, oneself, as one’s own money comes first. Nevertheless, the Shulhan Aruch writes that one who constantly looks out after himself first, will find himself needing others.
Perhaps, one may even make more money by acting with Hessed in his business, as all Parnassah is from Hashem, and Hashem will see his actions and give him more!