Dear Friends,
Thank you to all of you who answered.
Many, if not most of you were correct.
Remember this is a theoretical case and the propriety of owning and/or destroying iPhones is not part of our Halachik discussion.
Please consult your LOR with iPhone questions.
And here is the answer:
The Answer:
Two conditions should be met before a person has the right to claim ownership over another person’s (former?) possession.
1. The previous owner made the object “hefker”, meaning he declared and/or did an action -such as dumping the object in a dumpster- which indicates that he no longer wants ownership of the object.
2. In his mind, it is clear to us (or he explicitly says so) that he has given up any thoughts of ever owning the object. This is referred to as Yeisush.
If these two factors are present, namely he has stated or done something which indicates he is no longer the owner, and we see or he declares that he has given up on the object; only then can you claim ownership over the object.
For instance, someone who puts an old chair next to his garbage can on the curb.
It is clear in this situation that the person’s intention is to rid himself of the chair and he may even be happier if someone comes along and takes it.
He has removed his ownership and shown by his action that he has given up on the object as anything placed on the curb near a garbage receptacle is known to all as“free for the taking.”
However, in the case we have described, it is clear that the boys (who being in 8th grade were all over Bar Mitzvah) had no intention of “giving up ownership” on the phones when they gave them to the Rebbe.
It is clear (this is called an Umdinah- a halachik assessment of people’s mindset) that the entire intention of the boys was to have their phones destroyed and inaccessible not only to them but, to the entire community.
The intent to burn the phones was not simply to disown the phone, it was also an act which in their mind was a mitzvah.
Therefore, as long as the phones were not yet burnt, one can make an assumption (an
Umdinah
) that the boys never gave up their
Baalus
(ownership) on the phones.
Therefore the boy who came into the classroom at night is considered a “Gazlen” (crook) and he is obligated to pay each boy the street value of each phone he sold.
This is because, notwithstanding their intent to destroy them, they never relinquished ownership of the phones.
They never made them Hefker nor were they Miyayeish on them.
(source: Binas HaMishpat Siman 101)
Ron Yitzchok Eisenman,
Rabbi, Congregation Ahavas Israel
