Among the numerous laws that appear in Parashat Mishpatim, one of the central issues revolves around entrusting valuables with one’s neighbor. “When a man gives money or goods to another for safekeeping” (Shemot 22:6) are the words that introduce the laws of four types of guardians, and the Torah continues with a list of different events that may occur, impacting on the object that was being watched. What are the laws if it is stolen or if it breaks? If it is an animal, what if it becomes seriously injured? In each one of these cases, the Torah determines the level of responsibility the guardian will have. One of the possible problems raised by the Torah is a case where the guardian chooses to take the object for his own personal use; that is, he claims it as his own. With this in mind, the Torah requires that the guardian take an oath “that he has not raised his hands against the other’s property.”
This point is taken up in rabbinic literature, which deals with the level of responsibility of the guardian in the event that he “raised his hands” against the object that he was supposed to be watching. Do we apply the normal rules of thievery to the guardian? What if the value of the object declined? According to the Mishnah (Bava Metzia 3:12) “Bet Shammai holds that he is at a disadvantage whether the value rises or falls. Bet Hillel says: He must restore the deposit at its value at the time at which he put it to use.” This discussion stems from the fact that it is very difficult to determine the exact moment when the guardian’s role changed from protector to thief. Since the object was already – legally – in his possession, when did his role shift? Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel disagree whether the guardian must actively use the object or if just changing his mind is sufficient, but the Gemara minimizes the differences between them. In the Gemara (Bava Metzia 44a) we find that Shmuel explains Bet Hillel as ruling that: “it is not that he actually took the wine from the barrel. Rather, once he lifted it in order to take wine from it, although he did not yet take wine from it, if it breaks, he is liable to pay.” If all that is needed is for the guardian to lift the object, it is difficult to distinguish between that and simply thinking about taking it. For if someone was entrusted with a barrel of wine, it is possible that he must lift it for its own protection (e.g., if it was in the sun) – which would be a case where lifting did not indicate that he was taking it for himself. Thus, both Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel view the key element to be the guardian’s thoughts.
The idea that “raising one’s hands” against an object is an act of significance first appears in the Torah in the story of Adam’s original sin that leads him to be expelled from Gan Eden. The Torah explains the need for Adam to be expelled by writing: “lest he should raise his hand and take also from the tree of life” (Bereishit 3:22). It should be noted that Adam was placed in Gan Eden “to work it and to guard it.” The linguistic connection between the guardian in Parashat Mishpatim who raises his hands against the object that he was charged with guarding and the concern lest Adam raise his hands on the Tree of Life, informs us that God viewed Adam’s job in the Garden as a guardian of the place.
In Avot d’Rabbi Natan we find that Adam’s sin was understood to be the betrayal and breach of trust that he showed towards God, Who entrusted him with guarding the Garden:
“Rabbi said: To what can Hava be compared at that time?
To a king who marries and puts all his silver and gold and possessions in her hands, telling her ‘everything belonging to me I entrust to you, with the exception of this barrel’…
And she goes and raises her hands against the barrel, opening it.”
(Avot d’Rabbi Natan Version 2, Chapter 1)
In rabbinic discourse there is significant discussion about how a person’s wealth is received as a “deposit.” Rabbinic sages suggest that wealthy people are deserving of honor, since their wealth is an indication that they were chosen by God, Who entrusted them with prosperity.
“When an individual is worthy and received a deposit, it is evidence that the Holy One blessed be He has shown trust in him.”
(See Hillel Ben-Sasson, Hagot Ve-Hanhaga, pp. 75-89 and the quotes that appear there).
It should be obvious that viewing wealth as a deposit held by a given individual by the grace of God also obligates the individual holding that deposit to share with others and give generously to charity.
It seems logical that we should view our children as a “deposit,” as well. When the angel calls down to Avraham: “Do not raise your hand against the boy, or do anything to him,” we again find the use of the same language that we have with the guardian who takes an object for his own use. When Bruriah has no choice but to inform her husband, Rabbi Meir, that their children had died, she tells him that the owner of the “deposit” had come and taken it back (see Midrash Mishlei 31). Even our own bodies belong to us only as a “deposit” and we are commanded to take good care of them (see Devarim 4:15). This is true of our souls, as well, as can be seen in our morning prayers: “The soul You placed in me is pure…One day You will take it from me.”
The idea that we are responsible to protect the soul that was given to us by the Creator on deposit is discussed at some length by the Ohr HaHayyim HaKadosh in Parashat Mishpatim (see verse 14). Rabbi Elimelekh miLezajsk also notes the parallel between the laws of the guarding objects and the obligation to protect the soul, in the context of the Mishnah that discusses the laws of the person who took an object he was watching for his own use.
“From a mussar perspective we might explain,
That the soul is called a deposit, given by God to man, and that man is responsible to guard it and must not injure it in any way.
This is the idea of raising one’s hands against a deposit.
Heaven forbid for a person to raise his hands against the deposit – that is, against the holy soul that was entrusted to him.”
(Noam Elimelekh, Hosafot, Likutei Shoshana)
The realization that we are the guardians of a “deposit” and the concepts that stem from that – the prohibition against raising one’s hands against it, the obligation to protect it – are among the most basic understandings that we have about the lives that we lead. This idea shapes our way of life: our relationship with ourselves, with our lives, with our children, with our money, indeed, with the entire world. This means that great care must be taken not to be destructive. This is true regarding our attitude toward ourselves, our attitude towards our children. Every statement we make, every time we do not pay attention, whenever we allow ourselves to be distracted from the “deposit,” we are not living up to our obligations as responsible guardians.
