Using a siddur to Daven from in a seforim store
There are many seforim stores that have a minyan for Mincha in the store. If someone were to use a siddur from the store in order to daven with that minyan in a way that there's no perceived damage on the siddur, and nowhere is there a written policy to not use the siddurim for Mincha purposes.
Can a siddur be used Lechatchila?
Can the owner compel him to buy it now?
halacha money choshen-mishpat-civil-law torts-damages
edited yesterday
Al Berko
6,2681529
asked yesterday
MosheMoshe
46012
|
show 2 more comments
There are many seforim stores that have a minyan for Mincha in the store. If someone were to use a siddur from the store in order to daven with that minyan in a way that there's no perceived damage on the siddur, and nowhere is there a written policy to not use the siddurim for Mincha purposes.
Can a siddur be used Lechatchila?
Can the owner compel him to buy it now?
halacha money choshen-mishpat-civil-law torts-damages
edited yesterday
Al Berko
6,2681529
asked yesterday
MosheMoshe
46012
4
If the owner allows it, what's the question? And if the owner doesn't allow it, what's the question?
– Double AA♦
yesterday
Do you specifically mean for a Mitzvah or using just about anything, like coming toa tool store to fix your things.
– Al Berko
yesterday
3
Dude. I asked a serious straightforward question that actually happened to me today. And your just editing it to your own question, and then asking me questions on your question. Next time don't edit my question. It was a legitimate question. @AlBerko
– Moshe
yesterday
2
What's wrong with saying "dude". And I do understand it's depth. I just was wondering if anyone here knew a tshuva that states a similar case... @AlBerko
– Moshe
yesterday
1
@Moshe you are welcome to edit further or rollback the edits if you don't like them. There is a rollback "button" next to each older version of the question when you click on "edited X hours/days ago" on the left of your name
– mbloch
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
There are many seforim stores that have a minyan for Mincha in the store. If someone were to use a siddur from the store in order to daven with that minyan in a way that there's no perceived damage on the siddur, and nowhere is there a written policy to not use the siddurim for Mincha purposes.
Can a siddur be used Lechatchila?
Can the owner compel him to buy it now?
halacha money choshen-mishpat-civil-law torts-damages
edited yesterday
Al Berko
6,2681529
asked yesterday
MosheMoshe
46012
There are many seforim stores that have a minyan for Mincha in the store. If someone were to use a siddur from the store in order to daven with that minyan in a way that there's no perceived damage on the siddur, and nowhere is there a written policy to not use the siddurim for Mincha purposes.
Can a siddur be used Lechatchila?
Can the owner compel him to buy it now?
halacha money choshen-mishpat-civil-law torts-damages
halacha money choshen-mishpat-civil-law torts-damages
edited yesterday
Al Berko
6,2681529
asked yesterday
MosheMoshe
46012
edited yesterday
Al Berko
6,2681529
asked yesterday
MosheMoshe
46012
edited yesterday
Al Berko
6,2681529
edited yesterday
Al Berko
6,2681529
edited yesterday
Al Berko
6,2681529
6,2681529
asked yesterday
MosheMoshe
46012
asked yesterday
MosheMoshe
46012
asked yesterday
MosheMoshe
46012
46012
4
If the owner allows it, what's the question? And if the owner doesn't allow it, what's the question?
– Double AA♦
yesterday
Do you specifically mean for a Mitzvah or using just about anything, like coming toa tool store to fix your things.
– Al Berko
yesterday
3
Dude. I asked a serious straightforward question that actually happened to me today. And your just editing it to your own question, and then asking me questions on your question. Next time don't edit my question. It was a legitimate question. @AlBerko
– Moshe
yesterday
2
What's wrong with saying "dude". And I do understand it's depth. I just was wondering if anyone here knew a tshuva that states a similar case... @AlBerko
– Moshe
yesterday
1
@Moshe you are welcome to edit further or rollback the edits if you don't like them. There is a rollback "button" next to each older version of the question when you click on "edited X hours/days ago" on the left of your name
– mbloch
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
4
If the owner allows it, what's the question? And if the owner doesn't allow it, what's the question?
– Double AA♦
yesterday
Do you specifically mean for a Mitzvah or using just about anything, like coming toa tool store to fix your things.
– Al Berko
yesterday
3
Dude. I asked a serious straightforward question that actually happened to me today. And your just editing it to your own question, and then asking me questions on your question. Next time don't edit my question. It was a legitimate question. @AlBerko
– Moshe
yesterday
2
What's wrong with saying "dude". And I do understand it's depth. I just was wondering if anyone here knew a tshuva that states a similar case... @AlBerko
– Moshe
yesterday
1
@Moshe you are welcome to edit further or rollback the edits if you don't like them. There is a rollback "button" next to each older version of the question when you click on "edited X hours/days ago" on the left of your name
– mbloch
yesterday
4
4
If the owner allows it, what's the question? And if the owner doesn't allow it, what's the question?
– Double AA♦
yesterday
If the owner allows it, what's the question? And if the owner doesn't allow it, what's the question?
– Double AA♦
yesterday
Do you specifically mean for a Mitzvah or using just about anything, like coming toa tool store to fix your things.
– Al Berko
yesterday
Do you specifically mean for a Mitzvah or using just about anything, like coming toa tool store to fix your things.
– Al Berko
yesterday
3
3
Dude. I asked a serious straightforward question that actually happened to me today. And your just editing it to your own question, and then asking me questions on your question. Next time don't edit my question. It was a legitimate question. @AlBerko
– Moshe
yesterday
Dude. I asked a serious straightforward question that actually happened to me today. And your just editing it to your own question, and then asking me questions on your question. Next time don't edit my question. It was a legitimate question. @AlBerko
– Moshe
yesterday
2
2
What's wrong with saying "dude". And I do understand it's depth. I just was wondering if anyone here knew a tshuva that states a similar case... @AlBerko
– Moshe
yesterday
What's wrong with saying "dude". And I do understand it's depth. I just was wondering if anyone here knew a tshuva that states a similar case... @AlBerko
– Moshe
yesterday
1
1
@Moshe you are welcome to edit further or rollback the edits if you don't like them. There is a rollback "button" next to each older version of the question when you click on "edited X hours/days ago" on the left of your name
– mbloch
yesterday
@Moshe you are welcome to edit further or rollback the edits if you don't like them. There is a rollback "button" next to each older version of the question when you click on "edited X hours/days ago" on the left of your name
– mbloch
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
No. One who borrows an item without permission from the owner is conidered a gazlan (שואל שלא מדעת גזלן), and like all cases of stealing, must return the item (והשיב את הגזילה אשר גזל). He is not required to purchase the item or to pay for the usage. If any damage was caused, however, he must pay the full value of the product, not just the amount the item depreciated through the damage.
answered yesterday
chortkov2chortkov2
98417
I would add two things - 1. The books ARE for sale and once someone raises them for his USE he acquires them 2. Your rule probably only applies to occasional use, but not repetitive. 3. It might also sound as Midas Sdom - depreciating value in small, under a Prutah steps - think about 10 Miniyanim every day.
– Al Berko
yesterday
@AlBerko 1. Not necessarily. Only if he takes it with the intention to acquire it; what if he takes it with the intention to use and return? He’s a שואל שלא מדעת then, as the answerer correctly states. 2. AFAIK there’s no limit to how often one can be a שואל שלא מדעת on the same item, just as there’s no limit to how often one acquired an item he repeatedly steals and returns. 3. is your only entirely valid point here, whether we can be כופה על מדת סדום, particularly in light of the Halacha that we presume people want others to do Mitzvos with their stuff.
– DonielF
yesterday
@DonielF Here's something I'm constantly stressing - everything depends on סמיכות דעת, i.g. דינא דמלכותא - whatever is accepted in that community/neighborhood/city/country. My points present clear cuts for such סמיכות דעת, for example, I remember my wife coming back from America in the 80s and wondering that you can return just about anything you buy, but in Israel, you can't. Samen here, 1 can be a consideration of distinguishing between a "try before you buy" and a real use.
– Al Berko
yesterday
@DonielF How about borrowing a hammer, a cordless driver or a stroller? #2 can also be a consideration for calling it a purchase. Think about one who tastes olives or nuts - once or twice is OK but 5-10 times cannot be called "tasting"
– Al Berko
yesterday
1
Even a mildly astute customer could recognize when a book has been used. There could be fingerprints, dirt or slightly folded / crinkled pages, etc. Even if none of these are noticeable, it could create a sort of lifnei iver situation b/c a buyer expects to buy a new book that hasn't been regularly used. Thus, the owner shouldn't allow anyone to use siddurim that he professes to sell as new. In such cases, the problem is not the davener - it'w with the owner.
– DanF
yesterday
|
show 4 more comments
The first question: Obviously, we can present two contradicting views:
The owner is interested in such behavior because it increases the clientele (מחלקים קליות ואגוזים), or he might intentionally offer his books for such a use. Therefore he allows such a use לכתחילה and he's Mochel (forgives) the damages.
The owner is not interested and protesting to such use and considers that a Gezel but does not sue the users in court.
The resolution of such a conflict would be:
A person should always be aware of the possibility of Gezel, which is Deorayso and a very serious sin. So when in doubt, (as I understand you were in your case) one should definitely ask for explicit permission from the store owner. Since we rule that ספק דאורייתא לחומרא.
This also holds if you see others grabbing sforim freely, they might have a personal arrangement with the owner.
Where (local neighborhood/city/country) it is customary to arrange the Tefillos in book stores intentionally to draw attention or increase sales, this behavior is allowed לכתחילה.
The second question:
Theoretically, according to #1, the owner's claim might be justified, because unlike the simple case of שואל שלא מדעת (borrowing without permission) which [only] applies for items that are not for sale, for items in the store the very intention to use them shows the intention of owning.
Think about entering a pharm opening a perfume and using one once on yourself. Your intention to use is automatically translated into a purchase.
answered 9 hours ago
Al BerkoAl Berko
6,2681529
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
No. One who borrows an item without permission from the owner is conidered a gazlan (שואל שלא מדעת גזלן), and like all cases of stealing, must return the item (והשיב את הגזילה אשר גזל). He is not required to purchase the item or to pay for the usage. If any damage was caused, however, he must pay the full value of the product, not just the amount the item depreciated through the damage.
answered yesterday
chortkov2chortkov2
98417
I would add two things - 1. The books ARE for sale and once someone raises them for his USE he acquires them 2. Your rule probably only applies to occasional use, but not repetitive. 3. It might also sound as Midas Sdom - depreciating value in small, under a Prutah steps - think about 10 Miniyanim every day.
– Al Berko
yesterday
@AlBerko 1. Not necessarily. Only if he takes it with the intention to acquire it; what if he takes it with the intention to use and return? He’s a שואל שלא מדעת then, as the answerer correctly states. 2. AFAIK there’s no limit to how often one can be a שואל שלא מדעת on the same item, just as there’s no limit to how often one acquired an item he repeatedly steals and returns. 3. is your only entirely valid point here, whether we can be כופה על מדת סדום, particularly in light of the Halacha that we presume people want others to do Mitzvos with their stuff.
– DonielF
yesterday
@DonielF Here's something I'm constantly stressing - everything depends on סמיכות דעת, i.g. דינא דמלכותא - whatever is accepted in that community/neighborhood/city/country. My points present clear cuts for such סמיכות דעת, for example, I remember my wife coming back from America in the 80s and wondering that you can return just about anything you buy, but in Israel, you can't. Samen here, 1 can be a consideration of distinguishing between a "try before you buy" and a real use.
– Al Berko
yesterday
@DonielF How about borrowing a hammer, a cordless driver or a stroller? #2 can also be a consideration for calling it a purchase. Think about one who tastes olives or nuts - once or twice is OK but 5-10 times cannot be called "tasting"
– Al Berko
yesterday
1
Even a mildly astute customer could recognize when a book has been used. There could be fingerprints, dirt or slightly folded / crinkled pages, etc. Even if none of these are noticeable, it could create a sort of lifnei iver situation b/c a buyer expects to buy a new book that hasn't been regularly used. Thus, the owner shouldn't allow anyone to use siddurim that he professes to sell as new. In such cases, the problem is not the davener - it'w with the owner.
– DanF
yesterday
|
show 4 more comments
No. One who borrows an item without permission from the owner is conidered a gazlan (שואל שלא מדעת גזלן), and like all cases of stealing, must return the item (והשיב את הגזילה אשר גזל). He is not required to purchase the item or to pay for the usage. If any damage was caused, however, he must pay the full value of the product, not just the amount the item depreciated through the damage.
answered yesterday
chortkov2chortkov2
98417
I would add two things - 1. The books ARE for sale and once someone raises them for his USE he acquires them 2. Your rule probably only applies to occasional use, but not repetitive. 3. It might also sound as Midas Sdom - depreciating value in small, under a Prutah steps - think about 10 Miniyanim every day.
– Al Berko
yesterday
@AlBerko 1. Not necessarily. Only if he takes it with the intention to acquire it; what if he takes it with the intention to use and return? He’s a שואל שלא מדעת then, as the answerer correctly states. 2. AFAIK there’s no limit to how often one can be a שואל שלא מדעת on the same item, just as there’s no limit to how often one acquired an item he repeatedly steals and returns. 3. is your only entirely valid point here, whether we can be כופה על מדת סדום, particularly in light of the Halacha that we presume people want others to do Mitzvos with their stuff.
– DonielF
yesterday
@DonielF Here's something I'm constantly stressing - everything depends on סמיכות דעת, i.g. דינא דמלכותא - whatever is accepted in that community/neighborhood/city/country. My points present clear cuts for such סמיכות דעת, for example, I remember my wife coming back from America in the 80s and wondering that you can return just about anything you buy, but in Israel, you can't. Samen here, 1 can be a consideration of distinguishing between a "try before you buy" and a real use.
– Al Berko
yesterday
@DonielF How about borrowing a hammer, a cordless driver or a stroller? #2 can also be a consideration for calling it a purchase. Think about one who tastes olives or nuts - once or twice is OK but 5-10 times cannot be called "tasting"
– Al Berko
yesterday
1
Even a mildly astute customer could recognize when a book has been used. There could be fingerprints, dirt or slightly folded / crinkled pages, etc. Even if none of these are noticeable, it could create a sort of lifnei iver situation b/c a buyer expects to buy a new book that hasn't been regularly used. Thus, the owner shouldn't allow anyone to use siddurim that he professes to sell as new. In such cases, the problem is not the davener - it'w with the owner.
– DanF
yesterday
|
show 4 more comments
No. One who borrows an item without permission from the owner is conidered a gazlan (שואל שלא מדעת גזלן), and like all cases of stealing, must return the item (והשיב את הגזילה אשר גזל). He is not required to purchase the item or to pay for the usage. If any damage was caused, however, he must pay the full value of the product, not just the amount the item depreciated through the damage.
answered yesterday
chortkov2chortkov2
98417
No. One who borrows an item without permission from the owner is conidered a gazlan (שואל שלא מדעת גזלן), and like all cases of stealing, must return the item (והשיב את הגזילה אשר גזל). He is not required to purchase the item or to pay for the usage. If any damage was caused, however, he must pay the full value of the product, not just the amount the item depreciated through the damage.
answered yesterday
chortkov2chortkov2
98417
answered yesterday
chortkov2chortkov2
98417
answered yesterday
chortkov2chortkov2
98417
answered yesterday
chortkov2chortkov2
98417
98417
I would add two things - 1. The books ARE for sale and once someone raises them for his USE he acquires them 2. Your rule probably only applies to occasional use, but not repetitive. 3. It might also sound as Midas Sdom - depreciating value in small, under a Prutah steps - think about 10 Miniyanim every day.
– Al Berko
yesterday
@AlBerko 1. Not necessarily. Only if he takes it with the intention to acquire it; what if he takes it with the intention to use and return? He’s a שואל שלא מדעת then, as the answerer correctly states. 2. AFAIK there’s no limit to how often one can be a שואל שלא מדעת on the same item, just as there’s no limit to how often one acquired an item he repeatedly steals and returns. 3. is your only entirely valid point here, whether we can be כופה על מדת סדום, particularly in light of the Halacha that we presume people want others to do Mitzvos with their stuff.
– DonielF
yesterday
@DonielF Here's something I'm constantly stressing - everything depends on סמיכות דעת, i.g. דינא דמלכותא - whatever is accepted in that community/neighborhood/city/country. My points present clear cuts for such סמיכות דעת, for example, I remember my wife coming back from America in the 80s and wondering that you can return just about anything you buy, but in Israel, you can't. Samen here, 1 can be a consideration of distinguishing between a "try before you buy" and a real use.
– Al Berko
yesterday
@DonielF How about borrowing a hammer, a cordless driver or a stroller? #2 can also be a consideration for calling it a purchase. Think about one who tastes olives or nuts - once or twice is OK but 5-10 times cannot be called "tasting"
– Al Berko
yesterday
1
Even a mildly astute customer could recognize when a book has been used. There could be fingerprints, dirt or slightly folded / crinkled pages, etc. Even if none of these are noticeable, it could create a sort of lifnei iver situation b/c a buyer expects to buy a new book that hasn't been regularly used. Thus, the owner shouldn't allow anyone to use siddurim that he professes to sell as new. In such cases, the problem is not the davener - it'w with the owner.
– DanF
yesterday
|
show 4 more comments
I would add two things - 1. The books ARE for sale and once someone raises them for his USE he acquires them 2. Your rule probably only applies to occasional use, but not repetitive. 3. It might also sound as Midas Sdom - depreciating value in small, under a Prutah steps - think about 10 Miniyanim every day.
– Al Berko
yesterday
@AlBerko 1. Not necessarily. Only if he takes it with the intention to acquire it; what if he takes it with the intention to use and return? He’s a שואל שלא מדעת then, as the answerer correctly states. 2. AFAIK there’s no limit to how often one can be a שואל שלא מדעת on the same item, just as there’s no limit to how often one acquired an item he repeatedly steals and returns. 3. is your only entirely valid point here, whether we can be כופה על מדת סדום, particularly in light of the Halacha that we presume people want others to do Mitzvos with their stuff.
– DonielF
yesterday
@DonielF Here's something I'm constantly stressing - everything depends on סמיכות דעת, i.g. דינא דמלכותא - whatever is accepted in that community/neighborhood/city/country. My points present clear cuts for such סמיכות דעת, for example, I remember my wife coming back from America in the 80s and wondering that you can return just about anything you buy, but in Israel, you can't. Samen here, 1 can be a consideration of distinguishing between a "try before you buy" and a real use.
– Al Berko
yesterday
@DonielF How about borrowing a hammer, a cordless driver or a stroller? #2 can also be a consideration for calling it a purchase. Think about one who tastes olives or nuts - once or twice is OK but 5-10 times cannot be called "tasting"
– Al Berko
yesterday
1
Even a mildly astute customer could recognize when a book has been used. There could be fingerprints, dirt or slightly folded / crinkled pages, etc. Even if none of these are noticeable, it could create a sort of lifnei iver situation b/c a buyer expects to buy a new book that hasn't been regularly used. Thus, the owner shouldn't allow anyone to use siddurim that he professes to sell as new. In such cases, the problem is not the davener - it'w with the owner.
– DanF
yesterday
I would add two things - 1. The books ARE for sale and once someone raises them for his USE he acquires them 2. Your rule probably only applies to occasional use, but not repetitive. 3. It might also sound as Midas Sdom - depreciating value in small, under a Prutah steps - think about 10 Miniyanim every day.
– Al Berko
yesterday
I would add two things - 1. The books ARE for sale and once someone raises them for his USE he acquires them 2. Your rule probably only applies to occasional use, but not repetitive. 3. It might also sound as Midas Sdom - depreciating value in small, under a Prutah steps - think about 10 Miniyanim every day.
– Al Berko
yesterday
@AlBerko 1. Not necessarily. Only if he takes it with the intention to acquire it; what if he takes it with the intention to use and return? He’s a שואל שלא מדעת then, as the answerer correctly states. 2. AFAIK there’s no limit to how often one can be a שואל שלא מדעת on the same item, just as there’s no limit to how often one acquired an item he repeatedly steals and returns. 3. is your only entirely valid point here, whether we can be כופה על מדת סדום, particularly in light of the Halacha that we presume people want others to do Mitzvos with their stuff.
– DonielF
yesterday
@AlBerko 1. Not necessarily. Only if he takes it with the intention to acquire it; what if he takes it with the intention to use and return? He’s a שואל שלא מדעת then, as the answerer correctly states. 2. AFAIK there’s no limit to how often one can be a שואל שלא מדעת on the same item, just as there’s no limit to how often one acquired an item he repeatedly steals and returns. 3. is your only entirely valid point here, whether we can be כופה על מדת סדום, particularly in light of the Halacha that we presume people want others to do Mitzvos with their stuff.
– DonielF
yesterday
@DonielF Here's something I'm constantly stressing - everything depends on סמיכות דעת, i.g. דינא דמלכותא - whatever is accepted in that community/neighborhood/city/country. My points present clear cuts for such סמיכות דעת, for example, I remember my wife coming back from America in the 80s and wondering that you can return just about anything you buy, but in Israel, you can't. Samen here, 1 can be a consideration of distinguishing between a "try before you buy" and a real use.
– Al Berko
yesterday
@DonielF Here's something I'm constantly stressing - everything depends on סמיכות דעת, i.g. דינא דמלכותא - whatever is accepted in that community/neighborhood/city/country. My points present clear cuts for such סמיכות דעת, for example, I remember my wife coming back from America in the 80s and wondering that you can return just about anything you buy, but in Israel, you can't. Samen here, 1 can be a consideration of distinguishing between a "try before you buy" and a real use.
– Al Berko
yesterday
@DonielF How about borrowing a hammer, a cordless driver or a stroller? #2 can also be a consideration for calling it a purchase. Think about one who tastes olives or nuts - once or twice is OK but 5-10 times cannot be called "tasting"
– Al Berko
yesterday
@DonielF How about borrowing a hammer, a cordless driver or a stroller? #2 can also be a consideration for calling it a purchase. Think about one who tastes olives or nuts - once or twice is OK but 5-10 times cannot be called "tasting"
– Al Berko
yesterday
1
1
Even a mildly astute customer could recognize when a book has been used. There could be fingerprints, dirt or slightly folded / crinkled pages, etc. Even if none of these are noticeable, it could create a sort of lifnei iver situation b/c a buyer expects to buy a new book that hasn't been regularly used. Thus, the owner shouldn't allow anyone to use siddurim that he professes to sell as new. In such cases, the problem is not the davener - it'w with the owner.
– DanF
yesterday
Even a mildly astute customer could recognize when a book has been used. There could be fingerprints, dirt or slightly folded / crinkled pages, etc. Even if none of these are noticeable, it could create a sort of lifnei iver situation b/c a buyer expects to buy a new book that hasn't been regularly used. Thus, the owner shouldn't allow anyone to use siddurim that he professes to sell as new. In such cases, the problem is not the davener - it'w with the owner.
– DanF
yesterday
|
show 4 more comments
The first question: Obviously, we can present two contradicting views:
The owner is interested in such behavior because it increases the clientele (מחלקים קליות ואגוזים), or he might intentionally offer his books for such a use. Therefore he allows such a use לכתחילה and he's Mochel (forgives) the damages.
The owner is not interested and protesting to such use and considers that a Gezel but does not sue the users in court.
The resolution of such a conflict would be:
A person should always be aware of the possibility of Gezel, which is Deorayso and a very serious sin. So when in doubt, (as I understand you were in your case) one should definitely ask for explicit permission from the store owner. Since we rule that ספק דאורייתא לחומרא.
This also holds if you see others grabbing sforim freely, they might have a personal arrangement with the owner.
Where (local neighborhood/city/country) it is customary to arrange the Tefillos in book stores intentionally to draw attention or increase sales, this behavior is allowed לכתחילה.
The second question:
Theoretically, according to #1, the owner's claim might be justified, because unlike the simple case of שואל שלא מדעת (borrowing without permission) which [only] applies for items that are not for sale, for items in the store the very intention to use them shows the intention of owning.
Think about entering a pharm opening a perfume and using one once on yourself. Your intention to use is automatically translated into a purchase.
answered 9 hours ago
Al BerkoAl Berko
6,2681529
add a comment |
The first question: Obviously, we can present two contradicting views:
The owner is interested in such behavior because it increases the clientele (מחלקים קליות ואגוזים), or he might intentionally offer his books for such a use. Therefore he allows such a use לכתחילה and he's Mochel (forgives) the damages.
The owner is not interested and protesting to such use and considers that a Gezel but does not sue the users in court.
The resolution of such a conflict would be:
A person should always be aware of the possibility of Gezel, which is Deorayso and a very serious sin. So when in doubt, (as I understand you were in your case) one should definitely ask for explicit permission from the store owner. Since we rule that ספק דאורייתא לחומרא.
This also holds if you see others grabbing sforim freely, they might have a personal arrangement with the owner.
Where (local neighborhood/city/country) it is customary to arrange the Tefillos in book stores intentionally to draw attention or increase sales, this behavior is allowed לכתחילה.
The second question:
Theoretically, according to #1, the owner's claim might be justified, because unlike the simple case of שואל שלא מדעת (borrowing without permission) which [only] applies for items that are not for sale, for items in the store the very intention to use them shows the intention of owning.
Think about entering a pharm opening a perfume and using one once on yourself. Your intention to use is automatically translated into a purchase.
answered 9 hours ago
Al BerkoAl Berko
6,2681529
add a comment |
The first question: Obviously, we can present two contradicting views:
The owner is interested in such behavior because it increases the clientele (מחלקים קליות ואגוזים), or he might intentionally offer his books for such a use. Therefore he allows such a use לכתחילה and he's Mochel (forgives) the damages.
The owner is not interested and protesting to such use and considers that a Gezel but does not sue the users in court.
The resolution of such a conflict would be:
A person should always be aware of the possibility of Gezel, which is Deorayso and a very serious sin. So when in doubt, (as I understand you were in your case) one should definitely ask for explicit permission from the store owner. Since we rule that ספק דאורייתא לחומרא.
This also holds if you see others grabbing sforim freely, they might have a personal arrangement with the owner.
Where (local neighborhood/city/country) it is customary to arrange the Tefillos in book stores intentionally to draw attention or increase sales, this behavior is allowed לכתחילה.
The second question:
Theoretically, according to #1, the owner's claim might be justified, because unlike the simple case of שואל שלא מדעת (borrowing without permission) which [only] applies for items that are not for sale, for items in the store the very intention to use them shows the intention of owning.
Think about entering a pharm opening a perfume and using one once on yourself. Your intention to use is automatically translated into a purchase.
answered 9 hours ago
Al BerkoAl Berko
6,2681529
The first question: Obviously, we can present two contradicting views:
The owner is interested in such behavior because it increases the clientele (מחלקים קליות ואגוזים), or he might intentionally offer his books for such a use. Therefore he allows such a use לכתחילה and he's Mochel (forgives) the damages.
The owner is not interested and protesting to such use and considers that a Gezel but does not sue the users in court.
The resolution of such a conflict would be:
A person should always be aware of the possibility of Gezel, which is Deorayso and a very serious sin. So when in doubt, (as I understand you were in your case) one should definitely ask for explicit permission from the store owner. Since we rule that ספק דאורייתא לחומרא.
This also holds if you see others grabbing sforim freely, they might have a personal arrangement with the owner.
Where (local neighborhood/city/country) it is customary to arrange the Tefillos in book stores intentionally to draw attention or increase sales, this behavior is allowed לכתחילה.
The second question:
Theoretically, according to #1, the owner's claim might be justified, because unlike the simple case of שואל שלא מדעת (borrowing without permission) which [only] applies for items that are not for sale, for items in the store the very intention to use them shows the intention of owning.
Think about entering a pharm opening a perfume and using one once on yourself. Your intention to use is automatically translated into a purchase.
answered 9 hours ago
Al BerkoAl Berko
6,2681529
answered 9 hours ago
Al BerkoAl Berko
6,2681529
answered 9 hours ago
Al BerkoAl Berko
6,2681529
answered 9 hours ago
Al BerkoAl Berko
6,2681529
6,2681529
add a comment |
add a comment |
4
If the owner allows it, what's the question? And if the owner doesn't allow it, what's the question?
– Double AA♦
yesterday
Do you specifically mean for a Mitzvah or using just about anything, like coming toa tool store to fix your things.
– Al Berko
yesterday
3
Dude. I asked a serious straightforward question that actually happened to me today. And your just editing it to your own question, and then asking me questions on your question. Next time don't edit my question. It was a legitimate question. @AlBerko
– Moshe
yesterday
2
What's wrong with saying "dude". And I do understand it's depth. I just was wondering if anyone here knew a tshuva that states a similar case... @AlBerko
– Moshe
yesterday
1
@Moshe you are welcome to edit further or rollback the edits if you don't like them. There is a rollback "button" next to each older version of the question when you click on "edited X hours/days ago" on the left of your name
– mbloch
yesterday