Qitzur Shulchan Arukh – 182:15-16

טו: הַמּוֹצֵא פֵרוֹת בַּדֶּרֶךְ תַּחַת אִילָן שֶׁהוּא נוֹטֶה עַל הַדֶּרֶך, אִם הֵם פֵּרוֹת שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לִפּוֹל מִן הָאִילָן וּבִנְפִילָתָם הֵם נִמְאָסִים, אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ אֵינָם נִמְאָסִים אֶלָּא שֶׁרֹב הָעוֹבְרִים שָׁמָּה הֵמָּה גוֹיִם, אוֹ שֶׁהֵם פֵּרוֹת שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ הַבְּהֵמוֹת לֶאֱכֹל אוֹתָם, וְהֵן עוֹבְרוֹת דֶרֶךְ שָם, הֲרֵי הַבְּעָלִים כְּבָר נִתְיָאֲשׁוּ מֵהֶם וּמֻתָּרִים. אֲבָל אִם הֵם פֵּרוֹת שֶׁאֵינָם נִמְאָסִים בִּנְפִילָתָם, וְרֹב הָעוֹבְרִים שָׁמָּה הֵמָּה יִשְׂרְאֵלִים, אֲסוּרִים מִֹשוּם גָּזֵל. וְאִם הֵם שֶׁל יְתוֹמִים קְטַנִּים, אֲסוּרִים בְּכָל עִנְיָן, כִּי הַקְּטַנִּים, אֵין הַיֵאוּשׁ וְהַמְּחִילָה שֶׁלָּהֶם כְּלוּם

Someone who finds fruit on the path under a tree that is planted along the path, if the fruit is of the sort that normally falls from the tree and when they fall they become disgusting, or even if not disgusting, but most of those who pass there are non-Jews, or they are fruit that it is normal for animals to eat and they [often] travel this path, then the owners already gave up on them and they are permitted.

However, if they are fruit that do not become disgusting when they fall, and most of those who pass there are Jews, they are prohibited because of theft.

If they belong to young orphans, they are prohibited in every way, since the giving up on [something] or their forgiving has no [halachic import; being minors, their intent doesn’t have legal weight].

טז: דִּינָא דְּמַלְכוּתָא דִּינָא

The law of the kingdom [ie the civil authorities of your country] is law.


Dina demalkhusa dina is a complicated topic, with long discussion by many rishonim as to its full scope. It is enigmatic that R’ Shelomo Ganzfried just quotes the idiom, rather than spelling out its details — it would could easily take an entire se’if (chapter)!

From its placement, we can deduce that the QSA considers dina demalkhusa to be primarily related to fiscal law and theft. But I can’t tell if he’s referring to stealing from the government, i.e. limiting the concept to taxation. Or if he is saying that property can be set by the customs defined by civil law and thus something someone else legally owns by local law may not be taken or used even if they wouldn’t have otherwise owned it according to halakhah.

Qitzur Shulchan Arukh – 182:14

יד: וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם מֻתָּר לְבֶן-בֵּיתוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם לִתֵּן פְּרוּסָה לְעָנִי אוֹ לִבְנוֹ שֶׁל אוֹהֲבוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל-הַבַּיִת שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ, לְפִי שֶׁכָּךְ נָהֲגוּ בַּעֲלֵי הַבָּתִּים. וְאֵין זֶה נִקְרָא שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת הַבְּעָלִים, כֵּיוָן שֶׁכָּךְ נָהֲגוּ, וְהַבְּעָלִים יוֹדְעִין מִזֶּה הַמִּנְהָג. וּמִטַּעַם זֶה, מֻתָּר לְקַבֵּל צְדָקָה מִן הַנָּשִׁים דָּבָר מֻעָט שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת הַבְּעָלִים, הוֹאִיל וְדַרְכָּן בְּכָךְ, וְיוֹדְעִין הַבְּעָלִים שֶׁדַּרְכָּן בְּכָךְ. וְכֵן בְּפַרְדֵּס, אִם הוּא רָגִיל בּוֹ לֶאֱכֹל מִפֵּרוֹתָיו מִדַּעַת הַבְּעָלִים, מֻתָּר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיוֹצֵא בָזֶה

But in any case, it is permitted for a member of someone’s household to give a slice [of food] to a poor person, or to the son of one of the homeowner’s beloved [friends or relation] without his knowledge because that is the custom of homeowners. It is not called “without the owners’ knowledge” since that is the custom and the owners know of this custom. For this reason, it is permissible to receive charity from women, a small thing, without knowledge of the owners [ie their husbands, assuming they didn’t agree to communal property], since this is their usual way, and the owner knows that this is their way. Similarly in an orchard, if it is usual for him to eat from its fruits on the general knowledge of the owners [without this specific incidence discussed] it is permitted. Similarly anything like this.


Related to this halakhah of being able to assume the owner agrees to customary practice, R’ Daniel Eidensohn pointed me to an answer to a question I asked about 182:12:

This situation comes up in shul pretty often. There aren’t that many different styles of men coat, and it sometimes happens that someone looks through the coat room and realizes that the only remaining coat was one similar to theirs. Someone who left already took with the wrong coat.

I hadn’t heard, though, of a rabbi telling the person stuck in this situation that he is not permitted to wear the accidentally exchanged coat home.

Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igeros Moshe vol VII, Orach Chaim vol V, #9, sec 7, pg 15) opens by saying that use of the other person’s coas is prohibited. He cites Bava Metzi’ah 46a and Shulchan Arukh, Ch”M 136:3.

Then the Igeros Moshe cites the Arukh haShulchan (end of 136; hereafter AhS). The AhS rules that since wearing
the other person’s galoshes or coat is the customary response, one can assume that the owner implicitly gave permission.

Rav Moshe then sets limits. Like the fact that if the baal were to demand repayment for the value of coat rental, you would be obligated to pay it. (I wonder if that’s on Shabbos too, since that would imply a he leased you his coat on Shabbos.)

And Rav Moshe notes that since we only see this in the AhS means there must be communities where this is not the minhag. And therefore shuls that have this practice should announce it (and put up a sign, say so in the stickers in the front of shul siddurim, and things of that sort…)

Qitzur Shulchan Arukh – 182:13

יג:אָסוּר לֵהָנוֹת מִשׁוּם דָּבָר ֹשֶל חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ. אַף-עַל-פִּי שֶׁבָּרוּר לוֹ שֶׁכְּשֶיִוָּדַע לִבְעָלָיו יִשְׂמְחוּ וְיָגִילוּ מִפְנֵי אַהֲבָתָם אוֹתוֹ. מִכָּל מָקוֹם אָסוּר. לְפִיכָךְ הַנִּכְנָס לְפַרְדֵּס אוֹ לְגִנַּת חֲבֵרוֹ, אָסוּר לוֹ לִלְקֹט פֵּרוֹת שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת הַבְּעָלִים. אַף-עַל-פִּי שֶׁבַּעַל הַפַּרְדֵּס וּבַעַל הַגִּנָּה אוֹהֲבוֹ וְרֵעוֹ אֲשֶׁר כְּנַפְשוֹ, וּבְוַדַּאי יִשְׂמַח וְיָגִיל כְּשֶׁיִוָּדַע לוֹ ֹשֶנֶּהֱנָה זֶה מִפֵּרוֹתָיו, מִכָּל מָקוֹם כֵּיוָן שֶׁעַכְשָו אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ מִזֶה, הֲרֵי הוּא נֶהֱנֶה בְּאִסּוּר. וְצָרִיךְ לְהַזְהִיר לָרַבִּים, שֶׁנִּכְשָׁלִין בָּזֶה מֵחֲמַת חֶסְרוֹן יְדִיעָה

It is prohited to get benefit from anything of a friend’s without his knowledge. Even if it is certain to him that when the owners would be informed, they would be happy and rejoice because of their love for him. In any case, it is prohibited.

Therefore, someone who enters his friend’s orchard or garden, he is not allowed to pick fruit without the knowledge of the owners. Even if the owner of the orchard and the owner of the garden love him and is his friend [as close] as his own soul, and would certainly be happy and rejoice when he is informed that this one benefited from his fruit, in any case since now he does not know about this, he is getting benefit in a prohibited manner.

We must warn the masses about this, who stumble in this because of lack of knowledge.

Qitzur Shulchan Arukh – 182:12

יב: מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַלְפוּ לוֹ כֵּלָיו בְּבֵית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה וְכַדּוֹמֶה, הַרֵי זֶה לֹא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּכֵלִים אֵלוּ שֶׁבָּאוּ לְיָדוֹ וְאֵינָם שֶׁלּוֹ. וִּכְשֶׁיָבוֹא בַּעַל הַחֵפֶץ, צָרִיךְ לְהַחֲזִירוֹ לוֹ, וְאַף-עַל-פִּי שֶׁהַחֵפֶץ שֶׁלּוֹ נֶאֱבָד. וְכֵן כּוֹבֶסֶת הַמְכַבֶּסֶת לְרַבִּים וְהֵבִיאָה לוֹ חָלוּק שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ, אָסוּר לְלָבְשוֹ, אֶלָּא צָרִיךְ לְהַחֲזִירוֹ לִבְעָלָיו, וְאַף-עַל-פִּי שֶׁשֶּׁלּוֹ נֶאֱבָד. אַךְ אִם מֻנָּח אֶצְלוֹ יָמִים רַבִּים, עַד שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁלֹּא חָקְרוּ הַבְּעָלִים בֵּינְתַיִם אַחַר שֶׁלָּהֶם, אָז מֻתָּר לוֹ לְלָבְשוֹ, כִּי מִסְּתָמָא סִלְּקָה הַכּוֹבֶסֶת אֶת בְּעָלָיו וְשִׁלְּמָה בְּעַד הֶחָלוּק הַזֶה

Someone whose utensils were switched in the pub or the like, he should not use the utensils that came to his hand that weren’t his. When the owner of the item comes, he must return it — even if his own item is lost. Similarly a washer-woman who washes [clothes] for the community and brings him a shirt which is not his, it is prohibited to wear it. Rather, he must return it to its owners — even if his own was lost.

However, if it rests with him many days, until it is impossible that the owners didn’t search in the meantime for their own, then it is permitted for him to wear it. Because by default [you may assume that] the washer-woman cleared [the matter] with its owners and paid for this shirt.


This situation comes up in shul pretty often. There aren’t that many different styles of men coat, and it sometimes happens that someone looks through the coat room and realizes that the only remaining coat was one similar to theirs. Someone who left already took with the wrong coat.

I hadn’t heard, though, of a rabbi telling the person stuck in this situation that he is not permitted to wear the accidentally exchanged coat home.

Qitzur Shulchan Arukh – 182:10-11

י: וְלָכֵן מִי שֶׁהוּא גַנָּב אוֹ גַזְלָן מְפֻרְסָם, שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מְלָאכָה אַחֶרֶת אֶלָּא זֹאת, וְכָל מְמוֹנוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת גָנוּב אוֹ גָזוּל, אָסוּר לֵהָנוֹת מִמֶּנוּ, וְאָסוּר לְעָנִי לָקַחַת מִמֶּנּוּ צְדָקָה

[Continuing the topic of buying or getting benefit from stolen merchandise…] Therefore, anyone who is a known robber or thief, who has no job other than this, and [therefore] all his money is presumed to be robbed or stolen, it is prohibited to get any benefit from him, and a poor person may not take charity from him.

יא: וְכֵן אִם אֶחָד רוצֶה לִמְכֹּר אֵיזֶה חֵפֶץ שֶׁנִּרְאֶה שֶׁהוּא גָנוּב, כְּגוֹן שׁוֹמְרֵי פֵּרוֹת שֶׁמּוֹכְרִים פֵּרוֹת בְּמָקוֹם צָנוּעַ, אוֹ מוֹכֵר אַחֵר שֶׁנּוֹשֵׂא אֵיזֶה דָבָר בְּהַצְנֵעַ לְמָכְרוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁאוֹמֵר לְהַקּוֹנֶה, הַטְמֵן, אָסוּר לִקְנוֹת. וַאֲפִלּוּ לִקְנוֹת מֵאִשָּׁה אֵיזֶה דָבָר שֶׁיֵשׁ לָחוּשׁ שֶׁהִיא מוֹכֶרֶת שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת בַּעְלָּה, אוֹ לִקְנוֹת מֵאִישׁ דָּבָר מִתַּכְשִׁיטֵי הָאִשָּׁה וּמַלְבּוּשֶׁיהָ, שֶׁיֵשׁ לָחוּשׁ שֶׁהוּא מוֹכְרוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת אִשְׁתּוֹ, אָסוּר

Similarly, anyone who wants to sell any item that appears to be stolen, such as the guardians of fruit who are selling fruit in some hidden place, or another seller who carries an item into a hidden place to sell it, or who tells the buyer “wait [for someone to pass by]”, it is prohibited to buy. Even buying from a woman some item that there is reason to suspect she is selling it without her husband’s knowledge, or to buy from a man an item of his wife’s jewelry or clothing that there is reason to suspect that he sells it without his wife’s knowledge, is prohibited.