As Mr. Nathan walked home, he saw his neighbor’s son Effy fixing his bike. It was quite old and rusty, with dents in many places. One of the spokes was broken.

“Shalom. How are you?” Mr. Nathan asked Effy. “It seems that almost every time I walk by, you’re fixing your bike.”

“Baruch Hashem, I’m fine,” replied Effy. “The bike, however, is in really poor condition.”

“Maybe it’s time to get a new bike,” suggested Mr. Nathan.

“I’d love to,” said Effy, “but we just can’t afford it.”

Mr. Nathan walked home thoughtfully. He had a good bike that was almost never used; it was many years since he had last rode it. His grandchildren rode the bike when they visited, but they had moved to Israel the previous year.

The following day, Mr. Nathan invited Effy over.

“I have a bicycle that I don’t use anymore,” Mr. Nathan said to him. “Our grandchildren sometimes used it, but now that they’ve moved to Eretz Yisrael, I’d be happy to give it to you. The only thing is, if they ever come to visit, I’d like to borrow it back while they’re here.”

“That’s very nice of you,” said Effy. “Of course I’d be happy to lend it back to you if your grandchildren come.” He thanked Mr. Nathan and took the bike home.

The following summer, Mr. Nathan’s grandchildren flew in for a visit.

“Zeidy, where’s your bike?” they asked. “We’d like to take a ride in the park.”

“I don’t use it anymore,” answered Mr. Nathan, “so I gave it to Effy, the boy next door.”

“Oh! Then we can’t ride anymore?” they asked.

“Don’t worry,” replied Mr. Nathan. “I arranged to borrow the bike back when we needed it. I’ll give Effy a call.”

Mr. Nathan called Effy.

“Hello, Effy,” he said. “Our grandchildren are in for a visit. Could we have the bike for the week?”

“Sure, with pleasure,” said Effy. “I’ll bring it over in a few minutes.”

Effy walked the bike over and the grandchildren rode it to the park to play ball. When it was time to return home, the bike was missing. It had been stolen!

A week after the grandchildren left, Effy politely asked for the bike back.

“I’m sorry,” said Mr. Nathan, “but the bike was stolen.”

“What do I do now?” lamented Effy dejectedly. “I sold my other bike as scrap. Now your grandchildren lost my bike and I have none at all…”

Later that evening, Mr. Nathan met Rabbi Tzedek.

“Do I owe Effy anything for the bicycle, which I gave him as a gift in the first place?” he asked.

“You are liable for the bicycle at its current value,” said Rabbi Tzedek, “unless Effy is willing to forgo that amount as a token of gratitude.”

Rabbi Tzedek then explained: “Although you gave the bicycle to Effy, once you gave it, it became his property. Therefore, borrowing the bicycle is no different than borrowing any other item from Effy, and you are liable for its theft (C.M. 340:1).

“When someone gives a gift, we evaluate his intention in giving, even if it is not stated explicitly,” added Rabbi Tzedek. “There is not sufficient basis here to assume that you intended to be able to borrow the bike back without any liability (see 246:1).”

“How much would I owe?” asked Mr. Nathan.

“Since the bicycle is a number of years old, the liability is for its current worth,” replied Rabbi Tzedek, “which depends on the condition of the bicycle, and is likely only a fraction of the initial cost (101:9).”

“Would Effy be justified in asking for payment, though?” asked Mr. Nathan.

“That would seem fair,” answered Rabbi Tzedek. “However, beyond justice and fairness, Effy may choose to forgo his right to compensation for the bike as an expression of gratitude to you for having given him the bicycle.

“Alternatively, you could have lent the bike to Effy as a long-term loan, whenever you don’t need it for your grandchildren,” concluded Rabbi Tzedek. “Then you would have remained the owner and Effy would be responsible as a borrower.”

I work at a summer camp. Last year, in addition to my salary, they also paid my transportation costs. The camp hired me again this year, and although we negotiated my salary, we did not discuss reimbursement for transportation costs. After camp, the director paid me only my base salary, claiming that reimbursement for transportation costs was not one of the terms of this year’s employment.

Q: Is the director correct that he is not obligated to pay for my transportation?

A: The issue here is whether terms and conditions of employment are renewed automatically.  The basic halacha is that when a person is rehired to perform the same job, the terms and conditions of his original employment remain in force. This is true even if the one who rehires him was not involved in hiring the employee in the first place (C.M. 333:8).

When only salary is discussed again, but not the other terms and conditions, it’s more difficult. One opinion is that once part of the contract is revisited, none of the other terms and conditions automatically carry over, since they were not addressed in the second agreement (Shach 333:42).

This opinion contends that once part of the agreement was renegotiated, the entire contract is subject to review, and whatever is not explicitly renewed no longer applies (Chemdas Shlomo O.C. 7 cited in Pischei Teshuvah 333:14).

Another opinion is that even if the employer and employee agreed to a different salary, whether higher or lower, it is not an indication that the remaining terms and conditions were intentionally left out of the discussion. Therefore it does not render the other terms and conditions null and void (Levush 333:8, Aruch Hashulchan 333:29).

According to this approach, renegotiating the salary has no bearing on the other terms and conditions of employment, since the salary represents the main part of the agreement. However, all authorities agree that terms and conditions that are common and expected in a particular industry are automatically renewed unless explicitly excluded. Also, if in addition to the salary some of the original terms and conditions were renegotiated but not others, all opinions agree that those terms and conditions not explicitly renewed are null and void.

In your case, since reimbursement for transportation was not renegotiated, it is subject to the dispute outlined above, and you, the one seeking to collect, are in the weaker position. Thus, unless all camps reimburse employees’ transportation costs, the camp is not obligated to reimburse you for your transportation costs.

Q: A person who was entrusted with an item, or a person who lent an item to someone, died. What are the liabilities and privileges of his inheritors in regard to the item?

A: If an item was entrusted and its guardian died, the inheritors are not liable for anything beyond negligence — even when they know that the item was entrusted to their father — unless they also continue to receive some benefit from it (see C.M. 72:6; Pischei Choshen, Pikadon 1:14).

If the borrower of an item died during the time of the loan, his inheritors are entitled to use the item for the duration of the loan. But they are only liable as a shomer sachar, a paid guardian, since they did not accept responsibility personally. However, the lender may insist that they either return the item or accept liability as a sho’el, a borrower (C.M. 341:3).

If the heirs are unaware that this item was borrowed or entrusted, there is a dispute whether they are liable, even for negligence (Nesivos 341:5; P.C. 9:[34]).

In the opposite case also, should the lender die, the borrower may continue using the item for the duration of the loan (see Aruch Hashulchan 341:1; P.C. 9:12).