21 Mar IS OUR MONEY IN THE BANKS SAFE?

The recent collapse
of two of the largest
banks in America
that cater to the tech
industry, spurred
panic around
America and around
the world, as everyone is on edge fearing
for their investments.
Before banks came around, the Gemara
used people how explains) בבא מציעא מב,א)
to secure and protect their money, almost
as if people played “hide and seek” with
robbers. People used to dig a hole in the
ground and hide their money in the earth.
As thieves became familiar with the hiding
technique and learned of how to dig and
find the money, people changed their hiding
spots to place the money in the beams of
their roof. When the thieves learned of
that as well, removing the beams to find
the money, people changed then opting to
hide their money behind the bricks of their
houses.
Since then, many things have changed,
including the way we handle money. Rav
Moshe Feinstein and Rav Yaakov Blau

אגרות משה חו“מ חלק ב‘ סימן נ“ג, ובספר ) wrote
today that ,)פתחי חושן חלק ג‘ פרק ב‘ הערה י“ז
one should keep money in a bank because
it’s the safest way to protect it. But is that
still true after the latest events?
SVB was the first bank to fall after a
hike in interest rates led to a decrease in
the value of the bank’s assets. Two days
later Signature Bank was forced to close
after it was hit with a drastic number of
withdrawals following the failure of SVB.
The closures of the financial institutions
mark the biggest bank collapse since 2008.
According to experts it’s a crisis for all
banks.
After the collapse, President Biden spoke
to the nation assuring Americans that the
nation’s banking system is secure after the
fallout. “Americans can have confidence
that the banking system is safe. Your
deposits are safe. No losses will be borne
by the taxpayer,” Biden said during a press
conference.
In this article we would like to explore
the responsibilities a bank has towards the
money of their customers in the event of a

similar collapse.
Are banks considered to be watchers/
guardians over the deposited money
or are they considered to be lenders?
The difference is the level of
responsibility the banks have over our
money. If the banks are considered as
guardians over the money, they have
a status of שכר שומר, a guard which
has a benefit. Such a guardian will
be obligated to reimburse the money
if they money was lost, stolen or suffered
a loss through investments. But in a very
unlikely loss, such as the last bank collapse,
they would be considered אונס, which will
exempt them from paying back.
If we view the deposits as a loan to the
bank, then the banks bear full responsibility
and must pay up at any event of a loss, even
for a very unlikely loss.
The money we deposit in the bank in an
account which allows us to withdraw it
when we need it, has an interesting status,
since the bank holds it for us until we choose
to withdraw it; whilst simultaneously
maintaining the right to invest the money
as they wish, thus benefiting from our
money. Moreover, if we decide to
withdraw the money, the banks can hold
it back according to their policies. Some
banks hold it for five days and some
may hold it longer.
The fact that banks don’t have to give
us back our money immediately shows
that they don’t have a complete status
of a Shomer—guardian, but more of a
lender.
On the other hand, since we want to
have the money in the bank because
it’s best protected there, and the reality
is that almost always, banks pay the
money to the customers when they want
it, showing that the bank has more of a
status of a Shomer.
A similar question was dealt with at
length by many poskim.
When a person passes away his relatives
inherit him. The Torah explains the
specific order of inheritance, as quoted
The “:)בבא בתרא קטו,א) Mishna the in
order of precedence with regard to
inheritances is this: The verse states:
“If a man dies, and has no son, then
you shall pass his inheritance to his
daughter –a son precedes a daughter. All
descendants of a son precede a daughter.
A daughter precedes the brothers of the
deceased. Additionally, the descendants
of a daughter precede the brothers of the

deceased. Brothers of the deceased precede
the uncles of the deceased. Additionally,
the descendants of the brothers precede the
uncles.
The Torah (Devarim 21:16-17) also
commands us to give a firstborn male a
double portion of his father’s estate. Thus,
if the deceased was survived by five sons,
the bechor—firstborn receives two-sixths
of the inheritance, and the other sons each
receive one-sixth.
However, this that the bechor is entitled to
receive a double share, is only from assets
held by the deceased at the time of his death
(muchzak). The bechor does not receive a
double portion from the contingent assets
(ra’ui) – the assets to which the deceased
had a right to at the time of death but
which he did not actually have in hand (e.g.
unpaid debts).
There is a discussion amongst the poskim
regarding money deposited in a bank
whether it is considered muchzak or ra’ui
האם חשבון בנק נחשב ראוי או מוחזק, עיין גנת)
ורדים, יעבץ, חיים שאל שסברו שנחשב ראוי, וכן
פסק הגר״ע יוסף ביבי״א והגר״מ פינשטיין באגר״מ.
(ובמשנה הלכות ובמנחת אשר כתבו שהוא מוחזק
Rabbi Shalom Mashash writes that the
money deposited in the bank today is very
different than it was in earlier times since
today every person secures his money in
the bank because that is the safest place to
store one’s money and is available for him
whenever he wants the money. Therefore
his account is considered a “Pikadon”
when he deposits the money merely for his
benefit, and thus the banks are considered
watchers.
Because of the above, the money in the
bank is considered to be Muchzak and the
Bechor gets a double portion.
The conclusion is that money placed in the
banks is a subject of a Machloket—but that
is true only when the banks don’t stipulate
their conditions. Being that today’s banks
have very clear stipulations and when one
banks, he does so with their terms and
conditions, each would be subject to the
terms and conditions of the bank.