Regarding the coin custodian who deposited coins with his mother on 42B, are we correctly understanding Rava to say that a chest is a sufficient storage for any custodian?
Or is that a chest is superior to the minimum storage requirements of burial in the ground?
Or in this particular case eventhough storage in a chest is not superior to burial, since it was sufficient for what she understood she was asked to do, it was sufficient that she had no liability?
Is Rava accepting the hypothetical explanation that a custodian's mother would be even more careful with her son's coins than a custodian to a depositor's coins?
I might have expected the Gemara to consider other reasons for the custodian holding back the information of the coin's ownership, such as:
To not risk insulting his mother who might think they are really his, but that she might think he is pretending them to be someone else's because he doesn't trust her to store them in a chest, but wants the greater standard of burial?
Thank you
Robert Chesler
Dear Robert,
1)Your third side is true. A chest is normally not sufficient. But she thought it was her son's and therefore didn't think she had to keep all precautions.
2)Correct - the mother is normally more careful than a custodian.
About your thought about a tricky custodian and his mother:
The Gemara has good reason to release him from responsibility and even if you're right that won't change the ruling.
All the best,
Reuven Weiner