<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 2:57 AM, Micha Berger <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:micha@aishdas.org">micha@aishdas.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
Second, your rationale would indicate that in the Qitzur's case of the<br>
laundry service mixing up your shirts, and you needed your only good<br>
shirt, you would be allowed to borrow his. But that's NOT his ruling.<br>
<br>
What I'm looking for is either the distinction between the two cases, or<br>
a source who disagrees with the QSA that we hold like.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>How about this for a distinction: in the laundry case Reuven, who has Shim`on's shirt, can assume that Shim`on (who presumably has his shirt) is in exactly the same situation as he is. Therefore neither one has the right to initiate a swap by wearing the other's shirt.<br>
<br>In the cloakroom case, Reuven can assume that Shimon has *already* worn his coat home, even though unintentionally, so turn about is fair play and he can wear Shimon's coat at least to get home.<br></div></div></div>