Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses the halakhic and moral injunctions against jumping the line and grabbing an item that another person resolved to acquire. A person who does so is labeled as wicked.

Tosafos raises a contradiction based on a teaching in Bava Metzi’a (10a), where we learn that if someone sees a presumably ownerless object and falls upon it to acquire it, while another actually grabs it with his hands and acquires it. The halakha is that the second person is the owner. Though one’s four cubits automatically acquire an object, since the first person jumped on it, he showed that he did not intend to use that method of acquisition. Furthermore, since laying on an object is not a method of acquisition, he has done nothing that has legal import. Therefore, the second person, who actually made a legal kinyan, acquires it. The Gemara Bava Metzi’a raises no ethical objection to this behavior, and Tosafos must make a distinction between our Gemara and Bava Metzi’a. Unlike Rashi here, Tosafos says our case is discussing an item for sale, while the case in Bava Metzi’a is discussing an ownerless hefker object. Unlike Rashi, Tosafos maintains that since the object is ownerless and not specifically representative of business pursuits or carefully conducted buyer’s research, it is a windfall and not subject to this rule. It is only wicked to interfere with a person’s livelihood and not a random find. However, Rashi learns that this rule applies to hefker as well, and how does Rashi work out the contradiction between our Gemara and Bava Metzi’a?

The Kotzker offers a mussar-based answer (Siach Sarfei Kodesh, page 31/61): The person who found the object could have acquired it sufficiently via his four cubits. It was his compulsive anxiety and lack of faith in God that led him to excessive measures to fall on the object, instead of assuming that God would allow him to have what was intended for him. Since he did not conduct himself properly, he too is labeled a Rasha. If so, with such a poor precedent and model for behavior, we cannot blame the second fellow entirely and call him a wicked person either.

I wonder whether this answer of the Kotzker was meant as a quip or a bedicha that an assiduous student took too seriously. To bolster my argument, this statement is not found in his writings, but rather in an anthology of statements and stories about various Hasidic rebbes. Is it really credible that the mild wickedness of the first person, who shows a lack of trust, really mitigates the consideration that a second person was behaving in an outright wicked manner? On the other hand, even the idle talk of the Sages requires study (Avodah Zara 19b), so let us accept the Kotzker’s position that this levels the playing field in some way, and we can no longer look at the second person who grabbed the object as truly wicked.

Nonetheless, this assertion of the Kotzker needs more analysis. It is a tenet of Judaism that though we trust in God, we do not do so to the neglect of the practical. Why should we fault a person who sees an object in a public place and strenuously exerts himself to make sure he retains possession? To answer this, we must also consider the counterbalancing position that one should not try too hard. For example, as is evident from the Biblical narrative and explained by our sages, Yosef was subjected to two more years in prison as punishment for relying “too much” on the goodwill of the chief wine steward instead of God (Shemos Rabbah 7:1). While we can say that Yosef was held to a higher standard due to his piety, and a regular person should not trust so much in God as to not ask for human assistance, we still must understand how each person applies these opposing principles. (For several examples of how God is more exacting with the righteous, see Mesilas Yesharim chapter 4.)

Here are a few quotes from Chovos Halevavos (Shaar Habitachon 4) on the idea of effort versus faith:

ועל איזה פנים שיהיה ראוי לו להתעסק בסבות ואל ירפה מחזר עליהן כשהם ראויות למדותיו ולגופו ולאמונתו ולעולמו כאשר קדמתי ויבטח עם זה על אלהיו שלא יעזבהו ולא ירפהו ולא יתעלם ממנו כמו שנאמר (נחום א ז) טוב ה׳ ‎‎למעוז ביום צרה וגו'.

However the case, it is proper for him to engage in the means of earning a livelihood and not to be lax in pursuing after them, provided they are suited to his traits and physical abilities, as I previously explained. And all the while, he should trust in God, that He will not abandon him, neglect him, or ignore him, as written "The Lord is good, a stronghold on a day of trouble and knows (Rashi - the needs of) those who trust in Him" (Nachum 1:7).

קניני האדם וסבות טרפו ואפני עסקיו במסחר ומלאכה והליכות הדרכים ומנוי ושכירות ופקידות ועבודת המלכים וגזברות וקבלנות ואמנה וספרות ומיני העבודות והליכות המדברות והימים והדומה לזה ממה שמתעסקין בו לקבץ ממון ולהרבות מותרי המחיה אפני ישר הבטחון בהם על האלהים שיתעסק במה שזימן לו הבורא מהם לצרך ספוקו ומזונו ולהגיע אל מה שיש בו די מן העולם.

The matters of man's possessions, means of financial gain in his various pursuits, whether in commerce, skilled trades, peddling, business management, official appointments, property rentals, banking, work of kings, treasurers, contracting, writing work, other types of work, going to faraway deserts and seas, and other similar things, from what people toil in to amass money, and increase the superfluous. The proper way of trust in the Al-mighty for this is to engage in the means which God has made available to him to the extent necessary for his maintenance and sufficient for his needs of this world.

ואם יגזר לו הבורא בתוספת על זה תבואהו מבלי טרח ויגיעה כאשר יבטח על האלהים בה ולא ירבה לחזר על הסבות ולא יסמך עליהן בלבו.

And if the Creator will decree for him more than this, it will come to him without trouble or exertion, provided he trusts in the Al-mighty for it and does not excessively pursue the means nor inwardly trust in them in his heart.

Chovos Halevavos stresses a number of principles. He does not guarantee that it will be easy to make a livelihood, nor does he say that everyone will merit equal levels of wealth. He does say that one must put in as much effort as necessary, given his skills and abilities, and that it should be for necessary sustenance. Additional wealth should not be strived for at all; however, if it comes with ease, this too is a product of God’s will and blessing.

Based on these principles, we must consider that according to the Kotzker, the person who could not be satisfied with the acquisition of the object using his four cubits was revealing an excessive degree of anxiety and mistrust, therefore not showing faith in God. Or, another explanation could be that since the object was a windfall and not through ordinary commerce, the finder should have concluded that if God wanted it for him, it would come no matter what, and no extreme measures were necessary.

The line between practical and necessary effort versus faith in God is a difficult one to assess, but we see from this discussion valuable criteria that can be reasonably applied.