3,231
edits
Being Careful With Other People's Money: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
Being Careful With Other People's Money (view source)
Revision as of 16:30, 13 January 2019
, 13 January 2019no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
* Aruch Hashulchan 348:1 writes that although some poskim maintain that the Biblical prohibition against stealing from a Jew is limited to stealing more than the value of a perutah, stealing from a non-Jew is forbidden min ha-Torah even for an item valued less than a perutah. | * Aruch Hashulchan 348:1 writes that although some poskim maintain that the Biblical prohibition against stealing from a Jew is limited to stealing more than the value of a perutah, stealing from a non-Jew is forbidden min ha-Torah even for an item valued less than a perutah. | ||
* Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 182:1 relates a story from the Tanna d’Bei Eliyahu of a certain person who shorted a non-Jewish customer in the measure of dates that he sold him. Later, he used the money from that transaction to purchase oil. The flask broke and the oil was spilled, causing the one relating the incident to exclaim, “Blessed is G-d, Who does not let people get away with such things!” Leviticus 19:13 says, “Do not oppress your neighbor or steal from him.” | * Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 182:1 relates a story from the Tanna d’Bei Eliyahu of a certain person who shorted a non-Jewish customer in the measure of dates that he sold him. Later, he used the money from that transaction to purchase oil. The flask broke and the oil was spilled, causing the one relating the incident to exclaim, “Blessed is G-d, Who does not let people get away with such things!” Leviticus 19:13 says, “Do not oppress your neighbor or steal from him.” | ||
* Hilchot Bayit | * Hilchot Bayit Ne'eman pg. 189 quotes from the Chida in the name of the Arizal that anybody who steals from a non-Jew, even an idol worshipper, that non-Jew will scream and litigate against the Jew when he dies. | ||
* see [https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/886659/rabbi-shay-schachter/the-prohibition-of-stealing-from-a-non-jew-gezel-akum/ The Prohibition of Stealing from a Non-Jew Gezel Akum by Rabbi Shay Schachter]</ref> | * see [https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/886659/rabbi-shay-schachter/the-prohibition-of-stealing-from-a-non-jew-gezel-akum/ The Prohibition of Stealing from a Non-Jew Gezel Akum by Rabbi Shay Schachter]</ref> | ||
===Stealing from the Government=== | |||
# It is equally forbidden to steal from the government, such as a federal or state government body.<ref> Halachos of Other People's Money pg. 34</ref> | |||
# One who receives government funding to provide lunch to students, cannot fraudulently add the name of a non-existing student to collect extra funds.<ref> Halachos of Other People's Money pg. 35, Shu"t Igrot Moshe CM 2:29</ref> | |||
# It is prohibited to avoid paying taxes in a democracy such as the United States.<ref> Shu"t Igrot Moshe CM 2:29, Shu"t Shevet Halevi 2:58, [https://www.torahweb.org/torah/special/2005/rsch_taxes.html Rav Hershel Schachter]. see there where Rav Schachter writes that taxes nowadays would not only be binding because of dina dimalchuta dina. Paying taxes is also your obligation to the partnership because taxes are used to provide services to the citizens (fire, police, military, garbage, mail etc). All the people of the city, state, country have to contribute to provide for that. Thus, one who withholds his taxes is not only taking from the government. He is taking from the other citizens, which inevitably includes other Jews. </ref> | |||
# According to some poskim, patronizing a Jewish merchant who cheats on his taxes violates the Biblical prohibition of lifnei iver.<ref> [https://www.jlaw.com/Commentary/payingtaxes.html Eli Clark] quoted from Rav Hershel Schachter </ref> | |||
==Borrowing Without Permission== | ==Borrowing Without Permission== | ||
<p class="indent">The gemara records a story in which the sharecropper of Mari Bar Isak took fruit to some of Amoraim while Mari Bar Isak was away. Some of the Amoraim ate the fruits, while Rav Ashi did not. Rashi explains that Rav Ashi was concerned that the sharecropper was taking Mari Bar Isak’s fruit without permission and didn’t want to benefit from stolen goods. If so, what were the other Amoraim thinking? Tosfot (Bava Metsia 22a s.v. mar) explains that they assumed that the sharecropper was giving his own fruits. Then Tosfot adds that it would not have been a correct justification if the other Amoraim assumed that the sharecropper took Mari’s fruits, but once Mari would find out about it, he would be okay with it. Tosfot proves that an expression of intent isn’t effective for past events from the topic of yeush shelo medaat, assuming someone would relinquish ownership if an item is lost. </p> | <p class="indent">The gemara records a story in which the sharecropper of Mari Bar Isak took fruit to some of Amoraim while Mari Bar Isak was away. Some of the Amoraim ate the fruits, while Rav Ashi did not. Rashi explains that Rav Ashi was concerned that the sharecropper was taking Mari Bar Isak’s fruit without permission and didn’t want to benefit from stolen goods. If so, what were the other Amoraim thinking? Tosfot (Bava Metsia 22a s.v. mar) explains that they assumed that the sharecropper was giving his own fruits. Then Tosfot adds that it would not have been a correct justification if the other Amoraim assumed that the sharecropper took Mari’s fruits, but once Mari would find out about it, he would be okay with it. Tosfot proves that an expression of intent isn’t effective for past events from the topic of yeush shelo medaat, assuming someone would relinquish ownership if an item is lost. </p> | ||
<p class="indent">Tosfot’s opinion is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch and accordingly it would be prohibited to take someone else’s property even if one assumes that they would be agreeable when he finds out. Even though the Shach (C.M. 358) disagrees, the poskim (Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 182:13, Aruch HaShulchan 358:8) follow the opinion of Tosfot. Nonetheless, Rabbi Bodner (Halachos Of Other People’s Money p. 26) quotes poskim who say that if a friend or relative have allowed you to take a particular item in the past with regularity it would permitted to take it without consent.</p> | <p class="indent">Tosfot’s opinion is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch and accordingly it would be prohibited to take someone else’s property even if one assumes that they would be agreeable when he finds out. Even though the Shach (C.M. 358) disagrees, the poskim (Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 182:13, Aruch HaShulchan 358:8) follow the opinion of Tosfot. Nonetheless, Rabbi Bodner (Halachos Of Other People’s Money p. 26) quotes poskim who say that if a friend or relative have allowed you to take a particular item in the past with regularity it would permitted to take it without consent.</p> | ||
==Zeh Neheneh Zeh Lo Chasar== | ==Zeh Neheneh Zeh Lo Chasar== | ||
# You have the right to prevent anyone from using your property even if you don’t lose if they were to use it. Zeh Neheneh Zeh Lo Chasar is only after the fact.<ref>Tofsot bava kama 20b, Tosfot bava batra 12b, Mordechai bava kama n. 16, Rama CM 363:6, Biur HaGra there, Pitchei Choshen Genevah 8:3. None of the sources quote someone who argues besides the Gra cites the Rosh and disagrees. Either way the Rosh is only potentially allowing it because he is watching the house and helping out but generally he agrees with Tosfot. Nodah Beyehuda CM 24 applies the rule even if the property can’t be sold. Pitchei Choshen discusses that perhaps that’s a difference between Tosfot and Mordechai and the Rama followed the Mordechai.</ref> | # You have the right to prevent anyone from using your property even if you don’t lose if they were to use it. Zeh Neheneh Zeh Lo Chasar is only after the fact.<ref>Tofsot bava kama 20b, Tosfot bava batra 12b, Mordechai bava kama n. 16, Rama CM 363:6, Biur HaGra there, Pitchei Choshen Genevah 8:3. None of the sources quote someone who argues besides the Gra cites the Rosh and disagrees. Either way the Rosh is only potentially allowing it because he is watching the house and helping out but generally he agrees with Tosfot. Nodah Beyehuda CM 24 applies the rule even if the property can’t be sold. Pitchei Choshen discusses that perhaps that’s a difference between Tosfot and Mordechai and the Rama followed the Mordechai.</ref> | ||
