Learn about the up to the minute human rights and legal challenges facing Israel, while networking with other likeminded professionals and earning CLE credits in your jurisdictions – all at the same time
At the conclusion of this week’s parshah, the Torah discusses the halachos of one who stole from another. The pasuk says, “veheishiv es hagezeilah asher gazal – and he shall return the stolen object that he stole.” We derive from this that there is a mitzvas assei to return a stolen object.
Many Achronim explain that when one steals an item he would actually acquire the item, if not for the fact that the Torah commanded him to return it. It is for this reason that once the item is not returnable (e.g. it is damaged), it then belongs to the one who stole it – who then must reimburse the original owner. Since there is no obligation to return the object, it now belongs to the one who stole it.
The Torah sorts stealing into two categories, each one a separate lo sa’aseh: geneivah and gezeilah. The latter is when one uses force to steal, or steals in the open (without hiding). When one steals covertly, it is referred to as geneivah. There are several differences between the two. One example of how they differ is that only a ganav pays keifel (double), or four or five times the principle amount if he shechts or sells the stolen item. A gazlan does not incur these penalties. However, regarding repaying the principle amount that was stolen, they are similar. Further, the halacha of veheishiv es hagezeilah asher gazal applies to both geneivah and gezeilah.
Therefore a ganav does not acquire the stolen item, just like a gazlan, because they are both obligated to return the item that was stolen.
The Rambam begins discussing hilchos gezeilah with the following halacha: one who steals from another transgressed a lo sa’aseh – as it says, “lo sigzol.” However, lashes are not administered to one who transgresses this lo sa’aseh, for the Torah has commanded an assei to rectify it by returning the object that he stole. This is because it says veheishiv es hagezeilah asher gazal, which is a mitzvas assei. (This concept is known as a lav hanitak l’assei, a positive commandment that rectifies the negative commandment whereby lashes are not administered.) And even if he will destroy the stolen object (making it impossible to fulfill the positive commandment), he nevertheless does not receive lashes; instead he is obligated to pay for the object, the ruling being that any lo sa’aseh that requires one to pay precludes him from receiving lashes.
The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos geneivah that lashes are not administered to one who transgresses the lo sa’aseh of geneivah, similar to that of gezeilah. But he writes that this is for a different reason, namely that one who commits geneivah transgresses a lo sa’aseh – as it says, “lo signovo.” However, he does not receive lashes for transgressing this lo sa’aseh because the Torah commanded him to pay (and as mentioned above, any lav that requires one to pay precludes the person from receiving lashes). The Rambam does not say that one who transgresses geneivah does not receive lashes, because it is a lav hanitak l’assei.
Many Achronim ask why the Rambam did not write that the reason that a ganav is exempt from lashes is because it is a lav hanitak l’assei, as he did by gezeilah – as since we apply the halacha of veheishiv es hagezeilah asher gazal to a ganav, it should be a lav hanitak l’assei. And if we would suggest that the Rambam does not apply the halacha of veheishiv es hagezeilah asher gazal to geneivah, how would we then explain why a ganav does not acquire the item when he steals it.
Reb Moshe Shmuel Shapiro, zt”l, suggests that indeed the halacha of veheishiv es hagezeilah asher gazal applies to geneivah. However, we do not apply the actual mitzvah but only the monetary aspect, i.e. that he must return the stolen object. Therefore one cannot be exempt from lashes as a result of the rule of lav hanitak l’assei, since it is not a mitzvas assei (but only a monetary obligation) to return the item. At the same time, though, the ganav cannot acquire the item when he steals it since he does in fact have a monetary obligation to return the item.
The Imrei Baruch (Choshen Mishpat 34) says that although we indeed apply the halacha of veheishiv es hagezeilah asher gazal to a ganav, even to the extent that there is a mitzvah by a ganav to return the stolen item, it is only due to the Torah’s actual writing that it is a mitzvas assei that we can apply the rule of lav hanitak l’assei, exempting one from lashes. Thus, even though the mitzvah also applies to a ganav, the rule of lav hanitak l’assei is not the reason that he is exempt from lashes. And a ganav does not acquire the stolen item when he steals it since he actually does have a mitzvas assei to return the item.
For questions or comments, e-mail RabbiRFuchs@gmail.com.
About the Author: For questions or comments, e-mail RabbiRFuchs@gmail.com.
If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.
Comments are closed.
“Can you hear what the dead are whispering? Leave Galut, escape to Eretz Israel-Lech lecha!”
Chanukah is the holiday of liberty, combining The Book (faith and dedication to God) and the sword
Yehuda knew if the moment isn’t right or men are unwilling to listen a skilled leader bides his time
This is a recurring theme in this week’s parsha, in which there are many mistakes made based on perception.
“A person should sell even the beams of his own house in order to buy shoes.”
“I do not owe anything,” Mr. Feder replied. “However, if I must come – I will.”
If Hashem is watching tzaddikim, why couldn’t He just save Yosef from all the suffering he was about to endure?
Jacob was well aware that the brothers hated Joseph, yet he sent him to them anyway.
No Fault Lines
‘…His Father And Mother Were In Prison…’
The child of a Jewish mother from a union with a non-Jewish father is not a mamzer.
Question: If Abraham was commanded to circumcise his descendants on the eighth day, why do Arabs – who claim to descend from Abraham through Yishmael – wait until their children are 13 to circumcise them? I am aware that this is a matter of little consequence to our people. Nevertheless, this inconsistency is one that piques my curiosity.
But how could there have been any validity to Yosef’s allegations?
Rashi in Shabbos 9b writes that the reason why the tefillah of Ma’ariv is a reshus is because it was instituted corresponding to the burning of the eimurim from the korbanos – which was performed at night.
We find that in certain circumstances before the Torah was actually given, people were permitted to make calculations as to what would better serve Hashem, even if it were against a mitzvah or aveirah.
It is difficult to write about such a holy person, for I fear I will not accurately portray his greatness…
The implication of the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 233:2) is that one may not daven Minchah before six and one half hours into the day.
Some Rishonim are bothered by the opinion of the Rambam that bnei Noach are commanded not to eat basar min hachai.
Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/judaism/parsha/geneivah-and-gezeilah/2012/03/22/
Scan this QR code to visit this page online: