Talmidav Shel Aharon
7-5769: Mitzvah N-43
December 15, 2008

Negative Mitzvah 43 – This is a negative commandment: Do not strike another Jew.

Hafetz Hayim: This prohibition is derived from the verse, “Forty lashes he may give him; he may not add more.” (Deut. 25:3) For this is an injunction to strike no man whatever in Jewry: it is a kal va-chomer, an inference by reasoning from the less to the more: When someone has become punishable by whiplashes, so that the Torah has given permission to strike him, Scripture commands to add nothing to the flogging when he is beaten. How much more certainly must this apply to other human beings.
If someone strikes his fellow-man entailing damages of less than a p’rutah,[the smallest coin] he should receive whiplashes. But if the damages amount to more than a p’rutah, [which means that he struck him a major blow for which he becomes obligated for damages of a p’rutah or more], since he becomes duty-bound to pay money he receives no flogging (but he does violate the prohibition). Even if a person only raises his hand against his fellow-man, he is called wicked. However, if someone delivers a blow in the course of discipline and education, he commits no transgression.

Before we begin to examine this law, we need to cover some background information. Kal va-chomer is an accepted way to analyze a Torah text. It is one of the 13 approved methods that Rabbi Ishmael listed at the beginning of the Sifra, one of the earliest of the legal explanations of the book of Leviticus. It says that if something is forbidden or permitted in an extreme case, then the rule applies “all the more so” in a lesser case. Here we have a law that is careful to regulate the number of lashes a person is to receive when convicted of a crime. There can be up to 40 lashes, and no more. The Sages were so concerned about going over this limit that they further extended it to require no more than 39 lashes lest someone miscount and a great sin occur. The kal va-chomer states that if in the case of lashes one is forbidden to go even one over the limit, “all the more so” in the case at hand where someone, outside of the legal system, would strike another human being.
When one is convicted of striking another human being, he becomes liable to pay for damages. These include the costs of healing, loss of wages, damages and embarrassment. These monetary payments are in the place of the flogging. A person who pays damages does not have the double punishment of the flogging. However, if the damages are so small, smaller than the smallest coin, then he does not have to pay but is subject to flogging. If he raises his fist in a threatening manner, he is not guilty of striking his fellow man but the threat is enough to label such a man as “wicked”.
There seem to be two exceptions to this law that need to be addressed. First is the fact that, according to the Hafetz Hayyim, the law only applies to striking a Jew. I can give him the benefit of the doubt here and say that in many places the laws for Jews and non-Jews were already stacked against the Jews. Striking a non-Jew could lead to prison for the offender and a pogrom for the community. Sadly, there are Jews today who take these kind of laws very literally and declare that the non-Jews are less than Jews and it is permitted to lie, cheat or strike a non-Jew. I hold that another Jewish law, that there is one law for the citizen and non citizen alike, means that we treat all people equally under the law. I am sure that there are halachic experts out there who could show me that I am wrong; I maintain that even if all other reasons in the world were presented that we are permitted to treat others differently than our own people, I would fall back and maintain that we should not treat others differently “mipnay darkay shalom” “for the sake of peace with our neighbors.” There are just some things that may be permitted but we do not make the world a better place if we hold by them. This is one of those cases.
There is an exemption in this law for striking a child as an act of discipline, or for educative purposes. My wife, the educator, tells me that there is no authority in education today that holds that a child will learn any better if they are struck by their teachers. My understanding is that it only teaches a child that one can strike another if they are bigger. I see no reason to strike a child in the name of education. One who does so should fall under the punishments of this law as stated above. A parent disciplining a child is a more difficult area. I wish I could say that one should never strike a child or even raise a hand to a child, but there are very rare exceptions that would make a blanket prohibition hard to make. I can say, however, that there is no reason that striking a child should leave any damage at all. A slap on the hand with an open hand may be appropriate once or twice in the lifetime of a child, but if the strike should leave a bruise, scar, or any damage whatsoever, it is clearly child abuse and the parent needs to step back and assess the management of their anger. Even hitting a child with mean words that strike at a child’s self esteem can be a form of abuse to the young mind. A child in need of punishment needs to understand the consequences of his or her action, and not that physical punishment is to be expected. It only teaches a child to do the action when the punisher is not around. A parent needs to be very careful in punishing a child by striking him or her. If the strike leaves any kind of damage, the parent would fall under the prohibitions of this law.

Talmidav Shel Aharon
6-5769: Mitzvah N-42
December 9, 2008

Negative Mitzvah 42 – This is a negative commandment: Do not withhold “she’er”, “k’sut”, or “onah” from one’s wife.

Hafetz Hayim: for Scripture says, “her food, her raiment and her conjugal rights he shall not diminish.” (Exodus. 21:10) The term “she’er” denotes food, “k’sut” denotes clothing and this is the plain meaning of the words; “onah” denotes conjugal intimacy. Whoever withholds one of these three by his own will, in order to distress or pain her, violates this prohibition. By the law of the Sages he bears another seven obligations toward her, and these are: the principal payment of the marriage contract [in case of divorce or death], to cure her [if she becomes sick], to ransom her [if she is taken captive], to bury her [when she dies]; she is to stay in his house the entire time of her widowhood and is to be supported out of his property; her daughters are to be sustained out of his property after his death until they are married; and the right of her sons by him in the marriage contract [is to inherit the principal amount before equally dividing the remainder of the father’s inheritance with brothers of another mother]. By the law of the Sages, he has the right to the fruit of her handiwork, in exchange for her food; and the fruit or income from her property in her lifetime, in exchange for the duty of her redemption[from captivity if necessary]. He gains the right of whatever she finds, for the sake of [avoiding] enmity; and he becomes her heir, in exchange for the duty of providing for her burial. A man also has the duty of sustaining his small sons and daughters. It is in force everywhere and at all times.

Let us make the simple points first. When a man marries a woman, he takes on certain responsibilities. He has to allow her a monetary allowance she can spend on clothing. He can’t insist that she wear certain clothes or give her the clothing; she gets to buy what she desires. He has to also give her enough money to feed herself and the family. He cannot insist on a particular diet, but she has the right to choose what the family (and she herself) will eat. Finally, he cannot deny her sexual satisfaction. This has some far reaching implications. It implies first of all that she has sexual needs that he must fulfill. Since different occupations have different implications of his being home, he cannot change jobs if it will affect his conjugal duties. Businessmen are home every evening. If he decides to become a sailor and only be home once a month or once every six months, she can forbid him from being away so much or force him to pay off her Ketuba (more on this later) and divorce her. There is an assumption that the occupation he has when he marries her is known to her and she cannot force him into a new line of work, but if he wants to change and it will affect her conjugal rights, she can veto the change. The point here is that while Judaism says that a man “acquires” a woman, it is somewhat more complicated than that. She does not become his servant or slave and she has rights in his home that he is forbidden to deny. If, in any of these three areas, he limits her rights and causes her physical pain or mental anguish, he is forced to give her what she needs or pay her Ketuba and divorce her.
The Ketuba is central here. The Ketuba is the contract of marriage. It stipulates that the wife has these rights and that the man does not have to pay the “bride price” required in order to get married. The bride price becomes a primary mortgage on his estate. This means that when he dies, the wife is paid from the estate first, before any and all creditors. If the husband wants to divorce his wife, he can divorce her but the payment of the Ketuba is a heavy monetary debt that must be paid before he can send her away. Today the monetary amounts are symbolic but in ancient times, it could be used to convince angry husbands to fulfill their duties to their wives.
If you think this is a bit hard on husbands and wives, let me remind everyone that, even to this day, marriage is basically a monetary partnership in the eyes of the state. To get a marriage license you don’t have to profess love or devotion, only to let the state know who will be responsible for the family debts. Love and devotion are great, but marriage means responsibilities and the Ketuba spells them out.
The Sages expanded on the duties of a husband to prevent other abuses. He must pay the amount he owes on the Ketuba if he divorces her. If she dies, the debt is inherited by her children. If she gets sick, he must pay for her medical bills. If she is captured by brigands or pirates, he has to pay her ransom before he ransoms anyone else including children or his teacher. He has to pay for her funeral, give her the house to live in if he dies and leaves her a widow (the children can’t throw her out). If she has born him daughters, they are to be supported out of his estate until they are married even if his sons have to go begging to provide for them. The laws of inheritance do not apply to the Ketuba, its principal is paid to her sons that she bore to him (but not to sons from a previous marriage), and only then is the rest of the estate divided among all of his sons.
The Sages also provide the husband with some of her income to make sure that he will perform his duties. If she has a small business on the side he can claim her income as payment for the food he provides. If she owns property, he has the right to the income from that property or from the sale of that property (if sold in her lifetime) in exchange for the duty to ransom her from captivity. If she finds something of value, he can claim it. This is to prevent arguments between the two of them. He becomes her heir for the duty to bury her and if she leaves him with small children, he has to care for them and not treat them shabbily.
I suppose we could argue all day over these duties and whether they are fair to her and to him, but remember, like all laws, this applies only when there is trouble in the family. When couples love each other and are devoted to each other, these monetary issues are not a problem; they are often filled above and beyond the letter of the law. Wives and children are supported openly and lovingly. Only in cases of anger and discord do we find that couples argue over money and here the Sages have tried to spell out a fair way for the couple’s finances to be divided.
I should add here that in monetary cases, Jewish Law gives way to the law of the land. A Ketuba may be symbolic but to pay it out today, one would have to have a civil divorce and pay out all the financial details spelled out by the divorce court, only then could the Ketuba be paid (actually the symbolic amount is waived during the Jewish divorce (Get) process, since the money has already been allotted by civil courts). Judaism says that divorce is possible and sometimes necessary (even a Mitzvah) but it should not be so easy that a man would change wives as often as he changes a home or car.
The Sages did their best with the customs and traditions that were current in their day and age. Before we comment on the equality of the system or not, try and think how you might write this better. It is never as easy as it looks.

Talmidav Shel Aharon
5-5769: Mitzvah N-41
December 2, 2008

Negative Mitzvah 41 – This is a negative commandment: Do not crave in one’s heart something that belongs to one’s fellow-man.

Hafetz Hayim: for Scripture says, “Neither shall you crave etc.” (Deut. 5:18) This prohibition is separate from the injunction “You shall not covet” (see last lesson: 4-5769). For a person transgresses the prohibition against craving once he thinks in his heart how he can acquire that object, and his heart is persuaded in the matter to follow his plan. Then he violates the injunction, “Neither shall you crave…” since craving is but in the heart alone. If he then acquires that object, having importuned its owner and sent many friends to him, until he gets it, he violates also the injunction, “You shall not covet”. It is in force everywhere and at all times for both men and women.

This commandment is found as an extra word in Deuteronomy where Moses recalls the law against coveting in the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are found twice in the Torah, once in Exodus and repeated in Deuteronomy. The problem is that the two texts are not identical. The most famous difference between them is in the fourth commandment; Exodus says that we should “Guard” (Shamor) the seventh day, and Deuteronomy says that we should “Remember” (Zachor). If we were to look closely at the prayer on Friday night, “Lecha Dodi” we would see it mentions a Midrash that explains that God pronounced on Sinai only one commandment but spoke “Shamor” and “Zachor” at the same moment. Humans could not speak like that but God can and did. In the final commandment there is also a slight difference in the law concerning coveting. In Exodus the commandment states that we cannot covet our neighbor’s house, wife, male or female slave, or anything that is your neighbors. In Deuteronomy, the commandment reads, “do not covet your neighbor’s wife, crave his house, field, male or female slave, ox, ass or anything that is your neighbor’s.” It is the additional word “crave” that makes this prohibition separate from the injunction of coveting.
But the two laws are not really that separate. Craving takes place in your heart, and coveting takes place out in the real world. Craving leads to coveting. When it does, one is guilty of two sins.
We have to understand that neither of these laws can be easily explained in American law. In American law, you have to do something wrong to violate a prohibition. Thinking about something is not illegal until you actually do an illegal act. Americans sort of live by the creed that if you want something badly enough, you can work for it and get it through your own efforts. American advertising tells us that we can have anything we want. It is very unusual to want what another person has and not be able to get something similar or exactly the same without having to resort to nagging that person to give it up. (The possible exception here could be your neighbor’s wife. You can chase after any single woman [or man] who may have a similar physical appearance or be in a similar financial situation, but you cannot covet the person married to your neighbor.)
The war on Terror has led our country to go after those who are planning a terrorist attack before they can actually execute the plan. While it is difficult to prosecute someone for talking or acting like a terrorist, to defend our country, we have to stop the terror before it can begin. Similarly, the Secret Service goes after any person who makes any kind of a threat against the President or any other leader of this country. One does not have to carry out that threat to get the attention of the Secret Service. These two examples are the exceptions to the rule. In most cases, just wanting something in your heart does not trigger any attention by the civil authorities because the police can’t arrest people for what they think. I am not sure that Jewish Law could punish a person who only commits the sin of “craving” but if that person carried out the idea and performed an act of coveting, then Jewish Law would punish for both sins, since one sin implies the other.
We should all remember to pay less attention to what our neighbor has that we lack and be thankful for what we already have. That is an attitude that will keep us far from sin.

Talmidav Shel Aharon
4-5769: Mitzvah N-40
November 20, 2008

Negative Mitzvah 40 – This is a negative commandment: Do not covet anything belonging to another person.

Hafetz Hayim: for Scripture says, “You shall not covet etc.” (Ex. 20:14) Now coveting denotes that a person invests effort to put his thought into action; he sends many friends to the fellow, and importunes him, until he takes it [the object of desire] from him. Even if he has given him a great price for it, he thus violates the commandment. This often occurs when a son-in-law pressures his father-in-law before the wedding that he should give him this or that object, which they did not stipulate when the t’naiim were written. Even if his father-in-law fulfills his demand, the son-in-law nevertheless violates this prohibition. It is in force everywhere and at all times for both men and women.

This commandment, another of the famous Ten Commandments, is one that is important for the sake of Peace. It is very hard for a legal system to lead people to do more than what the law allows. This is a prime example of the difference between a pure legal system and Jewish Law. Judaism is not only about the law, but about morality as well. There is a whole category of laws relating to bringing peace between two people, between husband and wife, between brothers, between friends and between business partners. It is not enough to do what is right, we have to do things that will not bring about strife with someone else.
Coveting has the capacity to create strife. When we desire what someone else has, so much that we will do almost anything to secure it, there is a big problem. I have seen people go on a campaign to get what they want from someone else. It does not matter if the person who is the point of this campaign finally gives in. The feelings of hurt and resentment remain.
What is coveting and what is not? It is not coveting if the person has the item for sale and you are negotiating the price. It is not coveting if all agree that this object is payment for some service you are providing. It is not coveting if you ask your neighbor to let you know when she is ready to sell an item as long as you don’t ask, “Are you selling it yet?” It is coveting when you want what belongs to someone else, no matter if it is an object or even a person. You can’t covet a person’s wife, imploring him to divorce her, convincing him that she is no good, and doing all this so you can have her. It applies to movable objects and even real estate. (see the story of King Ahab of Israel and Nabot’s vineyard in the Book of Kings).

I have to admit, when I first saw the Hafetz Hayim’s example of the son-in-law who desires something that belongs to his father-in-law, I first wondered if the Hafetz Hayim was having trouble with his own son-in-law! Weddings today are not done in quite the same way so some explanation is needed. Weddings for centuries in Judaism took over a year to complete. The couple would decide to marry and their families would then get together for a party and to set up the terms of the wedding. They decided at that time who would pay for the different parts of the wedding ceremony, and what each of the families would provide for the couple. The bride’s family might have to bring bedding, pillows and household items; the groom’s family might provide a house, animals, tools and even a job/support for the groom. These terms were spelled out in “te’naiim” a contract that specified when all the terms had to be completed, usually at the same time the families gathered again for the wedding. If one family did not fulfill their obligations, the wedding could be cancelled. To seal the “t’naiim” (agreement) the two families (usually the two mothers) would together, break a plate.
In our case, the son-in-law wants something from his father-in-law that is not part of the t’naiim. This demand by the groom is a problem because he is indirectly threatening that he may decide not to marry the daughter if the man does not give in to his demands. It puts the bride’s father in a very difficult position and even if he gives in to the demand, there is now resentment and anger that may, eventually, disrupt the marriage itself as one family is now angry at the other. (It is assumed that if the son asked his own parents for an object, they would give it to him out of family love.)
The idea here is to be thankful for what we have, rather than envy what someone else has.

Talmidav Shel Aharon
3-5769: Mitzvah N-39
November 11, 2008

Negative Mitzvah 39 – This is a negative commandment: Do not give false testimony.

Hafetz Hayim: for Scripture says, “You shall not bear false witness against your fellow.” (Ex. 20:13) If someone give as testimony what he heard from others, even definitely trustworthy people, he likewise violates this prohibition. If a person hires false withesses, or if out suppresses his testimony [and does not go to give it] he is free, not punishable by the laws of man, but punishable by the laws of Heaven.
It is in force everywhere and at all times for both men and women.

This commandment, one of the famous Ten Commandments, is one that is important for the sake of Justice. Justice is one of the basic underlying assumptions that Judaism depends upon. Even God is called to justice by Abraham. Monotheism in our faith is important because it leads to justice. If there were more than one god, then we could say that we have not sinned, rather it was a requirement of the “other” god. Judaism insists on one God and one Law. It is the only way Justice can be insured.
False testimony undermines Justice. It is not only about testifying falsely. That is lying under oath. This not only is a breach of Justice but an act of blasphemy against God in whose name an oath was sworn to tell the truth. It is even more important to tell what you know to be the truth from your own experience. If your testimony is based on something someone else told you, it is not your testimony and you need to let the parties know that there is someone who has information that is important to this case. Hearsay testimony is not permitted and if you say it as if it were your own, you have given false testimony.
But what if you don’t lie under oath but hire someone to testify falsely or if you refrain from letting anyone know what you know will help or hurt their case? This is not a case of false testimony, but of subverting Justice. There is no Torah law that prohibits this but it is morally wrong to act in this way.
This underlines a major problem with prohibitions and laws in general. They can only speak to matters that are punishable. There is an entire way to live that goes beyond the letter of the law. Our duties as Jews and as responsible citizens are to do more than what the law can require. If we only fulfill the “letter of the law” then we are a disappointment to God. If you hire witnesses to testify falsely, you have not done anything wrong, the false witnesses have violated this commandment and will be punished. They are the evil ones in this situation. If you refrain from telling what you know or that you know anything, you have not lied, so you are not in violation of the commandment, but you have not helped secure Justice. You can’t expect G-d to be happy with that kind of an attitude.
It is important that we remember that while it is a sin to testify falsely, it is not good if you don’t help, in any way you can, to bring about justice.

Talmidav Shel Aharon
2-5769: Mitzvah N-38
November 2, 2008

Negative Mitzvah 37 – This is a negative commandment: Do not delay the payment of a hired man’s wages.
Hafetz Hayim: for Scripture says, “The wages of a hired man shall not remain with you [all night] until the morning.” (Lev. 19:13). And it says further “neither shall the sun go down on it.” (Deut. 24:15) For if he was a hired man for the day, he is to collect his wages anytime during the entire night. [Since it says “all night until the morning”] And if he was hired for the night, he is to collect his wages anytime during the day [because it says “neither shall the sun go down upon it”]. A man hired for certain hours during the day can collect anytime during the day and a man hired for certain hours during the night is to collect anytime during the night.
In the case of a craftsman who is hired to repair an object, as long as the object is in the possession of the craftsman , even if the craftsman informed the owner that he completed it, the owner commits no transgression. If he does not demand his payment, from him the owner commits no transgression. And even if he demanded it of him and he did not have what to give him, or if the employer passed him on to another and the other person took it upon himself to pay, he is free of guilt.
If a person delays the wages of a hired man beyond the allotted time, he disobeys the positive commandment (see Mitzvah 66) and he violates this prohibition. If after the time he delays further, he violates a prohibition from the words of the later parts of Scripture “Do not say to your fellow, “Go and come again, etc” (Proverbs 3:28) It is all one whether it is the hire of man or a domestic animal or tools and instruments; these words of Scripture apply to it: “On the same day you shall give him his wage; neither shall the sun go down on it and the wages … shall not remain with you all night. .” If someone wrongfully retains the wages of a hired man, it is as though he takes his life, and he violates the injunctions (Mitzvot N-35 & N-37) “You shall not wrongfully deprive your fellow, nor rob him.
It is in force everywhere and at all times for both men and women.

The Hafetz Hayim is so clear here that I almost don’t need to comment at all. The law is simple, if a person does work for you; you have the obligation to pay him right away. A hired man, or a hired woman, or a tradesman or a craftsman, depends on those wages to feed himself and his families. We are talking about day laborers, hired in the morning and to be paid at the end of the day. We may have money in the bank and can wait to be paid until the end of the week or until the end of the next pay period, but these people depend on being paid immediately for the work they have completed. According to the Torah, you are endangering the hired man’s life if you delay payment. If you insist that he keep coming back day after day to collect his wages, you have caused him pain and embarrassment and are also in violation of the law.
It is my custom to pay my bills on time every month. Those who bill me are paid before the deadline printed on the bill. The hired people who do work for me are paid at once. We had a man, Willie Woods, who cut our lawn for many years. If I was home when he cut the grass, I would stop what I was doing and write the check for him so that he could have it as soon as he was finished. I didn’t like to force him to wait for me to write it later. I wanted to have the check ready so he could be free to go on to his next customer. If I was not home I knew Willie would be back at the end of the day and I tried to have the check ready for him when he came back. All Willie had was his lawnmower and his truck. If I did not pay him for the work he did, then how could he feed his family and buy gas for his equipment? In addition, I made it a point to always shake his hand and thank him for a job well done. He often protested that his hands were too dirty to shake my hand but I shook hands with him anyway. He was not “just a hired hand” but a reliable worker and the father of a family. He was not that different from me.
The exceptions to this law are technical in nature. If you give your watch to a craftsman to fix and he finishes it and tells you to come and pick it up, you don’t have to rush to his store. After all, he has the watch, if you default on the payment, he can sell the watch. If the craftsman does not demand his payment, then the owner is not required to pay. If the owner can’t pay because he has no money, then he does not violate the law because the craftsman still has the watch. This clearly does not apply to the hired man since the work is now finished and he must be paid. If the employer does not have the money, he should not have contracted that day to do the work. If someone else has given the hired man his wages for the day, the first employer is free from guilt if he does not pay the same day (but he still owes him money).
The law sides with the day laborer. If he goes to court, the court will demand immediate payment from the employer. It also applies to the man who employs an animal to help on his farm, or if he rents tools or instruments. The person who owns the items depends on the income to feed his family and maintain the animals or the tools. There is no leeway. Even if the man did a bad job and even if he damaged something, he needs to be paid for the day lest he go home and starve. A man deserves payment for a day’s work. It is a sin to withhold his wages

Talmidav Shel Aharon

1-5769: Mitzvah N-37

October 28, 2008

Negative Mitzvah 37 – This is a negative commandment: Do not wrongfully keep anything belonging to your neighbor.

Hafetz Hayim: for Scripture says, “you shall not wrongfully deprive your fellow” (Lev. 19:13). This means that a person is not to withhold an item of monetary value of his fellow-man that came into his hand by the other’s wish, and now he retains it and does not return it to the other: for example, if he has in his possession a loan {tat the other lent him] or wages [that the other has earned] and the other cannot extract if from him because he is powerful, he thus violates this prohibition. It is in force everywhere and at all times for both men and women.

It is hard for us to imagine the issue here because we are so committed to acting in moral and correct fashion at all times. This law comes from an era where the rich and powerful oppressed the weak and the poor because they could do it and get away with it. I suppose that this kind of greed never really went away, now we have the financial instruments to get wealth from everyone equally rather than oppressing the poor.

Here are the examples. A rich man hires a worker to do some work. The work is finished and the worker wants to be paid. The worker tries and tries to get the man to pay but there is always some reason that the rich man can’t pay him. The work is finished and therefore the money already “belongs” to the worker, but he can’t get the money away from the rich man. There is a separate mitzvah to “not let the wages of a worker stay with you overnight.” That is, he should be paid the same day he finishes the work. The rich man is not stealing from the worker, he is just lording over him how rich and powerful he is and the worker can do nothing but beg to be paid. In ancient time, even calling the rich man to court may not insure that the man would be paid. Our lesson teaches us to promptly pay what we owe.

The other example is about taking advantage of a neighbor. A neighbor comes to a man and is worried about an object that will be left behind while the neighbor is on vacation. The man takes it into his house and guards it for the duration of the neighbor’s vacation. He may even have the right to use the object while the neighbor is gone. When the neighbor returns, he wants his object back but the man does not want to part with it so fast. To keep it would be stealing but again, he doesn’t claim the object as his own, he only delays returning it to its owner making the neighbor wait or beg for it to be returned. This is causing pain and humiliation to the neighbor and thus it is forbidden by this negative mitzvah. The rich and powerful cannot humiliate another human being.

Talmidav Shel Aharon
33-5768: Mitzvah N-36
October 8, 2008

Negative Mitzvah 36 – This is a negative commandment: Do not deny [falsely] anything of value [owed]
Hafetz Hayim: for Scripture says, “neither shall you deal falsely” (Lev. 19:11). And this is an admonition against the lying denial of anything of value worth from a perutah on up. It includes all kinds of denial in monetary matters, whether about something entrusted for safekeeping or a loan; whether one person robbed another or cheated him; or he found a lost object and did not return it. If the other sued him for it and he gave a false denial, the thus violates this prohibition and becomes disqualified to be a witness and give testimony. It is in force everywhere and at all times for both men and women.

With all the troubles in the economy today, we can easily understand why a person would lie under oath over a monetary matter. Between greed and our nature to covet what other people have, it is not beyond belief that someone would lie or cheat to hang on to what was not his or hers. This is the reason we have courts, to determine who is lying and who is not and to make sure that those who lie, are punished properly.
This does not preclude the possibility that there may be a disagreement over who the object belongs to or who has the right to the money in question. That is not what is covered by this mitzvah. This refers so someone who knows that the object or the money does not belong to him but he wants to keep it. This person is a thief; there is no other name for it. We should also note that it also applies to someone who offers to safeguard an item and then, when the owner comes to claim it, says that the object is his and never belonged to the owner. It also applies to someone who would take a loan and then deny that he took the money or a person who collected a loan and then claimed later that he was never paid. One might think that he is justified in taking what is not his because the other person has so much and really would not miss this insignificant sum of money or that the other person is really a bad person who got this money or object in a questionable manner and does not deserve to own it. (You could think of O.J. Simpson here and his latest trial and conviction. This mitzvah does not apply to him only because Mr. Simpson is not Jewish.)
The Hafetz Hayim notes that the minimum amount for violating this mitzvah is a “perutah”, the smallest coin in use during the period of the Talmud. The value of the item in this dispute is irrelevant. It belongs to someone else and must be returned. If you find a lost object, and it is possible to determine who the owner is, you must do what is needed to return the object. Unless the object has no signs of ownership (lost cash for instance) it must be returned. A wallet can be identified by its owner so one can say a wallet was found and the person, who can identify it, can get it back. If one were to keep an object without trying to find the owner, that person is a thief.
Finally, if you are convicted of lying about an object, you not only loose the object, but you lose your reputation as well. You are a convicted liar and can never testify in court again.

Talmidav Shel Aharon
32-5768: Mitzvah N-35
August 19, 2008

Negative Mitzvah 35 – This is a negative commandment: do not take anything in robbery from one’s fellow-man by main force.

Hafetz Hayim: For Scripture says, “nor shall you rob him.” (Lev. 19:13). The prohibition of this injunction is on anything worth from a prutah [the smallest coin] and up, yet even less than that is forbidden [but not punishable] like anything less than a minimum amount. If a person takes even something worth a prutah from his fellow man, it as though he takes his life. It is in force everywhere and at all times for both men and women.

Stealing is a serious crime, but robbery, stealing by force, is much worse. Stealing can be done in secret; robbery is done in full view of the victim and it is as if the robber doesn’t care. It is one thing not to fear your fellow human being, but robbery also implies that the robber does not fear God either. The fact that robbery implies stealing as well as the threat to the life of the victim; this makes it one of the most terrible crimes. It is said that robbery was one of the three sins that caused the first Temple of Jerusalem to be destroyed.
On the one hand, it is clear that there must be a minimum value to the crime. Some items are so small that the threat to life could not be very great. Still, the minimum for robbery is the smallest coin. After all, even a penny or a dime could be a lot of money for someone who is very poor. Still, even something worth less could be considered robbery. It is said that this was one of the sins of the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. When a new merchant set up his grain shop in the marketplace, every person in the city would come and steal one grain of wheat from his shop. By the end of the day, he had nothing and there was nobody to arrest for the crime, after all, they had stolen only one grain of wheat!! It is so often that we steal from a friend or from our workplace simple small items, a box of paperclips, a stapler, a ream of paper, but no matter how small, it is still stealing and forbidden.
People also get very attached to their possessions. Even a small coin could be very important to a person. In the movie, “Throw Mama From the Train” actor, Danny D’Vito asks his friend, Billy Crystal, to come see his coin collection. He takes out a small box with just a few coins in it. “What are these coins?” asks Crystal. “Well,” says D’Vito, “this is the nickel that I got as change from when my father bought me my first ice cream cone. And this is a quarter that I won at Coney Island…” the value of the coin collection was not in the resale value of the coins, but in the memories they recalled in the mind of their owner. They were small coins but to D’Vito’s character, they were priceless. No wonder we are taught that one who robs another, it is as though he takes his life. Many have pined away for years over beloved objects which were stolen.
Finally, take note that this law is applied equally to Jews and non-Jews. Nobody is outside the protection of this law.

Talmidav Shel Aharon
31-5768: Mitzvah N-34
August 12, 2008

Negative Mitzvah 34 – This is a negative commandment: do not steal objects or items whatever their monetary value.
Hafetz Hayim: For Scripture says, “You shall not steal.” (Lev. 19:11). The prohibition applies to anything worth from a “perutah” [the smallest coin] and up. It is all one whether a person steals the item of monetary value of a Jew, a minor, or a non-Jew: he has to make compensation. It is forbidden to steal anything at all by the law of the Torah, as the law applies to anything half or less than the minimum amount. It is forbidden to steal anything by way of a joke, or with the intention of returning it, or with the intention of paying for it. It is forbidden to buy anything which can be firmly assumed to have been stolen. It is in force everywhere and at all times for both men and women.

As we saw last week, the prohibition against stealing items belonging to someone else is not from the Ten Commandments, it is from this source in Leviticus. In the Ten Commandments, the list includes laws that have capital punishment as their penalty. In this case, the Torah has a series of fines that are levied against those who would steal. For most items, one returns the object, or the value of the object (if it can no longer be returned) and pays a penalty of half the value of the item stolen. If the item is an animal, the penalty is different. For small animals he pays a penalty of 4 times the value of the animal. If it is a large animal, the fine is five times the value of the animal. The Sages comment on the difference in the penalty since they assume that he would carry away a small animal (sheep or goat) but the larger ones, (cow or ox) would be led away on their own power. Since it was more embarrassing to carry a sheep on one’s shoulders, the difference in fines was in recognition of this embarrassment. It seems to me, however, that if the thief chooses to steal the animal, it should not be a factor if he has to embarrass himself or not.
My mother would say, “Stealing is stealing”. The Hafetz Hayim agrees. The value of the item is not a mitigating factor. Stealing as a joke or prank or even with the intention to buy the item is all stealing and is forbidden. It causes pain to the owner and the pain is unnecessary. One does not play fast and loose with things that belong to another person. This includes pens that belong to the company we work for, shoplifting when there is no one to catch you, and tampering with time on a time card.
Stealing also does not depend on who you are stealing from. There is no justification for stealing from a minor (candy from a baby) or from a non-Jew. Stealing from a non-Jew may even be a bigger crime since it would also involve Hillul HaShem, the desecration of G-d’s name in the eye of the victim.
Finally, it does not matter if you did not do the stealing. One is forbidden to traffic in known stolen goods. If you are caught with stolen goods, you must return it and pay the penalty.