Q&A: Thoughts of Repentance — How to Evaluate the Sin of Theft Over Time
Thoughts of Repentance — How to Evaluate the Sin of Theft Over Time
Question
Following up on my previous question, I wanted to raise 3 additional cases, and I’d be glad if you could explain your view on them in detail. More generally, I’d also appreciate it if you could explain how a person can examine himself and repent in this area.
Case A — concern about benefiting from theft (not directly).
I traveled abroad with several partners, and one of them was responsible for all the lodging logistics. He paid, and we reimbursed him. That partner had an argument over a payment item that according to her we were supposed to add because we arrived at the apartment late at night. I don’t remember whether it was paid, and I wasn’t involved in the details. On the face of it, if it wasn’t paid, and the apartment owner was right, then I benefited from theft.
Case B — possible theft, possible normal accepted practice.
In one of the places where I stayed abroad, I got a small room with one tiny window. As I recall, in order to reach the window and open it, you had to climb onto the dresser/table. On one of the occasions when I climbed onto that piece of furniture, it was damaged. In hindsight, you can understand that the furniture wasn’t meant to be used that way, but the first thought that comes to a person’s mind (at least to mine) when trying to open the window in that room is to use the furniture that way. That is, if you factor in the location of the furniture, the tiny size of the window, the position of the window, and the other items available to you in the room, I think that’s what a reasonable person would do.
Case C — accidental theft/damage, and of low value.
In one of the places where I stayed abroad, I wanted to boil water in order to make myself an instant meal. In order for the meal to be kosher, I kashered the apartment owner’s pot in fire, and in doing so I damaged its color. I didn’t think about the cosmetic damage to the pot, and that’s where the accident/unintentional aspect comes in.
In Case A, in my favor I can say that it wasn’t my responsibility, and whatever my friend asked me to pay, I paid.
In Case B, that’s how the room was designed — what was the hotel owner expecting, that I should sleep without oxygen? Any reasonable person would probably climb onto the dresser/table and open the window. Also, despite the damage to the furniture, I’m not sure the damage was all that significant; it wasn’t a piece of furniture in new condition.
In Case C, I didn’t damage the pot itself, but rather caused cosmetic damage to a utensil that: 1. normally does get cosmetically damaged; 2. in the normal way of the world, people don’t assign much importance to cosmetic damage in such an item. In addition, as I recall I left the apartment owner a small tip of one or two euros.
What all these cases have in common is that I’m a normal person, and a normal person tries to feel some sense of justice (Case B), or proportionality (Case A), or responsibility (Case C) in situations where he causes damage or profits from damage. He doesn’t live Torah all the time and doesn’t view things purely through a halakhic lens. And even if he’s super honest and super careful, that’s still not the normal way of the world.
And now, from the perspective of time — when I want to advance religiously, and I look back at these things — it’s hard for me to judge myself across time, hard for me to remember all the exact details, so how can I judge myself, and what can I do? More than that: even if it’s possible for me to do something, this is clearly an unreasonable effort.
For example, in Case A: I can ask that partner whether many years ago he paid that amount or not (assuming he even remembers), and then start rechecking the terms of use and the circumstances, put everything to a halakhic test, and if the apartment owner was right, track her down, try to explain the situation, and somehow transfer my share to her?
For example, in Case B: travel back to that country, try to figure out what the condition of the table was then and what its condition is now, hire a lawyer to examine the law in that country, then understand what the law is regarding a guest who damages a piece of furniture in those circumstances in that country, and then assess the damage and pay it.
Bottom line, I’d appreciate it if:
A. You would rule for me in the 3 cases?
B. You would elaborate more on your answer: “One must do what one can in order to return stolen property” (that can be given a broad interpretation — too broad)?
C. Now that I think about it, there are dozens more cases over the course of my life where I have the concern that maybe I committed the sin of theft, and really there’s no end to it. Do I need to go back and reexamine every matter involving monetary law where I took matters into my own hands?
P.S.:
2 additional points:
1. Regarding question C, there’s something unfair here, in the sense that it’s human nature to forget things, and I may judge myself stringently, whereas I think the opposite is true: I remember myself as someone who always tried very hard in these respects.
2. In Cases A and B I believe the property belonged to a non-Jew. In Case C it was abroad but in Jewish areas; still, it was probably non-Jewish property, but less likely than A + B.
Answer
There is no connection at all to the question of whether this was a non-Jew or a Jew. Stolen property must be returned. The halakhic rule that distinguishes between a non-Jew and a Jew does not apply nowadays; according to some halakhic decisors, this is because of desecration of God’s name, and according to others because of Meiri, who says that the law regarding non-Jews nowadays is like that of Jews.
If you are in doubt, you should try to clarify it to the best of your ability. If after clarification you are still in doubt, the rule is: the burden of proof rests on the claimant. And even if he comes with a definite claim, halakhically that does not help. I cannot elaborate for you any more. One must do whatever one can. That’s all.
Case A is at most a possible theft. What I wrote above applies to it, unless you have a way to clarify it.
In Case B, if damage was caused, you must pay for it. If you couldn’t open the window, you should have turned to the landlord and asked him to solve the problem. Even if a reasonable person would have done this, that doesn’t matter. A reasonable person would have taken the risk, but if the risk materializes, one must pay. If the damage is not significant, then not. That is a factual question, and I don’t know how to answer it. You do not need to travel back to that country or hire a lawyer. You simply need to pay. That’s all.
In Case C, you caused damage and must pay for it. If it doesn’t bother the owner, then there is no problem. But if it does, you must pay. The fact that you left a tip is not payment for damage.
All the character testimony about yourself is irrelevant. These are halakhic questions, and it has nothing to do with your character.
Discussion on Answer
I already answered you. I don’t think it’s inhuman. There’s no need to become hysterical or create doubts where there are none, and where there is doubt the burden of proof is on the claimant. But when there is a possibility of clarifying, one should clarify. That’s all.
Regarding Case C, the story is still fresh. I contacted the apartment owner, and to my surprise she answered me quickly. But she attached absolutely no importance to it.
Regarding Case A, there is doubt here, just as you also think — doubt whether he paid, plus doubt whether he was obligated to pay. But there are also other problems here.
1. It’s doubtful they’ll cooperate with me (the whole thing is a bit strange from the perspective of a normal person, considering that 3.5 years have passed).
2. It will be extremely hard for me to check whether he was obligated to pay.
3. If I do manage to determine that I need to pay, I only need to pay my own share. If I resolve the doubt, I’ll cause them to stumble in the sin of theft. Right now I think the possible sin of theft rests only on the responsibility of the person who made the booking, since his judgment was the decisive factor.
And another point:
I don’t know how to judge the issue of hysteria — how can one tell that these aren’t overly exaggerated concerns?
Excellent.
A few general guidelines in summary.
First, concerns like these are a blessed thing, because they express fear of Heaven and moral sensitivity. Good for you. But there is also common sense, and it should be used. I’ll formulate a few basic rules here, and they are also the criteria for what I wrote about “not becoming hysterical.”
* If in your estimation this is a trivial matter that people don’t get worked up about (and therefore also won’t cooperate), then everything is fine and you may ignore it, because there was forgiveness. Even for a perutah’s worth there can be theft, but forgiveness helps with respect to the obligation to return it (as with less than a perutah’s worth, where there is a presumption that people forgo it).
* If there is doubt that cannot be clarified, there is nothing to deal with (the burden of proof is on the claimant).
* Of course, if you definitely stole and the only doubt is from whom, then the law is different and you must return it (sometimes by placing it between them and withdrawing, and sometimes by returning to each and every one. There are halakhic discussions about this).
* By contrast, if the clarification requires a lot of effort and money, that does not exempt you. In returning a lost object it does, because there you are not obligated to another person more than he is obligated to you. But in theft or damage, the obligation to return is yours, and the expenses are also yours.
* There is no sin-offering for theft, but indeed theft is a serious sin, and it’s not worth failing in it or causing others to fail in it. But of course you pay only your share, and at most you draw the others’ attention to their share.
* If you are in doubt regarding your obligation in a particular case, ask a rabbi about it.
Good luck and all the best,
I wanted to join the questioner,
If a person caused damage, and he is unsure how much he is obligated to repay, how do you assess the value of the damage?
Leniently or stringently? Or an average? And does one need to add labor costs?
Case A:
Suppose a person broke a window. Presumably to fix it you need to replace the entire window, but that depends on the price of the contractor who does it. Presumably the range of prices is very broad. How much must a person repay? Is he obligated to repay the labor as well, or only the cost of materials?
Case B: A person broke a floor tile. In terms of use it’s perfectly fine, but it looks broken. Here the defect is aesthetic but not substantial, unlike a window, where there is a practical loss of use.
Here too, the value of a broken tile is negligible, while the value of a new one is “expensive.” How do you assess the delta?
Does one need to include the labor cost? Presumably a contractor won’t charge cheaply to replace a single tile…
On the general question: halakhically, the damage should be assessed leniently, since the burden of proof rests on the claimant. As for labor costs, simply speaking that is only indirect causation, and strictly speaking there is no obligation in human court to pay it. But in assessing damages they assess it incidentally to the plot, meaning: how much is a house worth with and without a broken tile — and that is probably completely negligible.
You can see here an article by my student Roni Ornstein on assessing depreciation. He argues that today this halakha should be changed:
https://www.daat.ac.il/mishpat-ivri/skirot/202-2.htm
But in practice, in tort law what determines things is the law, not halakha, and therefore one should ask a legal expert.
If so, in practice, at the time we were staying in a kind of hostel, and there was a long story that ended with several parquet-like tiles being ruined, let’s say about one square meter total.
I didn’t attach much importance to it, but following your answer to Ariel it sounds like payment is required.
How does the Rabbi suggest assessing it in practice?
If you look at the difference in the hostel, it’s completely negligible.
As for the tiles, no one would buy a broken/cracked tile, so its current value is zero. On the other hand, it still functions well apart from aesthetics.
And presumably estimating labor just to replace three tiles would be significantly more expensive relative to the three tiles.
(No professional would just come out for one square meter.)
This is a question that requires clarification, because there are discussions that deal with damage to real estate, and there it seems that one does pay for the repair (at least when he is claiming repair costs. See for example Maimonides, Laws of Tortfeasor and Injured Party 5:2). But I wrote that what determines things here is the law, and therefore the halakhic discussion is not relevant in practice.
Rabbi, the approach you’re presenting is inhuman. Checking all doubtful cases from the past is almost impossible. There’s no end to it. The amount I can remember is limited. I don’t have the ability to retain all the details. Which means that almost everything is subject to doubt.
So again, how is a person supposed to act? Start consuming his time over every tiny thing he comes across? Come on — the color of a pot? Where is the proportionality here?