Rabbi Shimon
What the Rabbi usually cites in the name of Rabbi Shimon regarding the theft of the Gentiles, are these things written explicitly by Rabbi Shimon or is this an interpretation that is required from his words? What is the exact source? (I looked there but did not find anything clear)
This is written in the fifth chapter, as far as I remember, in more than one place (I remember something about the Maga and the Hiiraim regarding a blessing over an etrog stolen from a Gentile, and there is another name in the middle of the chapter). But of course, it also clearly follows from the principle established there. Unfortunately, I don’t have time to browse now.
I would be happy if the rabbi, in his free time, could tell me an exact source for this principle of Rabbi Shimon.
I was looking for the section about the etrog. Chapter 5, Chapter 5 (Letter 6):
6 Therefore, it seems to the reader that although the expiration of the loan is permitted, the encumbrance does not expire in any way until it is repaid, and the reason for this is according to what we wrote in the previous chapters that the legal laws and the prohibition and the permission are separate matters, and as we brought the Ritva system regarding the issue of enslavement in the payment of interest, although the Torah forbade paying this debt, but the legal debt exists, it is also the issue of a loan to a foreigner, as far as the legal laws are concerned, there is no difference between a foreigner and an Israelite, except for the case that the Torah revealed for the exception of a foreigner, such as fraud and the laws of guardians and double payments. The Torah is holy and a foreigner, in a Delphic manner, if he borrows from his debtor, we do not find in the Torah any difference except for a foreigner who will not be obligated for the money he received or who will not benefit from an obligation and enslavement to a foreigner, the obligation The law exists and stands as it does in Israel, except that if a person owes money to an Israelite, there is a prohibition to heaven if he does not pay, and there is a prohibition to a foreigner if he does not pay, and only in actual theft will they be punished by the law of theft, but in the case of a loan, there is a law, and if he does not pay, he does not violate any commandment, but according to the laws of the law, nothing will be forfeited, and if a witness testifies and collects from them what is owed to a foreigner, they do not consider that it caused him a loss, they pay by them what is owed to the foreigner, and the foreigner collects his right and nothing more, and in this the whole matter will be settled correctly, and as it is written in the book of Ya'raim, cited in Maghrib, verse 1, verse 3, that even theft from a foreigner is permitted, since it does not concern you in the matter of etrog and so on, and we would This is a heavenly prohibition, for this reason, but on the part of the owners, the law of the owner will not be revoked without despair and a change of permission, as was written there in the Niddus of the Gara in the name of the Ramban, may God have mercy on him, in the wars of the Jews.
Thank you very much!!
According to the laws of money, it belongs to a Gentile. Does this mean that if I steal it from a Gentile (I wish the Gentile would call it forbidden) I will be violating a certain moral prohibition? Do we have to say this in his words?
Clearly. This is proven by his question at the beginning of the article: Why obey a norm that we were not commanded to obey. Without my words, there is no reason to obey here. As I believe I brought this argument in an article about the Kovno ghetto and also in one of the columns.
If this is just a definition of ownership without prohibition, then that problem is trivial.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
