Q&A: Declarative Laws
Declarative Laws
Question
The Rabbi suggested at the end of the second article on Rashi’s approach (that one violates “do not steal”) that this is a declarative law. The Rabbi wrote as follows: “A reasonable person would violate this, and perhaps it is even good that he would. And nevertheless there is a warning sign that points to the gravity of harming another person’s property, and to the fact that this is a different territory from my own.” According to this, it would seem that the Rabbi explains Rashi’s approach like Tosafot, that what Rashi wrote — that one “violates ‘do not steal’” — is only with regard to the implications. If we are already explaining Rashi this way, why not go on to explain that the implications would be monetary implications (whether one has to pay or not) rather than educational ones? On the face of it, it seems strange that “he violates ‘do not steal’” is interpreted as an educational message.
Answer
Why don’t you ask this there in the original place? What is the second article? What are you talking about here?
Discussion on Answer
Now I’ve really lost you. If you ask in the original place, then I’ll remember better even though time has passed? And if a long time has passed, doesn’t that mean it is all the more appropriate to remind me and the readers what is being discussed? I don’t understand that reasoning.
As for your question itself, that is what I wrote in Column 293: that perhaps Rashi only means to say something declarative. If that seems strange to you — then it seems strange. I don’t see a question here. You are simply repeating what I wrote, with a question mark at the end.
If you want to ask something more concrete, please do so there, and define clearly what the question is.
Column 293. I didn’t ask there because a lot of time has already passed since then.
As for the substance of the matter, the question is what the meaning is of Rashi’s statement that one may not save himself with another person’s money (because of “do not steal”) if in fact it is not really forbidden. It seems the Rabbi wanted to say that the only practical difference is an educational message, and on the face of it that is strange.