Q&A: R. Shimon
R. Shimon
Question
When the Rabbi cites R. Shimon regarding theft from a gentile, are those things written explicitly by R. Shimon, or is this an interpretation that naturally follows from his words? What is the exact source? (I looked there, but I didn’t find anything clear.)
Answer
It is written in Gate 5, as I recall, in more than one place (I remember something about the Magen Avraham and the Yere’im regarding a blessing over an etrog stolen from a gentile, and there is more there in the course of the gate). But of course it also follows clearly from the principle he sets down there. Unfortunately, I don’t have time right now to leaf through it.
Discussion on Answer
I looked for the passage about the etrog. Gate 5, chapter 5 (section 72):
72. Therefore it appears, in my humble opinion, that although evasion of repayment of a loan is permitted, the lien is not removed in any way until he repays him. The reason for this is based on what we wrote in the previous chapters, that the laws of monetary justice and the laws of prohibition and permission are separate matters. As we brought the view of the Ritva regarding subjection to payment of interest: although the Torah prohibited paying this debt, the legal debt still exists. So too with the loan of a gentile: with respect to the laws of monetary justice, there is no distinction between a gentile and a Jew, except where the Torah explicitly revealed a limitation excluding a gentile, such as overreaching, the laws of bailees, and double payment, where the Torah excluded consecrated property and a gentile. Accordingly, if one borrowed from a gentile, since we do not find anywhere in the Torah any distinction excluding a gentile so that one should not be liable for the money he received, or that an undertaking and lien should not be effective toward a gentile, the legal obligation stands in force just as with a Jew. The only difference is that if one owes a Jew, there is a heavenly prohibition if he does not repay, whereas with a gentile there is no such prohibition if he does not repay. Only in the case of actual theft do we learn from a verse that it is forbidden, but regarding a loan there is no verse. Therefore, when he does not repay, he violates no commandment. But from the standpoint of monetary law, nothing has been removed. Therefore, if witnesses testified and they collected from him what he owed the gentile, we do not regard this as causing him a loss, since through them he pays what he owes the gentile, and the gentile collects his due and no more. This resolves the whole matter properly, as is written in the Yere’im, brought in Magen Avraham, section 637:3, that even according to the view that theft from a gentile is permitted, it is still not considered “yours” for the purpose of an etrog and the like. That is, according to that view, there is no heavenly prohibition, but in terms of property acquisition the owner’s status is not removed without despair and change of possession. And so too wrote Rabbi Akiva Eiger there in his novellae in the name of Nachmanides, of blessed memory, in Milchamot; see there.
Thank you very much!!
Since according to monetary law this applies to a gentile, does that mean that if I steal it from the gentile (were it not for the verse that says theft from a gentile is forbidden), I would be violating some kind of moral prohibition? Do we have to say that according to his view?
Obviously. That is proven by his question at the beginning of the gate: why obey a norm that we were not commanded about? Without my explanation, there is no reason to obey. As I recall, I brought this argument in the article about the Kovno Ghetto and also in one of the columns.
If this is only a definition of ownership without any prohibition, then that question does not arise.
I’d be happy if, when the Rabbi has some free time, he could tell me the precise source for this principle of R. Shimon.