When a person returns a lost object he has observed a positive commandment. If he doesn’t, he potentially violates one, two or three transgressions. First let me share with you, the relevant verses from the Torah.
“You shall
not commit robbery.” (Leviticus 19:13)
“If your
fellow Israelite does not live near you or you do not know who [the owner] is,
you shall bring it home and it shall remain with you until your peer claims it;
then you shall give it back.”
(Deuteronomy 22:2; my emphasis)
“If you see
your fellow Israelite’s ass or ox fallen on the road, do not ignore it; you must raise it together.” (Deuteronomy 22:4; my emphasis)
Rava explains
how a person can violate three different commandments by not returning a lost
object.
Three
strikes: “And Rava says: In a case where one saw a sela
coin that fell from another, if he took the coin in order to
steal it, before the despair of the owner, he violates all of
the following mitzvot: He is liable due to the prohibition: “You
shall not…rob” (Leviticus 19:13); and due to the positive mitzva,
stated with regard to found items, of: “You shall return them to your
brother” (Deuteronomy 22:1), and due to the prohibition, stated with
regard to one who finds an item: “You may not disregard” (Deuteronomy
22:3).
Two strikes:
“Rava continues: If he took the coin in order to return it, before
the despair of the owner, and then, after the despair
of the owner, he intended to steal it; he violates a commandment, due to
his failure to fulfill the positive mitzva of: “You shall return them to
your brother.” He does not violate the prohibition: “You shall not…rob,”
because at the time he took the coin he did not intend to keep it. And he does
not violate the prohibition: “You may not disregard,” because he did not
disregard the lost item. He took it with the intention of returning it. (To be
guilty of robbery the thief must have the intent to steal from the very outset.
In the case above the person who found the lost coin originally had the
intention to return it to the owner. However, the yetzer hara (the evil inclination) got the worst of him and decided
to keep it. Since he originally didn’t have in mind to steal it and by the time
he kept it, the original owner has despaired of ever retrieving his money, he
is not considered a robber.-gg)
One strike: “If he waited until the owner despaired
of recovering the lost item and only then took it, he violates a
commandment, but only due to his failure to fulfill the positive mitzva
of: “You may not disregard,” as he took no action to return the lost
item to its owner.” (Sefaria.org translation)
No comments:
Post a Comment