|
Dear Yeshiva Family:
The pasuk states, "Yaakov answered and said to Lavan, 'With whomever you find your gods, he shall not live...' Now Rochel had taken the teraphim (idols)." (Bereishis 31:31-34) I recently received a call from someone staying in another person's basement. He explained that he found what he considered objectionable reading material in the house. Frustrated that someone would keep such items, he gathered everything he deemed offensive, placed them in a garbage bag, and threw them away—without informing the owner. The caller then left the house and now wanted to know if he was obligated to pay for the material. For the sake of discussion, let us assume the content was indeed offensive by all standards.
A similar question arose in a different context. A baal teshuva, visiting his father who had not yet embraced a Torah lifestyle, noticed the house was full of whiskey and other chametz alcoholic beverages during Pesach. He asked whether he was required—or even permitted—to dispose of his father's chametz.
At first glance, this week's parshah might seem to offer a clear precedent for permitting such actions. Rochel stole her father's teraphim—idols—seemingly to prevent him from sinning. Rashi explains[1] that these teraphim were idols and she took them with noble intentions: to distance her father from avodah zarah, idol worship. From here, one might conclude that it is permissible to take something from another person if it prevents them from committing an aveirah, a sin.
However, one might argue the opposite, as the story's conclusion raises significant concerns. Rochel ultimately died, and the Meshech Chochmah and the Ohr HaChaim suggest this was due to her theft[2]. A ben Noach (one who is bound by Noachide laws) who steals is subject to capital punishment, and these commentators understand Rochel's death as punishment for her actions, even though her intentions were noble. This would imply that stealing—even to prevent someone else from sinning—is forbidden.
Nonetheless, there are two important responses to this approach: 1. Rashi (31:32) attributes Rochel's death not to her act of theft, but to Yaakov's curse: "With whomever you find your gods, he shall not live." According to this view, Rochel's demise was a result of Yaakov's curse, not her wrongdoing. While Yaakov may have originally issued the curse in response to what he perceived as a random act of theft, it would not necessarily apply once it became clear that Rochel acted with good intentions. 2. The Zohar provides another perspective, suggesting that Rochel's punishment stemmed not from the theft itself, but from the pain it caused her father. While it may be permissible to take someone's idols to prevent sin, stealing specifically from one's father carries additional weight due to the obligation of kibbud av v'eim (honoring one's parents) [3].
Based on this analysis, we can tentatively conclude regarding the second question—disposing of a father's chametz on Pesach—that even if it might be permissible for someone else, it would be prohibited for one to take such actions against their own father.
Delving deeper into Rochel's actions, we must ask: what is the heter (justification) to commit the sin of stealing, even if the intent is to prevent someone else from committing an aveirah? The Gemara in Shabbos (4a) explicitly prohibits one from committing a sin to save someone else from transgression[4]. How, then, can Rochel's actions be understood?
One possible explanation is that Rochel's case was unique because the item she stole was an idol. By Torah law, not only is idol worship prohibited, but even deriving benefit from an idol is forbidden. If an item has no permissible use, it technically lacks monetary value in halacha. Therefore, stealing it would not constitute a violation of the prohibition against theft[5].
However, this reasoning leads to a significant limitation: it would apply only to items like idols or chametz on Pesach—objects that are inherently forbidden for benefit. In contrast, other items, such as inappropriate reading material, while potentially harmful, are not halachically defined as objects prohibited for benefit. Since such items retain tangible monetary value, it would remain prohibited to steal or destroy them. This distinction would further support the earlier conclusion that destroying chametz of a fellow Jew would be permitted, if not for our specific case where it was one's own father's chametz, due to the unique kibud av obligations involved.
Yet, even the argument of valuelessness presents challenges. While it is true that a Jew is forbidden to derive benefit from idols, the same does not necessarily apply to non-Jews. Lavan, being a non-Jew, would have been halachically permitted to derive benefit from his idols, such as selling them or using them for non-idolatrous purposes. Thus, from Lavan's perspective, the idols retained monetary value. If Rochel's justification was based solely on the halachic valuelessness of the idols, it would not apply in this case[6].
Another possible explanation is that there is a mitzvah to destroy idols, as the Rambam (Hilchos Avodas Kochavim 7:1) states: it is a positive commandment to eliminate idolatry. This mitzvah would justify Rochel's actions, as the destruction of idols is a halachic imperative, regardless of their monetary worth to others[7].
However, this explanation also raises two difficulties: 1. Rochel did not destroy the idols; she merely stole them. 2. R' Yitzchak Sorotzkin points out that the mitzvah to destroy idols applies specifically to Jews. While it is true that the Avos and Imahos (our forefathers and foremothers) observed the mitzvos, they did so as a chumra (stringency), not as a halachic obligation. If fulfilling a mitzvah from the Torah conflicts with one of the mitzvos incumbent upon a ben Noach—such as the prohibition against theft—there is no indication that the Avos and Imahos were permitted to violate a fundamental Noachide command to uphold the mitzvah of destroying idols they observed as a stringency. In Rochel's case, the prohibition against stealing, which was fully binding upon her as a bas Noach, would seem to override her desire to fulfill the mitzvah of destroying idols as a chumra.
R' Sorotzkin offers an intriguing explanation for Rochel's actions. The Gemara (BM 61b) teaches that stealing is prohibited even if the intention is not for personal or financial gain, but rather to annoy, help, or teach a lesson to the victim. There is, however, a dispute about whether this prohibition applies only when the thief has no intention of ever returning the stolen item. If the thief plans to eventually return it, the act may not be prohibited[8].
Based on this distinction, we can suggest that Rochel planned to return the idols to Lavan. As Rabbeinu Bechaye explains, her goal in stealing them was to prompt Lavan to reflect on the absurdity of worshipping something that could be stolen. By temporarily taking the idols, she hoped to awaken Lavan's understanding of their futility. This interpretation also answers Ibn Ezra's question about why Rochel didn't simply bury the idols instead of carrying them with her—she never intended to keep or destroy them permanently.
Nevertheless, one could argue that stealing for such purposes remains prohibited, even if there is an intention to return the stolen items. Here, the halachic distinctions between Jews and non-Jews come into play. While for Jews, the prohibition against theft is absolute and includes cases of annoyance or benevolent intent, the same may not be true for non-Jews. For a ben Noach, the prohibition against theft may be more narrowly defined, focusing on theft that disrupts societal functioning. Stealing with the intent to return, or even with the intent to help the victim, might not fall under the strict Noachide prohibition[9].
From this perspective, Rochel's decision gains clarity. Although she generally observed the Torah like a Jewess, her obligation to the Torah's laws stemmed from a voluntary commitment rather than a halachic requirement. The mitzvos of a bas Noach, by contrast, were fully binding upon her. If setting aside a voluntary standard of Torah observance could help her father avoid violating the Noachide prohibition against idol worship, she may have felt justified in doing so.
To deepen this understanding, consider the rationale behind the prohibition against theft. For a Jew, the commandment "Do not steal" is absolute, rooted in the sanctity of another's property and the moral imperative to respect boundaries, irrespective of intent or outcome. By contrast, for a non-Jew, the prohibition is primarily societal: it ensures order and prevents chaos. Thus, an act of theft intended to help the victim or benefit society—such as stealing to get caught and pay the fine of kefel (double repayment)—may align with the societal purpose of the Noachide prohibition and could therefore be permitted.
Rochel, viewing the situation through this lens, may have reasoned that stealing the idols to save her father from a greater spiritual failing was permissible under her Noachide obligations. However, Yaakov, whose worldview was shaped by the absolute standards of Torah law, viewed the theft as fundamentally wrong. Even noble intentions did not justify the act of taking something that did not belong to her.
This contrast highlights the tension between Rochel's approach and Yaakov's. Rochel acted with the goal of addressing her father's spiritual needs within the framework of her Noachide obligations, while Yaakov, guided by the strict parameters of Torah law, struggled to reconcile her actions with the broader moral imperatives of Jewish conduct. There are several other relevant Gemaros that shed light on this complex issue. One example is the story of Rav Adda (Berachos 20a), who saw a woman wearing a garment that was inappropriate for the time. Acting quickly, he damaged the garment, believing it necessary to uphold a state of modesty. However, it turned out that the woman was a non-Jew, and she pressed charges against him causing him a significant financial penalty. Rav Adda lamented that he should have paused before acting to assess the situation more thoroughly. His failure to do so led to financial liability for his actions.
From this story, one might infer that had the woman been a Jewess, Rav Adda's actions would have been justified and would not have cost him. Yet, this case can be distinguished from others in critical ways. Perhaps the situation was a public spectacle, with the woman's behavior openly challenging communal norms. Rav Adda may have acted not as a private individual but under the implicit authority of the Beis Din to address an urgent and visible issue.
Another relevant source is the halacha (YD 303:1) permitting one to remove Shatnez (garments with wool and linen) from a friend, even by tearing the garment off his body, to prevent him from violating a Torah prohibition. This reinforces the principle that intervening to stop someone from sinning is sometimes not only permitted but required.
However, these cases differ from the scenarios we are discussing in one key respect: in both instances, the aveirah was actively occurring. Rav Adda intervened in a public display of immodesty, and the Shatnez wearer was in immediate violation of the prohibition. By contrast, in the case of destroying objectionable material in someone's home, no sin is actively taking place. The concern is more indirect—preventing potential aveiros in the future.
One might attempt to justify such actions based on the mitzvah of giving mussar (rebuke). The Torah commands us to guide others away from wrongdoing, even when it requires taking uncomfortable steps. The Rambam writes that rebuke should be offered progressively—first gently and privately, then, if necessary, escalating to more forceful means, including public condemnation. It could be argued that secretly removing the objectionable material is a subtle but effective form of rebuke, sparing the homeowner embarrassment and ensuring the harmful material is no longer accessible.
Nevertheless, this reasoning raises significant concerns. By skipping the prescribed stages of rebuke, the individual may have acted prematurely. A warmer, more respectful approach—gently explaining why the material is inappropriate and encouraging its removal—might have sufficed. The homeowner could have been persuaded to dispose of the material willingly, or even to sell it, thereby mitigating any financial loss. Jumping to unilateral action not only bypasses the Torah's guidelines for rebuke but also risks causing unnecessary harm or resentment.
Thus, it seems unlikely that destroying the material outright would be halachically permissible, especially without attempting proper rebuke first. At best, one might argue for disposing of the material while still compensating the homeowner for its resale value—essentially treating the act as a form of constructive theft. Even in such a case, careful thought and consultation with a halachic authority would be essential before taking action. In conclusion, the question of whether one may take matters into their own hands to prevent another from sinning is nuanced and situational. While the Torah permits and even obligates us to intervene in certain cases, it sets clear guidelines for how and when to act. The balance between zeal for Hashem's mitzvos and respect for another's autonomy and property is delicate. Acting impulsively, even with noble intentions, risks transgressing the very principles we seek to uphold. Our role, then, is to approach such dilemmas with humility, wisdom, and adherence to halachic process, ensuring that our efforts to uphold Torah values reflect the Torah itself[10].
Have an amazing Shabbos!
Rabbi Moshe Revah Rosh HaYeshiva, HTC - Beis HaMidrash LaTorah moshe.revah@htc.edu
[1] The Ramban interprets that these were not idols, rendering much of this discussion moot. Interestingly, the Ibn Ezra suggests that these teraphim were the skulls of a firstborn. This introduces another layer of complexity, as human remains may inherently lack permissible value. [2] Even though Rochel is understood to have observed the entire Torah, it is possible that this did not exempt her from the stricter penalties applied to crimes committed by a ben-Noach. [3] See the Shiurei Bracha on Shulchan Aruch (YD 221:4), which quotes the Zohar explaining that Rochel's death was a consequence of causing her father distress. This raises a question: Why was Avraham justified in smashing his father's idols, as Rashi in Parshas Noach (11:28) recounts? [4] The Magen Avraham (306:29) offers a nuanced view: it may be permitted to commit a "small" sin to prevent someone else from committing a "big" sin. Stealing might be considered a "small" sin compared to Avodah Zara, which is unquestionably severe. However, this logic would not necessarily apply to the cases discussed in this article. Furthermore, defining "small" versus "big" sins—and where stealing fits—requires careful analysis. [5] See the Shvus Yaakov (3:38), who supports the notion that idols are prohibited even for non-Jews to benefit from. Similarly, the Maharsham (DT YD 14:13) holds this view. [6] By contrast, the Zera Avraham (20:5) and the Minchas Chinuch (428:5) maintain that non-Jews may indeed benefit from idols. [7] See the Mekor Chayim (431:1), which explains that even if one holds that it is permissible to benefit from chometz, if another person destroys it, he is not obligated to compensate the owner, as everyone is required to eliminate chometz. [8] The Shittah Mekubetzes (BM 61b) posits that it may be permissible to steal if the intent is to return the item. However, the Ketzos (348:1) disagrees, ruling that stealing is prohibited even with the intention to return. [9] The Minchas Chinuch (224) raises this issue as a question, while the Rama (BB 15) rules that a non-Jew may steal with intent to annoy or return. [10] See Derech Sichah (Vol. 2, pg. 41) by R' Chaim Kanievsky, who cites both R' Shach and the Chazon Ish as permitting the burning of a friend's "pasul" books without requiring compensation. It is unclear whether this refers to Avodah Zara-related books or inappropriate books. R' Chaim explains this is because such items have no constructive use. However, since inappropriate books can be sold to second-hand stores, one may still be obligated to pay their resale value. Additionally, R' Wosner in Shoalin V'Dorshin (78) discusses a case where someone destroyed a person's carton of cigarettes. He ruled that the person was not required to pay for the damages. | 
No comments:
Post a Comment