By applying Aaron HaLevi's reasoning, it becomes apparent that a number of the 613 commands are implicit in the single Noahic law on Theft. These are:
:1. "...against stealing." Negative 244 (''lo tignovu''). <ref>The enumeration used here is based on Charles B. Chavel's English rendition of Maimonides' Book of Divine Commandments. London: Soncino Press, 1940. "Negative" or "N" stands for a negative commandment; "Positive" or '71 stands for a positive commandment.</ref>
As generally understood, Negative 244 refers to taking via stealth; Negative 245 refers to taking via brazen force. Thus, there is no overlap between these two dicta: in a situation where one is applicable the other necessarily is not. However, J.F. Perla points out that this is not so according to Isaac Alfasi (RIF) and to Solomon ben Adereth (RASHBA), for according to these writers Negative 245 is violated in every instance of the unlawful removal of another's property. Consquently, one who takes another's goods by stealth violates both Negative 244 and Negative 245. Yet, each has its individual place in the 613, because special situations exist where only one is applicable. The situation wherein only ". . . against committing robbery" applies is where the crime is committed brazenly and by force. The situation wherein only ". . . against stealing" applies is the one described in the Talmud, Baba Kama 27b:
Ben Bagbag says: Do not enter onto another's property stealthily to take even your own object, test you be as a thief. Instead, confront him with force and say, "It is my own object I take."
According to this view, ". . . against stealing" is directed at the method - a method which utilizes the absence of the owner for obtaining an object - regardless of who owns the object. However, ". . . against committing robbery", which is not being transgressed in the Baba Kama example, is directed at every unlawful removal of another's property, regardless of method. <ref>J. Fishel Perla, Saadiah's Book of Commandments. Warsaw, 1916, page 224, volume II.</ref>
That Noahide legislation prohibits theft in each of the special situations mentioned above is asserted by the Tosefta, Aboda Zara 9:4, "How does [a Noahite or an Israelite] transgress Theft? It he steals or robs…" It seems likely – since each term gets a speciaI mention in the Tosefta – that for the Noahite, too, both the removal of another's property (i.e., robbery) and stealth as a method (i.e., stealing) is covered by the prohibition on Theft. <ref>Also cf. Charles B. Chavel's remark in Nahmanides, Pirush al HaTorah (Commentary on the Pentateuch). Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kock, 1959, volume 1, page 543: "Thus the Noahite too may not take even his own item from another's property without consent of the court."</ref>
:3. "...against shifting a landmark." Negative 246 (''lo tasig gebul'').
This is merely a specialized case of theft which involves the adding to one's own real property by placement of the boundry marker deeper into the neighboring property. As such it certainly applies to the Noahic statutes. <ref>However, Maimonides, in his Code, "Laws on Stealth" 7:11, maintains that only in the Holy Land does a violation of Negative 246 apply simultaneously with Negative 244 or Negative 245.</ref>
This is directed at the non-payment of a worker's salary, the non-payment of a loan, and the non-return of a borrowed object. The common features here are: (a) that the item under dispute reaches the hands of the cheat legally, (b) that the wrongful act is essentially one of omission instead of commission. Even so, Noahide law prohibits such an act, for in spirit it constitutes theft. <ref>See Maimonides, Code, "Laws on Kings" 9:9, "A Noahite is punishable for stealing ... for withholding a worker's pay - . ." Also see Nahmanides, Pirush al HaTorah (Commentary on the Pentateuch), Charles B. Chavel, editor. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1959, page 192, on Genesis 34:13: "But He warned them concerning the laws of stealing, overcharging, cheating, and/or non-payment of salaries…" Also see Talmud, Sanhedrin 57a, near end of page: "Rather, the reference here is to one who withholds a workman's pay</ref>
:5. "...against repudiating a claim of money owed." Negative 248 (''lo tekahashu'').
The implication here is that when the overcharge or underpayment is exorbitant, the transaction may legally be dissolved. Nahmanides makes specific mention of overcharging as being applicable to the Noahite. <ref>See note below</ref> In addition, Aaron HaLevi's explanation of this law - in terms of it being natural and rationally compelling - suggests Noahic involvement. He writes:
The basis for this imperative is well known. For it is understandable, and one would expect that this rule be on record, for it is inappropriate that a man gain by knavery instead of labor. <ref>Aaron HaLevi, Sefer HaHinnuch. (Chavel edition) page 424, Imperative 340.</ref>
Coveting, as used here, involves a reaffirmation of the desire by means of an act, such as a plea to the owner asking repeatedly that he part with the item in question. Desiring, however, involves the mere craving for another's property, even when no overt steps are taken. Aaron HaLevi's lengthy statement on desiring, quoted above, certainly applies to the more overt law on coveting.
:9. "...a laborer shall be allowed to eat of the fruits among which he works [under certain conditions<ref>Just what these conditions are is the subject of a dispute to which Solomon ben Adereth, Nahmanides, and Maimonides are parties. Maimonides' view is not easily identified. Isaac Hurowitz seeks to spell out the various positions in: Maimonides, Sefer Hamitzvot (with notes and glosses by Isaac S. Hurowitz). Jerusalem: Zukerman Press, 1926, folio pages 254-5. Negative 267.</ref>] Positive 201.
The landowner is stealing from the worker, in effect, when he does not permit him this benefit. That this convention holds for Noahite workers and landowners can be seen from a discussion in the Talmud which, in attempting to reconstruct a specific case of larceny with application for both Noahites and Israelites, asserts:
When did this vineyard-worker eat of the grapes? If he ate them in connection with the work of harvesting - he is permitted to. If he ate them in connection with other work such as pruning - it constitutes ordinary larceny… larceny...<ref> Sanhedrin 57a.</ref>
:10. "...against a laborer eating of such fruit [when certain conditions are not met]." Negative 267.
Although Jewish law exacts the full capital penalty for this crime only when numerous technicalities are fulfilled, nonetheless each instance of kidnapping constitutes a basic infringement of this statute according to Maimonides, who writes: "Anyone stealing a human being violates lo tignov (Negative 243]. . . "<ref>Maimonides, Code." Laws on Stealth" 9:1,2</ref> This statement is in no way qualified by Maimonides. Qualifications that follow, for example that the victim shall have been sold for profit, are aimed at the applicability of a death penalty. Noahites are involved here, in that kidnapping is obviously but a type of theft, and Maimonides specifically mentions kidnapping among the acts which the Noahide law on Theft prohibits. <ref>Code. "Laws on Kings" 9:9.</ref>
:13. "...against the use of false weights and measures." Negative 271.
This is a specialized case of overcharging (Negative 250), and hence Noahites are to be implicated. The use of false weights and measures is designated a separate imperative so as, probably, to reinforce this prevalent aspect of Negative 250. <ref>It is apparent that Jewish lawshows no tendency for avoiding duplication within the framework of the 613 commands. Thus it is that the use of false weights and measures gets special mention even though their use is already prohibited as an act of overcharging. Similarly, every violation of Negative 246 (". . . against shifting a landmark") is a simultaneous violation of Negative 244 ("against committing robbery"), as Rashi points out. (See Solomon ben Isaac, Commentary on the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy 19:14.) The seeming repetition may be designed to reinforce the prohibition of a criminal act in situations that are more common, as indicated above, or in situations that render the crime more heinous or insidious from a social point of view.</ref>
:14. "...against the possession of false weights and measures." Negative 272.
Here we have an extension of the preceding Negative 271. As already established with regard to "against desiring," any extension of a Theft prohibition qualifies for Noahic inclusion.
:15. "…that ...that one shall be exact in the use of weights and measures." Positive 208.
This is the positive aspect of Negative 271, and therefore is included.
:16. ". . . that the robber shall return [or pay for] the stolen object." Positive 194.
There are divergent opinions on whether or not Noahites are bound in this manner. While Rashi's opinion is that they are not, the Tosafists and Rabenu Hananel dispute him. This dispute revolves around the proper interpretation of the following dictum in the Talmud: "A Noahite is punishable by execution for [stealing] less than one pruta, and he need not return it." <ref> Erubin 62a. Under Israelite law, no legal action can be initiated if the disputation involves less than a pruta (a small coin) or its value. (Ibid.) The mention of execution as the penalty for Noahic Theft - and for other violations of Noahic law - is explained by Benamozegh as follows: "La sanction penale que la loi noachide attache, selon le judaisme, au vol sous toutes ses formes ne saurait kre plus rigoreuse: elle va en effet jusqu'a la peine capitale. A notre avis, c'est IA un maximum dont la societe dispose pour se defendre dans les cas o6 elle le jugerait n6cessaire, mais il n'y faut pas voir le chetiment applicable indistinctement dans toutes les circonstances . . ." (Benamozegh, lsrael et L'Humar;W, page 702). Translation: "The penalty which Noahide Law, according to Jewish tradition, attributes to theft in any form could not be more rigorous. In effect it includes capital punishment. In our view this is the maximum which society has at its disposal for its defense when necessary. But one is not compelled to see it as the punishment applied in all circumstances."</ref> Rashi takes this to mean that the commandment on the return of a stolen object simply has no counterpart for the Noahite. <ref>Rashi, "Commentary," Erubin 62a: " 'He need not return it' because the [Leviticus 5:23] verse, 'He shall return the theft,' applies for the Israelite, but not for the non-Jew who - because he is subject to sentencing – need not repay."</ref> The Tosafists, on the other hand, maintain that Positive 194 is part of Noahide law, and that only when a Noahite robs less than one pruta from an Israelite is the restoration of the object -not required. (This is so because Israelites have a convention to waive any claim of less than a pruta.) However, it is required whenever (a) the object is valued at a pruta or more, (b) whenever the victim is another Noahite or (c) whenever the object is still extant. <ref>Tosafoth (Marginal Commentary on the Talmud), Erubin 62a, paragraph "The Noahite." Cf. A.I. Kook, Responsa Mishpat Kohen. Jerusalem: Weiss Press, 1935, volume 1, page 291, where a simplified view of the Tosafists' position is presented, which omits points (a) and (b).</ref> Rabenu Hananel, too, indicates the applicability of Positive 194 in Noahic legislation. He limits the talmudic dictum, requiring no return, to Noahic larceny amounting to less than a pruta. He writes: "It need not be returned here because the Torah states only, 'He shall return the stolen goods which he robbed,' but when it does not legalistically constitute robbery, there is no requirement for return." <ref>Rabenu Hananel, "Marginal Commentary on the Talmud," Erubin 62a.</ref> In other words, biblical statutes can have applicability for Noahide law only when the usual legalistic technicalities involved are satisfied.
==Theft in Noahide Law==
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/extensions/MobileFrontend/includes/diff/InlineDiffFormatter.php:103) in /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 42
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/extensions/MobileFrontend/includes/diff/InlineDiffFormatter.php:103) in /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 42
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/extensions/MobileFrontend/includes/diff/InlineDiffFormatter.php:103) in /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 42
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/extensions/MobileFrontend/includes/diff/InlineDiffFormatter.php:103) in /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 42 Changes - Wikinoah English
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/extensions/MobileFrontend/includes/diff/InlineDiffFormatter.php:103) in /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 42
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/extensions/MobileFrontend/includes/diff/InlineDiffFormatter.php:103) in /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 42
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/extensions/MobileFrontend/includes/diff/InlineDiffFormatter.php:103) in /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 42
