Vayigash: Mechila- To Forgive or To Absolve

The Journal of Talmudic Law & Finance


~ PARSHAS VAYIGASH ~
 
Mechila:
To Forgive or To Absolve

After the reunion of Yosef Hatzadik and his brothers, we read in this week’s Parsha (and at the end of Veyechi) how Yosef assured his brothers that he bore them no ill will for their selling him as a slave. Yet the Midrash teaches that, generations later, the “Assarah Harugei Malchus” – the ten great sages who were executed by the Romans – were so punished as an atonement for the sin of the sale of Yosef. But surely Yosef forgave his brothers? Rabbeinu Bechayei (Vayechi, 50:17) explains that although Yosef Hatzadik assured his brothers that he bore no grudge, nonetheless he never explicitly declared that he forgave them. The lack of explicit forgiveness hindered a complete atonement, and thus hundreds of years later, ten Featured Audio Shiur: Mechila- To Forgive or To Obsolvegreat sages were murdered as a punishment for the sin of the Shevatim.

The message is clear: one who decides to forgo a claim against someone who has wronged him should not suffice with refraining from making a claim, but should explicitly forgive any wrongdoings his friend did.

This week’s Journal will explore the Halachic requirements necessary to effectively absolve an outstanding debt or to forgive a wrongdoing.

 Click here for this week’s Featured Audio Shiur by Rav Yosef Greenwald:
Mechila: To Forgive or to Obsolve


In this Issue:
cm_chiddush


The Uncollected Loan

 In select scenarios, a person is not required to repay a loan unless it is demanded. If the lender does not demand the loan, the borrower may not be required to repay the loan at all, according to some Poskim.

pp
Parsha Perspectives from the Archives
Parsha Perspectives:
Parshas Vayigash- The Pleasure of Credibility
ask_the_dayan
Ask the Dayan

Related Audio
Two Forms of Teshuva
Two Forms of Teshuva
Bava Kama Perek 8, Daf 92
Rav Nissim Kaplan
Chanuka Yarchei Kallah
Chanuka Yarchei Kallah

Shoplifter Penitence

Q.

As a teenager, I shoplifted from a store owned by a family friend. Now older and wiser, I would like to make amends. Is it sufficient to anonymously return the value of the item stolen, or must Iin addition take the uncomfortable step of identifying myself to the store owner and ask himfor Mechila (forgiveness)?


A.

It is preferable for a shoplifter, in addition to repaying the theft, to ask for Mechila, but it is not mandatory for him to do so. Thus, in a case of difficulty one may be lenient and not ask.


Sources:


 There is an apparent contradiction regarding this issue. The Rambam in the Laws governing Personal Injury (Hilchos Chovel U’mazik 5:9) states that there is a distinction between one who causes another person bodily harm, and one who damages monetary possessions. The latter needs only to pay for the damages incurred, where as the former must also ask Mechila, forgiveness, from the victim.


The wording of the Rambam implies that one who steals, which involves only monetary harm, would not be obligated to request Mechila after he has returned the stolen goods.


However, in the Laws of Teshuva (2:9) the Rambam states that Teshuva, repentance,  atones only for transgressions Bein Odom LaMokom, between man and his Creator. Regarding transgressions against another person, however such as causing him bodily harm, or cursing him, or stealing from him, one will never attain atonement until he returns what has taken, and appeased his friend. “Even though he has returned the money that he is obligated, he must appease him and ask him for forgiveness.


The Commentaries on the Rambam point out this seeming contradiction, and provide two approaches in answering this question. The Lechem Mishna (Hilchos Chovel) answers by noting that the Rambam in Hilchos Teshuva refers to stealing as Gezaila, which connotes a form of thievery whereby the thief takes the object by force from the owner. Such an act causes acute emotional distress. Furthermore, one who steals derives personal benefit from his fellow man’s property. These two factors warrant the transgressor being required to ask the victim for Mechila. However the Rambam in Hilchos Chovel is referring to damaging another person’s possessions, which lacks the element of causing significant emotional distress that is caused by Gezeila, and furthermore the transgressor derives no benefit from the victim’s possessions. As such, it is sufficient to compensate the victim for the financial loss, and one is not not required to ask for Mechila.


The Sefer Hakovetz (see also Darchei Dovid B”K 91b) takes a completely different approach. He understands the Rambam in Hilchos Chovel to be discussing the minimum obligation to attain any level of atonement. Only one who causes bodily harm would be included in the obligation to ask for Mechila after paying compensation. However in Hilchos Teshuva the Rambam discusses the ideal approach that a penitent person should take, and that is to request Mechila even for transgressions that are not as severe as causing bodily harm. (See Sma”G (Assin 70): “If one damages one’s friends property, once he has paid what he owes, he is atoned for, although nonetheless it is a mitzvah to ask from him forgiveness.”)


Returning to our question as to whether a shoplifter is obligated to ask for Mechila, it would depend on the two approaches. According to the Lechem Mishna, since the stealing took place in a manner that did not cause emotional distress, the thief would not be obligated to ask for Mechila, but would suffice by returning the theft.


However, according to the approach of the Sefer Hakovetz it would be appropriate, though not essential, to ask for Mechila.


In our case, since asking Mechila involves emotional difficulty, and according to the Lechem Mishna there is no obligation at all to ask for Mechila, and even according to the Sefer Hakovetz doing so would not be a strict obligation, one may be lenient and not disclose his identity for the purpose of asking for Mechila.


Furthermore, in our particular case there is an additional reason why it might be unnecessary to ask for Mechila. Presumably, the store owner would not even have noticed that the goods that were stolen were missing. As such, there would have been no element of distress to the owner at all, and so it would be sufficient to either return the goods or somehow repay the value, without informing the owner that they had been stolen in the first place (cf. Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 355:1)


Nonetheless, if there is a possibility that the storeowner had indeed noticed the loss, it would be appropriate for the penitent “ex-shoplifter” to send an anonymous letter apologizing for his indiscretion, mentioning that he has made good the financial loss, and asking for forgiveness. 

 

Click here to present a Shaila to the Bais HaVaad.

 

* * *
To dedicate an issue of the Journal or
for other dedication opportunities, please contact the Bais HaVaad at info@thehalachacenter.org

Join Our Mailing List

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.