Midrash Tanchuma, Noach 4 | Jewish Mythology

A question. An Israelite is forbidden to steal from a fellow human being. No punishment for the performance of any prohibited act mentioned in the Torah is harsher than that administered for theft. R. Eliezer declared: The generation of the flood was guilty of every sin mentioned in the Torah, but only when they committed theft was it decreed that their memory should be obliterated in the floodwaters, as it is said: For the earth is filled with violence through them, and behold, I will destroy them with the earth (Gen. 6:13), and elsewhere it is written: Violence is risen up into a rod of wickedness; not one of them shall remain (Ezek. 7:11). R. Eliezer held: This verse teaches that Violence arose and stood upright, like a rod before God, and said to Him: Master of the Universe, Nought cometh from them, nor from their tumult, nor from their turmoil, neither is there eminence among them (ibid.).8Even violence could not tolerate the sin of theft.

R. Abahu declared: There are three wrongs before which the curtain (that veils the throne of God) is never closed—robbery, and idolatry, and gouging. About gouging it is written: Thus He showed me; and behold, the Lord stood beside a wall made by a plumbline, with a plumbline in His hand (Amos 7:7); concerning robbery it is written: Violence and theft is heard within her before Me continually (Jer. 6:7); and with reference to idolatry it is written: A people who provokest Me to My face continually, that sacrifice in gardens, etc. (Isa. 65:3).

R. Yohanan was of the opinion that a man who steals as little as a perutah from his companion is considered as though depriving him of his life, as it is said: So are the ways of everyone who is greedy of gain; it taketh away the life of the owners thereof (Prov. 1:19).

One who steals but later repents his action by restoring the stolen article to its rightful owner is considered to have atoned for his sin. However, if the one from whom he stole it has died, he is required to return the stolen property to his heirs before he is considered to have atoned. When a person returns a stolen article to its owner, the owner must forgive the guilty one lest he regret having repented. Our rabbis taught, however, “If a known thief or usurer desires to make restitution, one should not accept it, and if he does accept it, he is devoid of wisdom and piety.”9For the interpretation of this statement, see Rashi, Bava Kama 94b, s.v. “ignorant of the law.” This is the case only if the stolen object is not intact, but if it is intact, one may accept it. R. Yohanan said: This law was taught during the lifetime of Rabbi. It happened once that a man wanted to return some property which he had stolen, but his wife rebuked him, saying: “Fool, if you were to make complete restitution, even the girdle you are wearing would no longer belong to you.” He changed his mind and did not make restitution. It was then that the sages declared: If a known thief or usurer desires to make restitution, one should not accept it, but if one does accept it, he is devoid of wisdom and piety.”

The disciples of R. Yohanan the son of Zakkai posed the query: Why does the Torah deal more harshly with a thief than with a robber, inasmuch as a thief is required to pay double or even four- or fivefold the value of what he has stolen, while concerning the robber it is written: Then it shall be, if he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he stole by robbery (Lev. 5:23)? He explained: The robber equates the dignity of the servant with the dignity of the Master, while the thief does not equate the dignity of the servant to that of the Master. He (the thief) acts as though the eyes of the Almighty were unable to see him and His ears were incapable of hearing him. He moves about stealthily while perpetrating his thievery, as though he can be seen by man but not by God. Therefore it says: Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they say: “Who seeth us? Who knoweth us?” (Isa. 29:15); They say, the Lord will not see (Ps. 94:7); and it says also: The Lord seeth us not, the Lord has forsaken the land (Ezek. 8:12).

It is taught that R. Meir’s thought was illustrated in the name of R. Gamliel. “To what may this be compared?” he said. “It may be compared to two men residing in a certain city, who arranged banquets. One of them invited all the men of the city to his banquet, but failed to invite the king’s sons, while the other invited neither the men of that city nor the king’s sons. Whose punishment is more severe? Naturally the one who invited all the other men of the city but not the king’s sons.”

R. Meir said: Observe how much importance is attached to labor. One must pay an indemnity equal to five times the value of the ox, for the theft of the ox forces him to stop work, but one pays only fourfold indemnity for a sheep, which performs no labor. R. Yohanan the son of Zakkai declared: Observe that God is merciful even toward a thief. A thief must pay fivefold for an ox that goes on its feet, but he pays only fourfold for a sheep that he must carry away on his shoulder.

If a man steals while saying to himself, “I will take this thing because I need it now but will return it later,” he is considered a wicked man, for it is written: If the wicked restore the pledge, give back that which he had stolen(Ezek. 33:15). Yea, even though he returns what he has stolen, he is considered wicked. It is necessary to understand that what we have discussed thus far applies only to the person who steals something with the intention of taking it for himself. Yet, even if the person steals with the intention of giving a gift to the man, but he does not wish to accept it, and [the thief] thinks, I will steal from him so as to pay him double [when I am convicted by a court], or, the man was careless with his property or money and negligently left it in an unguarded place, and another man found it and thought, I will vex him to make him search for it so that he will be more careful with his property in the future, and not be neglignt. The finder is not permitted to take it even though he did it for the owner’s good. Since it is possible that the owner (of the lost item) will be greatly distressed by his withholding it.

The Baraita (a tradition attributed to a sage from the time of the Mishnah) teaches us: One must not steal either for the purpose of repaying a twofold indemnity or in order to withhold it temporarily. This is the law, for there is an additional verse which states: Thou shalt not rob (Lev. 19:13).

Original Sources