Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses the moral quandary of whether one should recite a blessing over stolen food:

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי שֶׁגָּזַל סְאָה שֶׁל חִטִּין, טְחָנָהּ, לָשָׁהּ וַאֲפָאָהּ, וְהִפְרִישׁ מִמֶּנָּה חַלָּה, כֵּיצַד מְבָרֵךְ? אֵין זֶה מְבָרֵךְ אֶלָּא מְנָאֵץ! וְעַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר: ״בֹּצֵעַ בֵּרֵךְ נִאֵץ ה׳״. 

Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: In the case of one who robbed another of a se’a of wheat, then ground it, kneaded it, and baked it, and he then separated ḥalla from it, i.e., he separated the portion of the dough that one is required to separate and then give to a priest, how can he recite the blessing over the separation of ḥalla? This individual is not reciting a blessing, but rather he is blaspheming. And with regard to this it is stated: “The robber who recites a blessing blasphemes the Lord” (Psalms 10:3), which is referring to a robber who recites a blessing upon performing a mitzva with an item he stole. According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, although this wheat has been significantly changed, it is still considered a stolen item.

There are differences in the poskim about whether it is forbidden to recite the blessing, or one still must recite it, despite it being odious to God.   Meiri has a different take. He states that one does not do zimun over stolen goods.  The reason he offers will be the focus of our discussion.  In order for there to be a zimun, one needs to have what is called a “keviyus” (see for example Taz OC 196:1), which means a group of three who sit together to eat in a fixed formal manner. Meiri here says that since the goods are stolen, by definition this is not a fixed situation.  A sinful act cannot be fixed or consistent.

This reflects the nature of sin. Sin itself, by definition, is temporary.  God’s will which is eternal and will ultimately prevail is the only things that is permanent.  Akeidas Yitzchak (73) explains that when Chazal say (Sotah 3a), “A man commits a transgression only if he is temporarily insane”, they really meant it.  He quotes Socrates in saying that the intellect is only capable of stating the truth.  When a person sins, his need for immediate gratification temporarily blinds him to the truth of the consequences that he deeply knows.  How many times do we have that extra portion of food, knowing that our doctors have told us, “That food is killing you”?  We know the truth, we just can’t help ourselves.

This is the mystery and paradox of the human soul; an uneasy graft between the animal and the intellect.  We can never win the battle, but losses are temporary.  We should never forget this - sin is temporary but truth and goodness are eternal.

Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation

Do you like what you see? Please subscribe and also forward any articles you enjoy to your friends, (enemies too, why not?)