“Confiscate that Dog!”
A Moral Dilemma for the Shabbos Table

 

By Rabbi Yitzi Weiner
This week’s Torah portion discusses the travels (and travails) of Avraham, Sara, and her brother Lot, to Egypt. Avraham told the Egyptian officials that Sara was his sister in order to protect himself from being killed. Rashi points out that Lot was greatly rewarded later for keeping quiet and not revealing the truth that Sara was married to Avraham. This is an example of avoiding lashon hara, of avoiding using words that cause harm to someone. (Click here for inspirational stores I have collected about Lashon Hara that you might like to share at your table)

The following true story is an example of words that caused damage.

Aharon, a resident of a quiet West coast suburb had a rare Labrador. The pet was very beloved by the entire family as well as the neighbors. Aharon had a neighbor Tzvi, who he was on very good terms with.

One day, Tzvi went to bed early because he had an important business meeting the next day. That night, at well past midnight, Tzvi was woken with the sound of barking. The Labrador next door was outside the house and was barking loudly. Tzvi tried to fall asleep but was unable to because of the barking. As Tzvi watched the clock get later and later, concerned for his important meeting in the morning, Tzvi decided to take matters into his own hands. In frustration Tzvi called the office of the local police precinct.

“There is a dog that is barking incessantly next door and it is preventing me, and presumably the neighborhood, from sleeping”, Tzvi told the official.

Sure enough, a few minutes later a patrol car drove up. To Tzvi’s surprise the officer confiscated the dog.
In this town, they had strict public nuisance laws (see here for example). After a hearing it was determined that the incessant barking was a nuisance and they were going to permanently impound the dog.

Tzvi felt very bad about what happened. He wanted the barking to stop but he didn’t want his neighbor to permanently lose his dog. After the dust settled a few days later, Tzvi went over to Aharon’s home to explain what happened and to apologize.

“I’m sorry you lost the dog, I never imagined they would confiscate it”, Tzvi said apologetically.
“I don’t understand you”, Aharon replied. “We are good friends. Why didn’t you just call me before you called the police? “
“You’re right,” Tzvi said. “I was just so frustrated that I didn’t think it through. I thought the police might come to quiet the dog down. I also thought you might have been out of town”.
“I want you to know”, Aharon said sharply, “that the kids are devastated about the loss of the dog. In order to buy a new Labrador that is similar, it would cost close to $2000. I think you might be obligated to pay for that.”
“Me, pay for that”? Tzvi answered with surprise. “I didn’t mean to cause you to lose your dog. In either case, it was your fault for letting it bark like that.”
“But you had no business jumping the gun and calling the police, when you could have just called your friend next door”, Aharon shot back.

The two agreed to bring this question to their local Rav to mediate.

Who do you think is right?

Should Tzvi have an obligation to pay for the lost dog?
On one hand Aaron should not have let the dog bark. But on the other hand, perhaps Tzvi was too quick to call the police and should have first called the neighbor.

See Veharev Na Volume Three page 133

(If you need to know the answer to this dilemma before next week, or if you would like to be added to a list to receive the answers right away, feel free to email me at [email protected].)

Answer to last week’s moral dilemma:
(click here to review the question)

This is discussed in Veharev Na Volume one page 120
Rav Zilberstein writes that one can argue that this is not theft. She would not have bought the water if she knew initially how much it cost and she is simply returning exactly what she took. “We can say Harei shelcha lefanecha. What is yours is right here.”
Nonetheless at the time that she took the bottle it was considered theft because she can only take it with the conditions that the owners are willing to sell it for. The owners would not let her take the water as long as she returns the same bottle. They are charging for the convenience of having the water and the context that supports it-  the electricity, the refrigerator, the maintenance of the fridge, etc.

Have a wonderful Shabbos!

Click HERE if you would like to receive this question series as an email each week.