To Life!
Salad Bar
Scandal
Should I tell store about
a petty shopplifter?
RABBI DR. ASHER MEIR
Special to the Jewish News
Wishing all our friends
a Happy & Healthy New Year
on the Boardwalk
248 932.5253
We Wish45tomer3 er/
HartT d Heathy New tjeaa
KRYSTYN
700 North Old Woodward I Suite 101 I Birmingham, MI 48009
248.540.0600 I www.krystynaseuropeanspa.com
We wish our family & friends a very
healthy, happy and sweet New Year.
50
Q. I saw someone at the grocery
store salad bar eating as much
as she was putting on her plate.
Should I mention this to a securi-
ty guard?
This is a good time to review the
criteria for talking about some-
one's faults or misdeeds. According
to the classic work Chafetz Chaim
by Rabbi Yisrael Meir HaCohen of
Raclin, there are basically five
guidelines. Only if all five are met
may we speak negatively of some-
one. As an aid to memory, we can
arrange them according to the let-
ters of the alphabet:
•ACCURACY — it is forbid-
den to exaggerate or embellish.
• BENEFIT — revelation must
be the only way to way to obtain
some constructive benefit.
• CERTAINTY — we must be
sure the information is reliable.
• DESIRE — the teller's inten-
tion must be constructive, not
vindictive.
• EQUITY — the revelation
must not cause undeserved dam-
age to the subject. It's not equi-
table to protect one person at the
expense of another.
Let's see how these apply to
your question.
The accuracy and certainty
considerations are simple to
apply. You just need to make sure
that you limit any report to what
you observe, without introducing
inferences or judgments.
The desire criterion compels
you to scrutinize your motiva-
tion. Do you want to protect the
store from loss, or deter this
shopper from continuing her
misbehavior? If so, the criterion
is fulfilled. But if you have a vin-
dictive desire to see this individ-
ual get her comeuppance, you
should hold your tongue until
you can convince yourself that
your motives are pure.
The equity criterion
requires us to consider the conse-
quences of reporting the
shoplifter. If the store manage-
ment is likely to consider your
report a basis for investigation
rather than an absolute proof of
wrongdoing, and to take a meas-
ured and justified response such
as requesting payment for any-
thing eaten, then the consequence
of your reporting would be equi-
table. But if you are afraid that the
store would "throw the book" at
your fellow shopper for her rela-
tively minor infraction, then the
best thing is to refrain.
The most problematic consid-
eration in the case you mention is
undoubtedly "benefit." Consider
the likely outcome of reporting.
Will the store be able to recover
its loss? Will the shopper be
deterred from snacking in the
future? Is there a chance of hav-
ing an embarrassing altercation?
In all probability, you will con-
clude that it is much more
advantageous to give this indi-
vidual a gentle reminder.
Something like, "How much are
you allowed to taste without pay-
ing?" is completely non-judg-
mental yet gets the message
across. Even asking, "How is the
salad?" may be enough to remind
the person that their actions are
being observed, though you must
say this in a way that doesn't
express condoning the action.
There is always the chance that
this won't have any impact.
(Maybe the shopper will even
offer you a few morsels!) If so,
you still have the option of turn-
ing to the store management.
So the benefit criterion in your
case seems to favor turning
directly to the shopper before
September 29 2005 aki