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