Anyone who steals even a minor amount violates the prohibition of [Leviticus 19:11] "You shall not steal" and is required to repay [the amount stolen] whether one steals from a Jew or a gentile.
meaning ther are no different statuses for being either jew or gentile
As Maimonides in , Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Gezeilah 1:2 states
And it is biblically forbidden to steal even a minor amount; even a gentile - it is forbidden to steal from him or to cheat him. And if you stole from him or cheated him you must return the stolen money or object.
professing equality between jew and gentile
"My wife asks me for money all day, what does she buy? how should i know i never give her any"
Hmmm.... Please tell me your opinion on the following article. Although written by a religious Jew, it confirms the antisemitic claims that gentiles are treated differently for the same crimes and that Jews consider themselves as superior to gentiles.
Stealing, Punishment and the Jewish Way By Avi Lazerson
It is interesting to compare the Jewish method of dealing with thieves to the non-Jewish method. It is interesting because it sheds light not only on the differences between the two systems of law and order, but also on the understanding of what is a Jew.
Let us give an example: If a thief were to steal a man's money, say five thousand dollars and then spend it before he was caught, what would be the outcome? Well, we could reasonably assume that in today's criminal court system, the man would be sent to prison for a few years.
But the Jewish view, based on the teachings of the Torah, is very different. Besides the fact that the Torah ignores the concept of a prison system for "criminals", the Torah has in its place a system of bonded service. If you have read the Torah, you may be familiar with the concept of a Hebrew bonded servant. The Torah stipulates that the Jewish thief must repay the money or object that he stole. If he has money or properties, then the money or properties are used for restitution to pay back the amount that was stolen. This restitution would thereby end the court's dealing with the thief.
If the thief does not have any money, as in our case, he spent the money and he has no property of his own to make restitution. He is still obligated to pay back the victim his loss. He will be sold into "slavery", meaning that he must work until he earns enough money to make proper restitution. His master is not his master forever, but only until he earns the money to pay his debt, then he goes free, unless, of course the sabbatical year comes first, in which case his debt is cancelled and he goes free.
Now as we examine the concept in the secular court system, we see a striking contradiction. In the secular system of justice, the man committed a "crime" and therefore he must be punished. If he still has the victim's money or property, then it is returned. But this is still a side point. Secular justice is concerned for the welfare of society and therefore, the perpetrator of a crime must be punished for two reasons: One reason is to teach him a lesson, that stealing, etc, is a crime and that he will learn the hard way not to repeat his folly. The second reason is to teach others that if they think about stealing, they should be aware that the punishment if and when they are caught would far out weight the benefit that they may derive from illegal actions.
Yet if, as in our case, the money is gone, then the victim must suffer the loss. The prison sentence is not related to restitution of the stolen property or money. Prison is to punish to protect society and teach other would-be criminals that "crime does not pay."
If we were to further elaborate on this, we might well ask, well, is not the Torah concerned with the society's welfare? What is there to prevent a thief who is caught (and either pays back his debt with his own funds or works in a forced work environment until he pays it back) that will convince him not to steal again?
Perhaps we must look a bit deeper at the Torah's understanding. Perhaps the most important difference in the Torah law itself is a shocking difference. According to the Torah a Jew who steals must pay it back, as we described above. However, what we did not mention, is that a gentile who steals (whether from a gentile or a Jew) is judged by the death penalty. Now that is pretty heavy!
Perhaps in understanding this apparent inequality in the Torah's viewpoint, will explain something even deeper in our present understanding of the human being.
Number one, the Jew who steals, not only is under an obligation to provide restitution, but he has committed a sin! Granted, a gentile, who steals also commits a sin, so why is the punishment different?
To answer this we must revert to the mystical teachings of the cabalists and Chassidic masters. They teach us that there is a fundamental difference in the soul of a Jew as compared to the soul of a gentile just as there is a fundamental difference in the purpose of a Jew in this world compared to the purpose of a gentile.
The essential purpose of a Jew is to bring the revelation of G-dliness into the world through his performance of the holy mitzvot. What separates the Jew from the gentile is the quality of his soul in terms of being a source of G-dly radiation. According to our mystical masters, the soul which each person possesses has a screen surrounding it to prevent the inherent G-dliness from being revealed which would cause the person to no longer have free choice. As long as the soul's G-dly radiance is reduced by a covering, then the person can choose between good and evil.
The Jew, being the chosen people of G-d, the people selected for analyzing and understanding the intricate laws of the Torah were given this special soul which allows him to understand much deeper the laws of the Torah. A gentile whose task in this world is to work and develop the lands was not given such a sensitive soul.
When a Jew sins, his soul which longs only for G-d and his mitzvot, gives the man great pain. This is a punishment for his sin, (in addition to the above mentioned restitution). When a gentile sins, he has voided his purpose in being and therefore liable to the death penalty.
But perhaps this was true when we Jews lived in our land and merited to having the Holy Temple. Perhaps in those times our souls were purer. Unfortunately, we find thievery amongst all types of Jews, and little remorse, but rather justification.
May we merit the rebuilding of the Holy Temple and the purification of our Holy Souls so that we may once again serve G-d with the holiness that we were intended to.
Further, I'd also like to refer to the following text :
With regards to robbery and theft from a Gentile, the Tanna'im disagreed, and subsequently so did the Rishonim, whether the prohibition is from the Torah or only Rabbinic.
It is explained in the Jerusalem Talmud, chapter 4 of Bava Kama, halacha 3: "It happened that the [Roman] kingdom sent two officials to learn Torah from Rabban Gamliel. They learned from him Scripture, Mishnah, Talmud, Halacha, and Aggadah. In the end they said: your entire Torah is fine and praiseworthy, except for these two matters which you say -- a Jewish woman should not be a midwife for a Gentile woman, but a Gentile woman can be a mid-wife for a Jewish woman, and a Jewish woman cannot breastfeed the son of a Gentile woman, but a Gentile woman can breastfeed [the child of] a Jewish woman with her permission; robbery of a Jew is forbidden, but robbery of a Gentile is permitted. At that moment Rabban Gamliel issued an edict that what is stolen from a Gentile is forbidden because of the desecration of G-d's name." According to the Jerusalem Talmud, that which is stolen from a Gentile is forbidden because of Rabban Gamliel's edict and it is only a Rabbinic prohibition. Likewise it is written in Sifri on the portion of V'zot HaBracha, section 344, except that the edict of Rabban Gamliel is not mentioned there.
This is also what is written in the Tosephta, Avodah Zarah chapter 8, halacha 5 (in the Zuckermandel edition; in the Vilna edition it is chapter 9, halacha 4): "...Regarding theft -- a thief, a robber, one who takes a [captive] beautiful woman, and the like -- these are things it is forbidden for a Gentile [to perpetrate] against a Gentile, or [against] a Jew, but it is permissible for a Jew [to perpetrate] against a Gentile."
Thus Rashi wrote on the aforementioned beraitha which appears in Sanhedrin 57a, s.v. yisrael b'goy mutar: "For 'You shall not exploit your neighbor' is written, and it is not written 'a Gentile,' but there is a Rabbinic prohibition, according to the one who says that robbery of a Gentile is forbidden because of desecration of G-d's name in the last chapter 'HaGozel' [chapter 10 of Bava Batra]." Thus it also appears in Bava Metzia 111b: "And since the first Tanna learned the law from the phrase 'his brother,' what does he do with the phrase 'his neighbor'? That phrase comes to teach something in his view also, as stated in the beraitha: 'his neighbor' -- and not a Gentile. But isn't it appropriate to learn that a Gentile is excluded from the phrase 'his brother'? One [phrase] comes to permit exploiting him [a Gentile] and the other comes to permit robbing him, as he holds that robbery of a Gentile is permitted."16 And so it is determined in the commentary attributed to the Ran on Tractate Sanhedrin 57a. Thus, too, ruled the Rama in Even HaEzer, paragraph 28, section 1, and also the Maharshal in Yam shel Shlomo on Bava Kama, paragraph 20.17 .....