Gneivas Akum

There is a famous debate in Talmud whether a Yehudi may steal from a Gentile. The term used is "Gneivas Akum". Many contemporary Jewish halachists and ethicists have struggled with the idea that this is even debated. How can an ethical/moral compendium such as the Mishna/Talmud have debate over such an issue. How can we accept as a legitimate opinion the prospect of being allowed to steal from a Non-Jew? There have been many apologists that have come up with theories as to how/why it might not mean exactly what it says or such hokey.

The truth of the matter is that they are all missing the boat. It is very simple as I will describe below. So simple that it is actually hard to really understand how it could be prohibited. 

The reason that Gneivas Akum is mutar is because of the need for reciprocity. You can't have a legal system binding on only one party. Therefore, since the Torah is only binding on the Yehudi, the Torah can't obligate the Yehudi not to steal if the counterparty is not party to that social contract. There is a concept of Dina demalchusa Dina to deal with the civil system. However, as a torah commandment it wouldn't work.

The Tanna that says that it is nevertheless assur holds that it isn't a social contract as much as it is something intrinsic in us that would prohibit it. Just like Geneivas Da'as, Rabeinu Yona (Sha'ar Shlishi Kuf Pey Daled) says that Geneivas Da'as is worse than regular Geneiva because "Hu Meyisodei Hanefesh" It is a basic spiritual requirement, meaning it is something that affects the offender and is more an internal issue for him to be truthful rather than a mandate on how to run a legal system.

That is why according to all, mitzias Akum is mutar. If a Yehudi finds a metzia he is not obligated to return it unless the Akum would be obligated to return his to close the circle within the legal system and he is not obligated. All Tanna'im agree that Mitzias Akum is mutar.

The Rambam who says that Geneivas Akum is Assur seems to concur with the above thesis. The Rambam in Peirush Hamishna to Keilim (Perek 12 Mishna 7) writes that one may not steal from an Akum because it will cause him to create within himself negative attributes. He does not say beacuse Gezeila is Assur and it applies to an Akum too but rather he goes on a whole diatribe about middos ra'os. This would prove that the Rambam believes that the Tanna who holds that Gezel Akum is assur believes so only because that even Gezel has the ability to corrupt like Geneivas Da'as.

poor people (evyonim) today

I think that there is fundamental shift in general expenses that should be reflected in halachic charity laws. The shift is from 90% of income being spent on food to housing, health insurance, tuition, utilities, etc.. with food accounting for less than 10% of yearly expenses for an average family.

For example, on Purim the din of Matanos Le'evyonim requires one to find an Evyon, defined as somebody that does not have enough money for 2 meals. The requirement is to give that person funding for two meals. I think that today, especially in a world where they have dollar menus at Mcdonald's, the definition should be revised to something else. Maybe someone who doesn't have money for his next mortgage, or to pay health insurance. Also, the obligation should be to give that person money to fill that need. Maybe to pay his mortgage or something. It definitely needs to be reexamined in light of the changes in spending needs of modern society.