Chassidishe Gneiva Versus Self Centeredness: Taking the only Nagle vassar cup available to set up next to your bed
Question
During our stay at an Airbnb, our group—including both immediate and extended family and friends—had access to only one Neigle Vassar cup for ritual washing after waking up in the morning. We agreed to keep the cup by the sink so everyone could use it each morning. Individuals varied in their approaches when they awoke: some walked four cubits to reach the sink, while others chose to fill plastic cups with water for use by their beds. However, one particularly pious individual decided to take the Neigle Vassar cup for personal use without our knowledge. The next morning, we were unable to locate the cup when we needed to perform Neigal Vaaser by the sink. A few guests had even yet to wash hands, as they walked every four Amos from their bed until they reached the sink and only then discovered the cup was missing. We tried looking around the house for the cup but could not find it. In the end we had to wash neigal vasser from a plastic water bottle that was near the sink. Eventually, we learned that this pious individual had not only taken the cup but had also placed it under his bed, making it difficult for anyone else to find. He was among the last to wake up, which added to the group’s frustration. The individual, when confronted, asserted that washing hands immediately upon waking and preferably next to the bed is a significant mitzvah, and claimed it was not his fault for taking the cup first in order to fulfill this obligation. He further argued that Hasidim have traditionally been meticulous in performing mitzvot, even if it involved what they termed “Hasidic stealing.” Our response was that this reasoning represents a complete distortion of authentic Hasidic values, which emphasize foremost the love of one’s fellow Jew and the willingness to set aside personal stringencies for the benefit of others. In this instance, their actions resulted in the entire household being unable to properly wash, thereby contradicting the very principles of Hasidism they sought to uphold. We are interested in understanding the relevant halachic perspective regarding this situation.
Answer:
Although the individual’s intentions were sincere, he made an understandable yet frequent error by prioritizing his own spiritual needs at the expense of others. He should have refrained from taking the Neigal Vaaser cup without communicating his actions or ensuring an alternative was available for others—such as placing a different cup by the sink or preparing a disposable one near his bed, as others had done. This instance is not isolated; there have been other occasions that have come to my attention where someone has taken the sole Neigal Vaaser cup without regard for the community’s needs. Such occurrences may stem from insufficient awareness regarding the importance of inclusivity and consideration for the impact of one’s actions on others when it comes to one’s acts of piety and Chumros. The Rebbe consistently emphasized that personal religious practices, which are mere Chumros and Midas Chassidus, should be set aside when they conflict with the basic rights of others or fundamental Jewish law, underscoring that individual benefit must not override the physical or spiritual well-being of others.
Given these circumstances, it is my view that the individual in question acted out of an honest misunderstanding due to a misinterpretation of the underlying principles. Notwithstanding, the individual should apologize, and recognize that authentic piety means putting communal needs before personal stringency. A constructive dialogue with the individual, accompanied by a review of the relevant talks of the Rebbe on this topic, may assist in clarifying their perspective.
Explanation:
Halacha clearly prohibits taking communal property without consent, even for a mitzvah, as Halacha rules that a mitzvah cannot come through an aveirah, and there is no such thing as a Chumra which comes to allow the forbidden. In this case, taking the netilat yadayim cup deprived others of fulfilling their obligation and caused frustration, making the act both halachically wrong and ethically flawed. True chasidut, as taught by the Baal Shem Tov, prioritizes ahavat Yisrael and avoiding harm to others, not imposing personal chumrot at their expense.
In Likkutei Sichos Parshas Vayeitzei, the Rebbe addresses the puzzling question of how Yaakov married four sisters despite the patriarchs’ practice of observing the Torah before its giving. After analyzing various commentaries, the Rebbe explains that the forefathers’ observance was a voluntary stringency, not an obligation, and such stringencies cannot override actual duties—such as Yaakov’s moral obligation to fulfill his promise to Rachel. From this, the Rebbe concludes, we learn a vital principle: personal chumros (stringencies) must never come at the expense of others—whether physically, emotionally, or spiritually. Authentic piety prioritizes peace and the well-being of others over self-imposed rigor, reminding us that Ahavas Yisrael and communal harmony take precedence over non-obligatory practices.
The lesson discussed above is one of great pertinence to our social behavior with family, friends, and communities. It is not uncommon for a rift between family, friends, or community members to erupt due to matters relating to religious observance. People naturally feel that their rights, especially their personal religious rights and beliefs, are sacred and to be held onto irrelevant of anyone who may get run over as a result. However, in Judaism we learn that at times what is required to give up his zealously of a religious custom for the sake of peace and not offending another. This depends on the severity of the religious duty and if it is an obligation, in which case it is forbidden to compromise on it irrelevant of the possible damage that it can cause in the relationship with others, versus if it is a mere non-obligatory stringency and custom, in which case the ruling is that for the sake of peace one is to let go of fulfilling his stringency.
Sources:
See regarding not doing Chumras on the expense of others: Likkutei Sichos Vol. 5 2nd Sicha; Admur 468:14; Rama Y.D. 112:15; 119:7; Shach Y.D. 112:26 and 119;20; Shaareiy Teshuvah 170:6; M”B 170:16; Piskeiy Teshuvos 170:8;
See regarding stealing: Admur Gzeila Ugineiva 3; Michaber C.M. 348:1; Rambam Hilchos Gneiva 1:2; Learned from Braisa Bava Metzia 61b “Liminkat” regarding stealing in order to pay Keifel [See Kuntrus Achron ibid 1]
