Child’s Glasses
Question:
Our child has a vision impairment and needs to replace his glasses at least twice a year. However, the health fund only covers one pair of glasses per insured child per year. At the optical shop, we were advised to use the eligibility of another child in the family who does not need glasses, and we were told that “everyone does this,” and that it is acceptable (this was suggested by a well-known and reputable chain). Is it permitted to do so? Additionally, if one has a credit or eligibility in the health fund for a child who does not need glasses, may it be used for another child? Is there any difference if the store has no objection?
Answer:
It is forbidden to purchase an additional pair of glasses in one year under the name of another child. Each child is entitled to one pair of glasses per year only, and a child who does not require glasses has no entitlement to receive them at all. It is therefore not permissible to transfer or use the benefit allocated to one child for another child. One may not rely on the suggestion of an optical store, even if it is reputable, as their recommendation is motivated by financial gain and does not determine what is halachically permitted. Furthermore, the fact that many people engage in such practices does not render it permissible. Custom or common practice does not override halachic restrictions. If, however, explicit permission is obtained from the responsible authority within the health fund, then it would be permitted to act accordingly. Without such clear authorization from the health fund, it remains prohibited.
Explanation:
The underlying principle in this matter is that rights and benefits provided by an institution—such as a health fund—are granted under specific terms. Each insured individual has a defined entitlement, and it is not within one’s discretion to reassign or transfer that entitlement to another person without explicit authorization.
- Individual Entitlement: Each child is granted a personal benefit—typically one pair of glasses per year. This benefit is not a general family entitlement but an individual one. Therefore, using one child’s benefit for another constitutes a misuse of the agreement with the health fund.
- Lack of Eligibility: A child who does not require glasses has no justification to utilize the benefit. Purchasing glasses in their name—especially if they are not suited for their prescription—is not considered a legitimate fulfillment of the benefit.
- Reliance on Commercial Advice: Optical shops may suggest such practices, but their guidance cannot be relied upon for halachic decisions, as they have a vested financial interest. Halachah requires adherence to objective standards, not commercial convenience.
- Common Practice: Even if many people engage in this behavior, this does not legitimize it. Halachah is not determined by popular practice when that practice conflicts with ethical or legal obligations.
- Possibility of Permission: The only scenario in which such an arrangement would be permitted is if the health fund itself explicitly authorizes the transfer or alternative use of the benefit. In that case, one would be acting within the agreed-upon rules and no prohibition would apply.
Because these situations can sometimes depend on specific policies or exceptional cases, it is advisable to verify directly with the health fund. In the absence of clear approval, one must refrain from using one child’s entitlement for another.
Conclusion:
Using one child’s health fund benefit to obtain glasses for another child is prohibited unless explicit permission is granted by the health fund authorities. One must act with integrity and adhere to the conditions of the benefit as defined.
Sources:
See regarding the prohibition of lying and scamming insurance companies: Rav Elyashiv in Ashrei HaIsh C.M. 127; Rav Ovadia in Mayan Omer 10:6-5; Rav SZ”A in Shulchan Shlomo Refua 2 p. 261; Vein Lamo Michshol 1 p. 150; Rav M.M. Shpurn in Koveitz Hayashar Vehatov 2:30 “There is absolutely no justification to deceive insurance companies under any circumstances. It is mistaken to think that if no incident has occurred in one’s home or car for several years, then the insurance premiums were paid “for nothing.” One pays in order to be insured, and nothing beyond that is owed to him. The premium is established from the outset to provide protection in the event of an actual loss, such as a theft that truly occurred. Fabricating events that never happened constitutes theft.
Similarly, with health funds that insure patients and their needs, it is forbidden to use various tricks—such as purchasing unrelated items in pharmacies or orthopedic stores, or buying medications under another person’s name when one is not entitled to that medication or service. The same applies to vehicle owners: it is prohibited to lie and claim that a different person was the driver simply because that person is covered by insurance. Any deviation from the policy constitutes theft from the insurance company. This includes providing false information, such as inventing illnesses or pains that never existed. That said, it is difficult to prohibit slight exaggeration of the degree of actual pain—for example, saying “it hurts מאוד (very much)” instead of “it hurts”—since pain is subjective and hard to quantify. What feels “very painful” to one person may feel less so to another, and can vary from day to day. Such statements are generally considered an expression of real existing pain and typically do not affect the substance of a claim. However, to invent pain that never existed, to present oneself falsely as disabled (such as using crutches deceptively), or to bribe doctors to write completely false reports—these are all forms of exploitation and theft. On the other hand, it is permissible to consult experts regarding what complications could potentially develop from an accident, even if nothing has yet manifested, and to claim compensation for the possible future risk.”
See regarding the biblical prohibition of stealing even from a gentile, and that it applies even to less than a peruta: Admur Hilchos Gezeila Ugeneiva Halacha 1, 3, and 4 and 23 and Hilchos Metzia Upikadon 38; Michaber C.M. 348:2 [Geneiva]; 359:1 [Gezeila]; Tur 348 and 359; Rambam Gezeila Veaveida 1:1-2; Geneiva 1:1-2; Rebbe Akiva in Bava Kama 113a; Shach C.M. 348:2; Rashal in Yam Shel Shlomo Bava Kama 10:20; Nesivos Hamishpat 348:1; Chelkas Mechokeik and Beis Shmuel E.H. 28:1; Biur Hagr”a E.H. 28 and C.M. 348:8; Shut Rashba 1:852
See regarding the prohibition of cheating and fraud in business dealings even with a gentile (Ona’ah, trickery, false representations): See Admur Hilchos Gezeila Ugeneiva Halacha 4; Admur Hilchos Onah 11–12; Michaber C.M. 228:6; Rama C.M. 348:2; Rambam Geneiva 7:8; Gezeila Veaveida 1:4; Rambam Mechira 18:1; Mordechai Remez 158 in name of Ravayah; Semag Asei 74; Rambam in Pirush hamishnayos Keilim 12:7 that those people who mistakenly think that it is permitted to scam a Gentile are making a grave mistake. All types of trickery and scams are forbidden even towards a Gentile, and certainly if this will involve a desecration of God’s name. Those who do so are considered to be doing an abomination in the eyes of God.