Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/354
Paragraph 1- If the stolen item was in the thief’s possession and the value appreciated on its own, such as where the sheep was pregnant when it was stolen and now gave birth or was unshorn when stolen and he now sheared the animal, the thief would pay for the animal, its shearings and its children. If the animal gave birth or was shorn after the owner gave up hope, the thief would pay the value of the animal at the time it was stolen. If the thief incurred expenses and the item appreciated, such as where he fattened the animal, the appreciation would belong to the thief, even if it was before the owner gave up hope. When the thief returns the item to the owner, he would collect the appreciation from the owner. There are those who say that even appreciation on its own would belong to the thief, even if it was before the owner gave up hope. All the more so in a case where he stole a sheep, who conceived while in the thief’s possession would the appreciation belong to the thief, even if the owners made a claim before it gave birth because he stole the animal while it had nothing inside it.
Paragraph 2- If the actual stolen item was still in the thief’s possession and did not change, it would revert back to the owner, regardless of whether he gave up or not, except that if he gave up hope, the appreciation would go to thief, as was discussed. If the item changed while in the thief’s possession, he would acquire the item and its appreciation, even if it was before the owner gave up hope. He would only pay the value of the item. The specifics of this law is discussed in Siman 362.
Paragraph 3- If one stole an animal, vessel or anything similar, and at the time of the theft it was worth four and now at the time of the litigation it is worth two, the thief must pay the principle as it was worth at the time of the theft. If it was worth two at the time of the theft and now at the time of the litigation it is worth four, and the thief had sold or slaughtered the animal or broke or misplaced the vessel, he would pay the value at the time of litigation. If the animal died or the vessel was misplaced on its own, he would pay the value at the time of the theft.
Paragraph 4- If one stole a weak animal and fattened it, or a fat animal and weakened it, he would pay the value of the animal at the time of the theft. This that one who stole a weak animal and fattened it pays the value at the time of the theft is only where the thief incurred expenses. If the animal fattened on its own it is as if it went up in value. If the thief slaughtered the animal he would pay the value of the animal at the time of litigation.
Paragraph 5- If one stole a vessel and broke it or caused a decrease in value, or it broke or decreased in value on its own, we would not tell him to give the broken pieces to the owner and pay the difference. Rather, the thief would keep the broken pieces and give the owner a complete vessel or its value. This is only where the thief has money. If he does not have money, however, the broken pieces are no worse than other movable items. If the owner wants to take the broken pieces and be paid the difference, we would listen to him.
Paragraph 6- If one stole or robbed and the owner did not give up hope, neither the thief, robber or owner can consecrate the item, even if the owner has witnesses to the theft or robbery who are able to have the item removed in court. When is this true? In the case of movable items. With respect to real property, however, if the owner has witnesses who can remove the property in court, the owner is able to consecrate it.