Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/356

Paragraph 1- One is prohibited from purchasing a stolen item from a thief. It is a great sin because he is strengthening the hands of a sinner and causing him to steal other items for if he did not find a buyer he would not steal. Similarly, one is prohibited from assisting a thief in any matter that would enable him to steal.

Paragraph 2- If one steals and sold and the owner had not yet given up hope- see later Siman 368- and the thief was later identified and witnesses come and testify that this is the item so and so sold, which he stole in our presence, the item would go back to the owner and the owner would pay the amount the buyer paid the thief because of a market regulation. The owner would then go and litigate with the thief. If the thief was well-known, the market regulation would not apply and the owner would not give anything to the buyer. Rather, the buyer would go and litigate with the thief and take back the money he gave him. There are those who say that the market regulation even applies in a case of a well-known thief, and the owner must give the money back to the buyer unless the buyer knew that this item that he acquired was stolen, in which case he must return the item for free. Even the thief would not be required to return the money because the buyer certainly gave him the money as a gift given that he knew the item was not his and he acquired it anyway. According to all opinions, if the buyer said he purchased it as a favor, he would be believed, and the thief would be required to return him his money, even in the case of a well-known thief.

Paragraph 3- If the owner gave up hope on the stolen item, regardless whether he first gave up and then the item was sold or the item was first sold and then he gave up, the buyer would acquire the item via the giving up and the change in possession. There are those who say that if the owner gave up after the sale, the buyer would not acquire the item because giving up and change of possession only acquires where the giving up already happened at the time of the sale. This seems to me to be the appropriate way to rule. The buyer would not return the actual item to the owner. Rather, he would pay its value if the buyer purchased from a well-known thief or he would not give the item or the money if the seller was not a well-known thief. The rationale is that the owner must give the buyer the value of the item because of the market regulation. Thus, the remainder of the value of the item must be given to him according to this view, except that there are those who argue and hold that giving up hope and change of possession would acquire completely and the thief would not need to give him the money. See above Siman 353.

Paragraph 4- In a case where the buyer litigates with the owner and there are no witnesses as to how much the buyer purchased the item for, the buyer would swear while grasping a holy item how much he purchased it for and he would collect from the owner.

Paragraph 5- In a case where the buyer litigates with the thief, and the buyer says he purchased it for such and such amount, and the thief says he sold it to him for less, the buyer would swear while grasping a holy item and would collect that amount from the thief.

Paragraph 6- If one stole and paid back his debt or paid off a credit balance, the market regulation does not apply. Rather, the owner would take back the stolen item at no cost, and the debt owed by the thief will remain as it was before he paid back.

Paragraph 7- If the thief gave the stolen item as collateral, regardless of whether it was given as collateral for more or less than its worth, the owner would give the money owed to the party with the collateral and then litigate with the thief, unless the thief was well-known, as was discussed. Similarly, if one gave vessels to a craftsman to repair, and the theft was given as collateral to him, the owner must pay the money owed, but not any interest that incurred because there is no market-regulation on interest. Even according to the view that a craftsman acquires the appreciation of a vessel we would not say the item belongs to the craftsman and not the owner, because he still is required to return it to the owner given the rules of the government and that it is current practice to return all theft, even after the owner gave up hope and change of possession, due to the government law. In a place where they have the custom to pay the interest, the owner must also pay the interest. See later Siman 368.

Paragraph 8- If one purchases from a thief who is not well-known, regardless of whether he purchased something worth 100 for 200 or something worth 200 for 100, he would take the money from the owner and then return the item because of the market-regulation, as was discussed.

Paragraph 9- If one was owed 100 zuz by the thief, and the thief stole and brought the item to his creditor, and the creditor then gave the thief another 100, the theft would revert to its owner and we would tell the creditor to go and make a claim on the thief for 200 because the second 100 he gave him was not only because of the item the thief brought him. Just as he trusted the thief for the first loan, so too did he trust him for the second. This is only where the thief gave the item to the creditor without specification. If the thief explicitly said to lend him on this item, however, this would certainly be a collateral which is included in the market regulation. The court would place a general cherem that this is in fact what occurred.

Paragraph 10- If one purchased from a thief that was not well-known for 100, and sold to another for 120, and the thief was then identified, the owner of the item would give the latter buyer 120 and take back his stolen item, the owner would then go collect the 20 profit from the seller and collect 100 from the thief. If the thief was well-known, he would take 120 from merchant that purchased from the thief, and the merchant would make a claim on the 100 principle from the thief. The same is true if the second sold to a third, and a third sold to a fourth, and even to 100 buyers, and the owner would take the profit from each one and the principle from the thief. All of the foregoing is only before the owner gave up hope, as was discussed. If a Jew purchased from a thief and sold to another Jew, and a gentile comes and says that it was stolen from him and takes away the item from the second party via local law, and the thief was well known, the first Jew must return the second Jew’s money. If the thief was not well-known, he does not have to return his money because he can say perhaps the gentile is lying. See above Siman 224.