Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/362

Paragraph 1- If a robbed item has not changed and has remained as it was, even if the owner gave up hope and even if the robber died and the item is now with his children, the actual item would revert to the owner. If the item changed while in the possession of the robber, even if the owner did not give up hope he would acquire via the change and would pay the value of the item as it was worth at the time of the robbery.

Paragraph 2- If the owner gave up hope and the item did not change, the robber would acquire any appreciation that occurred after he gave up hope, and would only pay the value of the item at the time it was robbed. This law was instituted by the Rabbis as a regulation to assist those who repent. When the robber returns the item, we would appraise the appreciation and he would collect from the victim.

Paragraph 3- If the robber sold or gave as a gift, even if the item did not change it would not be removed from the buyer because the owner had given up hope. Regardless of whether the owner gave up before the sale or gift or after the sale or gift, the buyer would acquire the item via the giving up of hope and the change in possession. There are those who disagree. See above Siman 353.

Paragraph 4- If one robbed and caused an appreciation and then sold it or bequeathed it before the owner gave up, that which he caused an appreciation would be bequeathed or sold, and the buyer or inheritor would take the value of the appreciation from the victim and return the robbed item. The victim would then go and collect the value of the appreciation from the robber because he did not give up hope. Similarly, if the buyer or inheritor caused the appreciation he would collect the appreciation from the victim.

Paragraph 5- If the robber sold to a gentile and the gentile caused it to appreciate, the appreciation would revert to the owner.

Paragraph 6- If the gentile sold the item to another Jew who caused it to appreciate, because the robber was Jewish and the current possessor is Jewish, he would acquire the appreciation. If the victim seized the item we would not remove it from him.

Paragraph 7- We already discussed that in a case of robbed item that appreciated following the owner giving up hope or after the item changed, the appreciation would belong to the robber, even if it occurred on its own. How so? If one robbed a cow, and it became pregnant while in the robber’s control, regardless of whether the cow gave birth before the victim made a claim against him or the cow did not yet give birth when the claim was made, or if he stole a sheep that became laden with wool while in the robber’s control, regardless of whether the animal was sheared before the victim made a claim against him or he did not yet shear when the claim was made, because the owner gave up hope the robber would only pay the value of the item at the time of the robbery. If the animal gave birth or was sheared, the sheerings and offspring would belong to the robber. If the animal did not yet give birth or was not yet sheared, we would appraise the animal’s value and the robber would collect the appreciation from the victim and return the actual animal.

Paragraph 8- If one robbed a pregnant cow, the owner gave up hope and the cow subsequently gave birth, or he robbed a laden sheep, the owner gave up hope and the robber subsequently sheered the animal, the robber would pay the value of a cow that is going to give birth or the value of a sheep that is prepared to be sheered. If the animal gave birth or was sheered prior to the owner giving up hope and prior to the animal changing, the sheerings and the offspring would belong to the owner, even if the animal conceived or became laden while in the robber’s possession. Because the owner did not give up hope and the robbed item did not change, it is still in the owner’s possession, notwithstanding the robber’s responsibility for any unavoidable accidents. These are all the words of the Rambam. There are those who disagree, however, as was discussed in Siman 354 and 356. Even in a case of change that reverts back to its original state, such as dirt that was made into brick, although the robber would not acquire, as was discussed above in Siman 360, he would acquire the appreciation and the victim would be required to return the appreciation.

Paragraph 9- When is this true? In the case of appreciation that comes on its own, such as sheerings and offspring. If the animal was weak and the robber incurred expenses and fattened it up, however, the robber can collect the appreciation from fattening from the victim, even before the owner has given up hope. The same applies to any similar appreciation that results from an incurred expense.

Paragraph 10- If the robbed item did not change but went up in cost, even if the owners gave up hope, it would revert to the owner and the robber would have no rights to anything because the only appreciation the Rabbis instituted that the robber would receive are that of sheerings and offspring. With respect to the appreciation in cost, however, if the robbed item is in existence, the robber acquires no rights to it. If one robs a barrel of wine from another and it was worth one dinar at the time of the robbery, and went up in value while in the robber’s possession and was now worth four dinar, and the robber broke, drank, sold or gifted the barrel after its increase in value, he would pay four dinar, as it was worth when it was removed from the world, because had he left it the item would have been returned as is. If the barrel broke on its own or was misplaced, he would pay one dinar, as it was worth at the time of the robbery.

Paragraph 11- If at the time of the robbery it was worth four and at the time it was removed from the world it was worth one dinar, the robber would pay four, as it was worth at the time of the robbery, regardless of whether the robber broke or drank it or the item was misplaced. The same applies to anything similar.

Paragraph 12- If one robs a cluster of dates with 50 dates and if he sold all of them together they would only be worth 49 perutos but if he sold one at a time they would be worth 50, the robber would only pay 49.

Paragraph 13- If one robs a vessel and breaks it, we do not say he should give back the broken pieces and pay the difference. The law is as was discussed in Siman 354.