Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/366

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Paragraph 1- If a well-known robber whose business is robbery and whose repentance is difficult comes to repent on his own and the robbed item is no longer in existence, we would not accept his repayment so as not to discourage him from repenting. If he wants to fulfill his heavenly duty and he returned, we would not object to the victim accepting the repayment. Similarly, if the robber does not come to repent on his own but the victim needed to make a claim against him, we would obligate him to return.

Paragraph 2- It is difficult for shepherds, collectors and tax collectors to repent because they have robbed from the public and don’t know who to return to. Thus, they should contribute to public needs, such as pits, cisterns and caves. Whether a robber needs the owner’s knowledge when he returns would be the same issue as by a thief. See above Siman 355.

Paragraph 3- If a vessel was in the hand of the son or slave of a homeowner, and someone took it from them and used it, he is a borrower without permission and it would enter his domain and would be liable for unavoidable accidents until it is returned to the owner. Thus, if he returned it to the minor who had it in his hands, and the item was misplaced or broken, the borrower would be required to pay.

Paragraph 4- If one robs from another in civilization and wants to return in the desert, he has not fulfilled his duty. If the victim wants, he does not have to take the item until he reaches civilization. If he returns it in civilization, however, he has fulfilled his duty, even if he is not in the location he robbed from.