Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/367

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Paragraph 1- If one robs another, even if he denies robbing, because he did not swear, if he were to subsequently confess he is not required to pursue the owner to return the item. Rather, the item can be left in his possession until the owner comes and the robber informs him and takes what is his. If he swore on something worth a perutah or more, however, he would be obligated to pursue the owner until he returns the item, even if he is overseas because the owner gave up hope once the robber swore and will not come back to make a claim against him.

Paragraph 2- Even if the robber returned the entire robbed item except one perutah, he would be required to bring it to the victim. He cannot give it to the son or agent of the victim, unless the victim appointed him as agent in the presence of witnesses. Similarly, if the court appointed someone as an agent in the presence of witnesses and he gave it to him, he will have fulfilled his duty. It goes without saying that if he gave it the court he will have fulfilled his duty.

Paragraph 3- If the robber returned the entire item or the victim waived it, with the exception of an amount less than a perutah, the robber would not be required to bring it to the victim. Rather, the victim would come and take what is remaining. Even if the actual robbed item is still in existence, we would not be concerned that the item has appreciated and the remainder is now worth a perutah.

Paragraph 4- If the victim died, when the robber comes to repent, he would return to the victim’s inheritors if the robbed item was still in existence. If the item was not in existence or it changed, he would pay for the item’s value, just as he would have if the father was still alive.

Paragraph 5- If one robs his father and swore to him and the father died, and the robbed item is not in existence or it changed, he would make an accounting with his brothers on the principle. If the robbed item was still in existence, he would be required to have the item removed from his possession. Thus, he would give the robbed item to his brothers and make an accounting. There are those who say he would not receive anything corresponding to the robbed item. If he is poor and cannot forego his share, he would borrow from others and they would come and collect from his portion of the item. If he has no brothers and thus the robber himself is the sole inheritor, we would remove the robbed item from him and give it to his son. If this robber’s son has no sons we would give it to his creditor for a loan or to charity. Once this stolen item is removed from his possession he would be exempt, even if he gave it as a gift or repaid a debt, so long as he informs the recipient it is the stolen item of his father. There are those who disagree and hold that if the robber has no brothers it would be given to his father’s brother.

Paragraph 6- If one robs a convert and swore to him and the convert dies without inheritors, even if he confessed to the convert and converted the debt to a loan, although he will have acquired the robbed item he is obligated to remove it from his possession.