Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/374

Paragraph 1- If one robs a field and then sells or gifts it to another, which has no effect as was discussed, and he subsequently purchases the field from the victim, the field would remain in the possession of the purchaser or recipient because the reason the robber troubled himself to purchase it was to keep his word. Thus, if he only purchased it after the buyer made a claim on the robber, such as where the robber sold him a field that did not belong to him and he was required to pay, and the court began to announce the robber’s properties to allow the buyer to collect from them, and only then did the robber purchase the field from the victim, the field would not remain with the buyer and the robber himself or his inheritors may give the buyer money and remove him from the field.

Paragraph 2- If the robber purchased the field from the victim after he sold it while the field was robbed, and he then sold or gifted it to someone else, he has revealed his intention that he does not want the field to remain with the party that purchased it from him while it was robbed. Similarly, if the field fell to the robber via inheritance, it would not remain in the buyer’s possession. There are those who disagree and hold that if he sold or gifted it someone else, the first buyer would acquire it. If he sold or gifted it to someone else before he purchased it, however, the first buyer would not keep the field. This is all in a case where the buyer did not know the field was stolen and he acquired it. If he knew it was stolen and acquired it, however, the buyer would not acquire.

Paragraph 3- If the robber collected the land he sold as payment for a debt and the victim has other real property and the robber told him he is specifically collecting this property for his debt, his intention is to have the buyer keep the property. If the victim only owns this property, the robber’s intention is merely to collect the debt.

Paragraph 4- If the owner gave the robber the field as a gift, the buyer would acquire it, because had the robber not made an effort with the owner, the owner would not have given him the gift, and the reason he made the effort was so that he could acquire the field legally and keep his word with the buyer and have the field remain with him. There are those who disagree and hold that the buyer has the burden of proving that the robber’s intention was to have the field remain with the buyer, and otherwise we would not remove the field from the robber. This seems to me to be the primary view.

Paragraph 5- The law of a robber who brings witnesses that he purchased the field from the victim is discussed in Siman 151.

Paragraph 6- If a gentile forced a Jew out of his field and sold it to another Jew, the law is discussed in Siman 236.