Lesson # 291 • Burglary; Whom Did He Rob? Burglary We can define burglary in a very simple way. Reuven entered Shimon’s premises without permission and took an object belonging to Shimon without Shimon’s permission or knowledge. There are witnesses that Reuven entered Shimon’s premises while Shimon was not present and they saw Reuven emerge with some objects that the witnesses can identify. Shimon beings a lawsuit in Beth Din to recover the objects that he pleads were in his home prior to Reuven’s entry and burglarized by Reuven. Reuven pleads that Shimon sold him the objects and instructed him to take them whenever he wanted, even if Shimon is not on the premises. Or Reuven pleads that Shimon owed him money and told Reuven to go to Shimon’s premises to obtain these objects in lieu of payment, or some other pleading to that effect. Shimon denies Reuven’s pleasand pleads that he did not give Reuven permission to enter his premises. Reuven’s pleas will be dismissed. After he restores the object to Shimon, he can sue Shimon if he can prove his pleas. There is a presumption that if Reuven enters Shimon’s premises when Shimon is not present, Reuven has no permission to be there and has committed an act of burglary. If there are two witnesses to the entry but no witnesses who can testify what Reuven took, Shimon takes a special (hesseth) oath as to what is missing from his premises and Reuven pays that amount. This holds true even if Reuven admits being in the premises and pleads that he did so with permission of Shimon to obtain that which Shimon sold to him. Assume that there is only one witness who testifies that he was present when Reuven entered into Simon’s premises and that Reuven took from Shimon’s premises an object that the witness identifies. Shimon pleads that the object was robbed from him, while Reuven pleads that he purchased the object or took it in payment of a debt or it was his object that he had deposited with Shimon. Reuven must restore the object to Shimon without Shimon having to take an oath. Had there been two witnesses present, Shimon would win the lawsuit without having to take any oath. Now that there is one witness present, Rueven should be permitted to take an oath to rebut the testimony of one witness and Reuven would win the lawsuit. Since Reuven admits entry into Shimon’s premises and taking the object, he cannot contradict the witness who testifies as to entry and taking the object. The law is that if a person can win a lawsuit by taking an oath but cannot do so (as is the case here) he must pay. However, if Reuven does not admit the entry and/or taking the object, then he takes a Torah oath of denial of entry and denying that he has anything of Shimon’s. Since this oath of denial contradicts the one witness who testified against him, Reuven wins the lawsuit. There is one witness who testifies that Reuven entered Shimon's premises but he does not testify that he saw Reuven take anything out with him or that he saw Reuven take something out with him but cannot identify what it was. Reuven takes a hesseth oath that he did not rob anything and wins the lawsuit. Reuven is observed by a single witness entering into Shimon’s premises and taking out vessels. Shimon pleads that he took twenty vessels and Reuven pleads that he took eight vessels all belonging to him. The witness does not know how many vessels Reuven took. Reuven must restore eight vessels to Shimon since he cannot contradict the witness having admitted the entering. When he admits that he took eight vessels that is he amount he must restore. As for the balance, since Shimon cannot prove that Reuven took more vessels Reuven is exempt. Shimon pleas that Reuven robbed him of $100. If Reuven pleads that he did not rob Shimon, Reuven takes a hesseth oath to the effect and is exempt. If Reuven admits that he robbed $40, he pays the $40 and takes a Torah oath of partial admission regarding the balance of $60. Whom Did He Rob? Reuven robbed $100 from only one of four people, either Shimon. Levi, Yehuda, or Issachar but does not remember from which one. Each of them pleads with certainty that he was the victim of the robber and is owed $100 by Reuven. Each of the four takes an oath and Reuven must pay each one who took the oath $100. Reuven robbed from two people, Shimon and Levi. From one he robbed $100 and from the second he robbed $200, but he does not remember from whom he robbed $100 and from whom he robbed $200. Both Shimon and Levi plead with certainty that he was the victim of the $200 robbery. Each of them takes an oath that he was the victim of the $200 robbery and Reuven must pay each $200. Reuven robbed $100 from only one of four people, either Shimon, Levi, Yehuda or Issachar, but does not remember from which one. Each of the four pleads that he is not certain if he was the robbery victim. According to the law, Reuven may place $100 before the four of them and they will divide the $100 equally. However, if Reuven wants to exonerate himself from the judgments of Heaven, he will give each one $100. Reuven robbed two people, Shimon and Levi. From one he robbed 100 and from the second he robbed $200 but he does not remember from whom he robbed $100 and from whom he robbed $200. According to the law, Reuven may give each one $100 and place $100 in front of the two of them. However, if Reuven wants to exonerate himself from the judgments of Heaven, he will give each one $200. Reuven advises Shimon that he robbed Shimon’s father Yaakov of money but he does not remember if it was $100 or $200. Or Reuven tells Shimon and Levi that he robbed one of their fathers of $100 and does not remember whose father it was. In the first case Reuven must pay Shimon $200 and in the second case he pays Shimon and Levi each $100. Reuven robbed an object from Shimon and does not remember if he made restitution to Shimon. Reuven must pay to Shimon the amount of the restitution. However, if Reuven states that he does not remember if he robbed Shimon or did not rob him, Reuven need make no payment to Shimon. I all of the cases stated above, if the victim or possible victim forgives the indebtedness of the robber, the robber need not make restitution. This is the topic of next lesson IYH. The subject matter of this lesson is more fully discussed in volume IX chapter 364 and 365 of A Restatement of Rabbinic Civil Law by E. Quint. Copies of all volumes can be purchased via email: orders@gefenpublishing.com and via website: www.israelbooks.com and at local Judaica bookstores. Questions to quint@inter.net.il [The Parshat
Chukat Homepage]
|
