Lesson # 283 • Laws Regarding Stealing

Beginning with this lesson and continuing for several more lessons we shall be discussing the laws of stealing and then the laws of robbery. There are many differences in halacha between stealing and robbery. Stealing is generally done without the victim’s being aware or it at the time of the theft (that is, usually done secretly); robbery usually is done openly with the victim being aware of the robbery.

The Prohibition Against Stealing
Maimonides in his introduction to The Laws Concerning Theft lists seven commandments regarding theft, two positive and five negative. (1) not to steal anyone’s property; (2) to administer the laws of theft; (3) to maintain accurate scales and measures; (4) not to act dishonestly regarding weights and measures; (5) not to possess extra [dishonest] weights and measures, even if one does not use them for buying and selling; (6) not to move a boundary line; and (7) not to abduct human beings.

The basic commandment is found in the verse, “You shall not steal, you shall not deny falsely, and you shall not lie to one another” (Vayikra 19:11) Thus if one steals anything having value of at least a p'ruta [the smallest coin] one transgresses the commandment no to steal.

There is no flogging administered for transgressing this commandment, since the part relating to the victim may be undone by making restitution.

The prohibition against stealing applies equally against stealing from a Jew or from a Gentile, from an adult or from a minor.

It is prohibited to steal anything, however small its value. It is prohibited to steal in jest or to steal an object with the intent of restoring it to its owner, or with the intention of paying for it and for paying the victim the double penalty or to distress the victim. All these things are prohibited so that a person will not get accustomed to stealing. The Torah also provides for a thief to have to pay the double penalty if there were witnesses to the theft and certain criteria were met.

The Act of Thievery
The theft commences as soon as the thief acquires the object he is stealing. An object is stolen the same way an object is acquired if purchased. If the thief lifts the object he steals it the moment he lifts the object even in the premises of the owner or in a private place. He has transgressed the prohibition not to steal.I f he steals he object by drawing it to him, the theft occurs when the object is drawn into the premises of the thief or to a side street that is not frequented by many people or premises belonging to both the thief and the victim.

If the object, such as an animal, enters upon the premises of the thief and he intends to steal it, the theft occurs immediately if the premises are guarded by a fence around it, even if he thief is not present. If the object is on his premises, such as landing there by mistake, as when someone, the owner or another drops it there, the theft occurs if the thief is present and intends to steal it.

Paying for the Theft
When the thief has to make restitution for what he stole there are differing opinions.

There is one opinion that holds that payment may be made by the thief paying in cash or in kind, or by transferring real estate of that value to the owner. These payments in kind may be made even if the thief has cash. If the payment is made by transferring real estate it must be made from the highest-quality land of the thief. There is another opinion that if the thief possesses cash or real estate, he is not permitted to pay in kind. I think that in our times the latter opinion should be followed. If the thief does not have assets to make restitution, the amount owed becomes a debt and can be collected any time without limit.

Accomplices to the Theft
If two persons steal an object, they are jointly liable for the entire value of the stolen object. Even if one has fled or has no assets to pay for the theft, the victim may collect the entire amount of the theft from either thief.

Levi, a witness, saw Reuven enter onto Shimon’s premises and steal an object. The object came into the hands of Levi. If Levi is certain that Reuven stole the object, Levi must return the object to Shimon. If Levi returns the object to Reuven, he must pay Shimon for the object. If Levi loses the object, Shimon may collect the compensation from either Reuven or Levi. However, if Levi is not certain that Reuven stole the object from Shimon, as for example, Reuven, before taking the object from Shimon’s premises, informs Levi that the object is Reuven’s and he is retrieving his own object. Then if Levi returns the object to Reuven, Shimon cannot sue Levi, since Levi was told by Reuven that the object was his and Levi does not know otherwise. Shimon must sue Reuven. But if Levi returns the object to Shimon, Reuven can sue Levi, since Levi had no right to return the object to Shimon once Reuven claims the object was his. Levi may not help Shimon at the expense of Reuven. Levi should have brought a lawsuit in Beth Din naming both Reuven and Shimon and let Beth Din decide who should get the object.

A reported case of the 13th century involved the following facts: Shimon sues Reuven for stealing books from Shimon’s library. Reuven’s defense is that the books he took belong to his cousin Shimon’s daughter-in-law Sarah, and she claims the books were hers but were too heavy for her to carry them out of Shimon’s house and she asked Reuven to help her. Reuven admits that he does not know who is the rightful owner of the books, Sarah or her father-in-law Shimon. Also Reuven pleads that he did not lift the books in the first instance, but rather Sarah did and then Reuven carried them out of the house of Shimon. It was held that Shimon can collect the value of the books from either Sarah (who now has the books in her possession) of from Reuven. Reuven’s defense that he does not know whose books they are, is not valid, since the books were in Shimon’s house and are therefore presumed to be his. Also, although the actual stealing of the books came when Sarah picked them up, since she could not have taken the books out of the house of Shimon since they were too heavy for her to carry, Reuven was an active accomplice in the theft. However, if Sarah, once she lifted the books could have carried them out by herself, Reuven is not deemed an active accomplice although he helped her, and is not liable to Shimon for the value of the books. However, if Reuven had the books in his possession, he would have to return them to Shimon.

The subject matter of this lesson is more fully discussed in volume IX chapters 348 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 Emor Homepage]
[The TORAH tidbits Homepage] [How to use TORAH tidbits]
[About The OU/NCSY Israel Center] [About TORAH tidbits]
[www.ou.org]