Lesson # 290 • Appreciation or Depreciation of the Robbed Object

Reuven robbed an object from Shimon. Assume that there are no changes in the object that will result in Reuven acquiring the ownership of the object; Shimon remains the owner. If there were such changes as physical change, or change of name, Reuven will acquire ownership of the object but will have to pay Shimon the value of the object as of the time of the robbery. The result is the same whether or not Shimon abandoned hope of recovering the object; since there is no change, Reuven has not acquired ownership. If Reuven dies, his heirs must restore the object, since the death of Reuven does not result in the heirs acquiring the object.

Appreciation of the Object
Assume no changes and assume that there is appreciation of the object after the robbery. There are several views as to what constitutes appreciation and what constitutes changes of the object. But it then belongs to Reuven. Reuven will have to pay for the robbed object. According to Torah law the robbed object must be returned to Shimon together with appreciation. The Rabbis of the Talmud instituted a decree to encourage robbers to repent. If the robber wants to repent of his conduct of being a robber, he does not have to return the object in its present state if it includes appreciation to the object. He may be reluctant to give that up, especially if he paid for or helped bring about the appreciation.

The time of abandonment by Shimon of hope of having the object returned to him may determine if the appreciation belongs to Reuven. If Shimon abandons hope of recovery of the object, all appreciation that takes place after the abandonment of hope belongs to Reuven. The appreciation belongs to Reuven whether the appreciation came about through the efforts of Reuven or without his efforts. When the object is returned by Reuven to Shimon, Shimon must pay to Reuven the value of the appreciation. What has been said about the appreciation belonging to Reuven applies if there was a change in the object, but if the value of the object has appreciated solely due to inflation, Reuven will not receive any money for such increase in value. All appreciation that takes place prior to the abandonment of hope belongs to Shimon, except appreciation that comes about from the efforts or expense of Reuven. The latter belongs to Reuven, and in that case when the object is returned by Reuven to Shimon, Shimon must pay to Reuven the value of the appreciation.

Responsibility for Deterioration of the Object
In case of deterioration of the object, Reuven is fully responsible whether he caused the deterioration or whether it came about on its own. Reuven must pay Shimon the value of the object as of the time when it was robbed. An exception is real estate; the robber returns the real estate in its present condition as the time of return, and if it has deteriorated, the loss is on Shimon.

Reuven robbed a cow that aged in his possession or became weaker as a result of natural sickness; or a leg of the cow was broken; of he robbed a coin that cracked; or fruit, a large percentage of which rotted; or wine that turned sour, or a vessel that broke. Reuven must pay for all of these at their value at the time of the robbery. In all of the foregoing cases the deterioration is visible; but if they can be restored or it is not visible, then Shimon has to accept the object in its current condition without any compensation from Reuven.

Examples: the robbed animal has lost weight that can be restored; or objects where the damages are not visible because the appearance has not changed, but the object is no longer usable because if it is forbidden to use such an object, such as terumah that became unfit by becoming ritually impure, or leavened bread that was held over Pesach, or a animal that was sodomized, or an object including an animal that was used in idolatry. In all of these cases Reuven can say to Shimon “Here is your object”, since the object appears exactly as before, although it is forbidden to use the object. The law is that if the damages are not recognizable to the eye, then it is not classified as damages. In all of the instances, if Reuven does not have the prohibited object to return to Shimon, he must pay for the object as at the time of the robbery.

Reuven robbed money and the government canceled the legality of the currency that he robbed. This is recognizable damage. Assume that there is no deterioration in the object, in which event Reuven does not have to make any payments to Shimon; if Reuven is in the habit of robbing, he will be fined and otherwise punished as beth din sees fit.

The Robber Uses the Robbed Object
Reuven uses the robbed object before he restores it to Shimon; there is no deterioration of the object resulting from Reuven’s use. Reuven does not have to pay Shimon for the use of the object, such as riding on a robbed horse or plowing with it. If Shimon could have used the object and earned income from it or it was an object that Shimon could lease out to earn income, Reuven does not have to pay Shimon for such potential losses.

If Reuven is a trespasser on Shimon’s real estate and Shimon demands that he vacate, Reuven must pay rent for the time that he remains there. Reuven must pay rent although ordinarily Shimon does not rent the premises and Reuven ordinarily does not pay rent when he occupies real estate. If Shimon does not make instant demand for Reuven to vacate or to pay rent, Reuven may have to pay rent if Shimon holds the real estate out to be rented, and if not, Reuven does not have to pay rent. If Reuven robs the premises by forcibly chasing Shimon from the premises, Reuven will have to pay rent even if he does not occupy the premises, since Shimon cannot now rent the premises to anyone else. If Reuven causes the premises to deteriorate even in a small way, Reuven will have to pay rent.

Subletting
Reuven rents the premises from Shimon and sublets the premises to Levi for a higher rental than Reuven pays to Shimon. If Reuven has permission from Shimon to sublet the premises then Reuven can keep the overage; if Reuven does not have such permission from Shimon to sublet the premises, then the overage belongs to Shimon.

The subject matter of this lesson is more fully discussed in volume IX chapter 363 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 Korach Homepage]
[The TORAH tidbits Homepage] [How to use TORAH tidbits]
[About The OU/NCSY Israel Center] [About TORAH tidbits]
[www.ou.org]