Lesson # 287 • Returning Stolen Objects; Purchase of Stolen Objects

Reuven, the thief, must return to Shimon, the victim of the theft, the object that he steals. The best method of restoring the object to Shimon is to hand it to him at a time and place mutually agreeable. If Reuven steals the object in an inhabited area and returns the object in the desert, Shimon has a choice: he may accept the object, but if not, he may say to Reuven, I will accept it in an inhabited area only, so that it shall not be stolen or robbed another time. Thus Reuven is still responsible for the object until he hands it back in an inhabited area. If Shimon is not aware of the theft and Reuven restores the object or the money he stole, he is no longer responsible for the object. This hold true even if Shimon does not count the money, including the returned money. If Shimon is aware of the theft and if Reuven returns the object or its monetary value indirectly as where he settles an account with Shimon, he is no longer responsible for the object. Or if he puts the money into Shimon’s partially filled wallet, Reuven is no longer responsible. The reason is that Shimon will from time to time look into his wallet and will count the money including the money returned to him without necessarily being aware or the return of the money. But if Reuven returns the money to an empty wallet, he remains responsible until he notifies Shimon that he has placed the money in the empty wallet.

If Reuven steals a sheep from Shimon’s flock and Shimon knows about the theft, and Reuven returns the sheep to Shimon’s flock without Shimon’s knowledge, and the sheep dies or is stolen, Reuven remains responsible. Once Shimon counts his sheep and finds them intact, Reuven is henceforth exempt. If Shimon is not aware of the theft, nor of the return, then even if he counts the sheep and finds them intact, Reuven continues to be responsible until he notifies Shimon, so that Shimon can guard the returned sheep.

The Prohibition Against Purchasing Stolen Objects
What is stated regarding stolen objects also applies to robbed objects. It is prohibited to purchase stolen objects from the known thief. It is a grave transgression since it encourages thievery; it is even prohibited to purchase from a known thief an object that might have been stole. It is also prohibited to aid him in making changes to the object to help him acquire it. If one does purchase a stolen object from the thief or aids him in making alterations to the object, he transgresses the commandment not to place a stumbling block before the blind. (Vayikra 19:14) It is prohibited to derive benefit from stolen property even after the owner has abandoned hope of recovering the object. This applies to the thief himself and anyone else who realizes that the object has been stolen. However, if the thief owned a part of the stolen object, although most of it was obtained by thievery it is permissible to benefit from it unless one knows for certain that it was stolen. Reuven robs Shimon’s house or field. It is prohibited to pass through it or enter it in the summer to keep out of the sun, or in the winter to get out of the rain. Should the robber or someone else live in the house, they must pay rent to Shimon.

For the protection of commerce, the Rabbis promulgated a decree that if Levi purchases the object openly and not secretly as one would from a thief, and Levi does not know that it was stolen, subject to the conditions of the next sentence, Levi owns the object without having to make compensation to Shimon. However, if the sale took place before Shimon abandoned hope to recover the object, Shimon may exercise an option to pay Levi the money he paid Reuven and Levi must return the object to Shimon. There is an opinion that since the reason that the Rabbis promulgated the decree that the purchaser acquires the purchased object is to promote the orderly flow of commerce, that the protection is afforded only to purchasers; it is not afforded to donees from or heirs of Reuven. There is an opinion that donees of gifts from Reuven can also acquire ownership. The decree of the Rabbis to promote commerce does not apply if Reuven is a notorious thief. Levi should not have purchased the object from him and must return it to Shimon without compensation. The fact that Levi did not know that the object was stolen and purchased the object openly is no defense on his behalf. Levi should have suspected that the object was stolen. Levi can sue Reuven for the payment he made to him.

Assume that Levi purchases the object from Reuven, a notorious thief, for $5 and sells it to Yehuda for $7. Shimon, the owner, can obtain the object from Yehuda without compensation and Yehuda can sue Reuven for $7. There is an opinion that Shimon can obtain the object from Yehuda only if he pays him $7.

In cases of theft, the thief is rarely seen in the act of stealing the object. There must be some way for an owner to prove that a person who possesses his object stole it or bought it from someone who stole it. Assume that (1) Shimon is the recognized owner of an object, who does not sell, lease or lend this type of object;(2) a rumor is circulating in town that the object was stolen from him; (3) Shimon recognizes the object in the hands of another person, Levi. Shimon sues Levi to obtain the object. Levi pleads that he purchased the object from Reuven. If Shimon produces witnesses that the object belongs to Shimon, which testimony is not refuted or contradicted by the witnesses, Levi must take an oath holding a sacred object, stating how much he paid for the object. If he takes such an oath Shimon must pay that amount, and Shimon is given the object.

Assume that (1) Shimon is the recognized owner of an object that does frequently sell; (2) a rumor is circulating in town that the object was stolen from him; (3) the object is also of a type that people do not lease or lend out; (4) the object is in the hands of another person, Levi. Shimon sues Levi to obtain the object. Levi pleads that he purchased the object. Shimon’s lawsuit is dismissed. There is no presumption that the object belongs to Shimon, since he may have sold it to Reuven who sold it to Levi. In addition thereto, the probability that Reuven borrowed or leased the object and stole it by selling it does not exist.

The subject matter of this lesson is more fully discussed in volume IX chapters 355 and 356 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 Naso Homepage]
[The TORAH tidbits Homepage] [How to use TORAH tidbits]
[About The OU/NCSY Israel Center] [About TORAH tidbits]
[www.ou.org]