Robbery and Lost Property Chapter 5

אָסוּר לִקְנוֹת דָּבָר הַגָּזוּל מִן הַגַּזְלָן וְאָסוּר לְסַעֲדוֹ עַל שִׁנּוּיוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּקְנֵהוּ. שֶׁכָּל הָעוֹשֶׂה דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן מְחַזֵּק יְדֵי עוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵרָה וְעוֹבֵר עַל (ויקרא יט יד) "וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשׁל":

It is forbidden to buy from a thief something stolen, and forbidden to dress it up with a modification so as to buy it. Anyone who does this, and other things like this, strengthens the hands of transgressors and [doing so] transgresses "do not put a stumbling block in front of the blind" (Lev. 19:14)

אָסוּר לֵהָנוֹת בְּדָבָר הַגָּזוּל וַאֲפִלּוּ לְאַחַר יֵאוּשׁ. וְהוּא שֶׁיֵּדַע בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁדָּבָר זֶה הוּא הַגְּזֵלָה עַצְמָהּ. כֵּיצַד. יָדַע בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁבְּהֵמָה זוֹ גְּזוּלָה אָסוּר לִרְכֹּב עָלֶיהָ אוֹ לַחְרשׁ בָּהּ:

It is forbidden for anyone to benefit from an article obtained by robbery even after its rightful owner has despaired of its return, if one knows for certain that this object was obtained through robbery. What is implied? If one knows for certain that a particular animal was obtained by robbery, it is forbidden to ride on it or plow with it.

גָּזַל בַּיִת אוֹ שָׂדֶה אָסוּר לַעֲבֹר בְּתוֹכָהּ אוֹ לִכָּנֵס בָּהּ בַּחַמָּה מִפְּנֵי הַחַמָּה וּבַגְּשָׁמִים מִפְּנֵי הַגְּשָׁמִים. וְאִם דָּר בְּתוֹכָהּ חַיָּב לְהַעֲלוֹת שָׂכָר לַבְּעָלִים כְּדִין הַדָּר בַּחֲצַר חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ. גָּזַל דְּקָלִים וְעָשָׂה מֵהֶן גֶּשֶׁר אָסוּר לַעֲבֹר עָלָיו. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:

When a person obtains a house or a field by robbery, it is forbidden to pass through it or enter it. This applies even merely to seek shade or shelter from the rain. If he lives in another person's home, he must pay rent to the legal owners, as mentioned above with regard to a person who lives in a colleague's courtyard without the owner's knowledge. If a person cuts down palm trees and constructs a bridge from them, it is forbidden for anyone to pass over it. The same applies with regard to other similar situations.

מִי שֶׁעָבַר וְאָכַל הַגְּזֵלָה אַחַר יֵאוּשׁ פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. וְאִם אָכַל קֹדֶם יֵאוּשׁ וְרָצוּ הַבְּעָלִים לִגְבּוֹת מִן הָאוֹכֵל גּוֹבִין שֶׁעֲדַיִן בִּרְשׁוּתָן הִיא. וְאִם רָצוּ גּוֹבִין מִן הַגַּזְלָן:

If a person transgressed and ate an object obtained by robbery after the owners despaired of its return, he is not liable to compensate the owners. If he ate the article before the owners despaired of its return the owners must be compensated. They may collect from the person who ate the article, for it is still in their possession. Or if they desire, they may collect from the robber.

הַגּוֹזֵל וּמֵת בֵּין שֶׁהֶאֱכִיל אֶת הַגְּזֵלָה לַבָּנִים אַחַר יֵאוּשׁ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא הֶאֱכִילָם אֶלָּא מְכָרָהּ אוֹ אָבְדָה. אִם הִנִּיחַ קַרְקַע חַיָּבִין לְשַׁלֵּם. אֲבָל מִן הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין אֵינָן חַיָּבִין לְשַׁלֵּם. שֶׁדְּמֵי הַגְּזֵלָה חוֹב הֵן עַל הַגַּזְלָן וְאֵין הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין מִשְׁתַּעְבְּדִין לְבַעַל חוֹב:

The following rules apply when a person commits robbery and dies. There is no difference if he fed the object he obtained by robbery to his sons after the owner despaired of its return, or rather than feed it to them he sold it or it was lost. If the robber left landed property, his heirs must reimburse the original owner. According to Talmudic law, they need not, by contrast, reimburse him if he left only movable property. For the value of the object obtained by robbery is considered to be a debt owed by the robber, and movable property is not placed on lien to a creditor after the principal's death.

כְּבָר תִּקְּנוּ הַגְּאוֹנִים לִגְבּוֹת בַּעַל חוֹב מִן הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּמִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה. לְפִיכָךְ חַיָּבִין לְשַׁלֵּם בֵּין אָכְלוּ בֵּין לֹא אָכְלוּ. בֵּין נִתְיָאֲשׁוּ בֵּין לֹא נִתְיָאֲשׁוּ. בֵּין מִן הַקַּרְקַע בֵּין מִן הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁהִנִּיחַ:

The Geonim have already ordained that a debt owed a creditor can be expropriated from the movable property in the estate. This applies even to a loan supported by a verbal commitment alone. Therefore, in the above instance, the heirs are liable to reimburse the owners from either the landed property or the movable property in the robber's estate, regardless of whether or not the heirs ate the article obtained by robbery, and whether or not the owners despaired of its return.

דִּין הַלּוֹקֵחַ מִטַּלְטְלִין מִן הַגַּזְלָן כְּלוֹקֵחַ מִן הַגַּנָּב. אִם גַּזְלָן מְפֻרְסָם הוּא לֹא עָשׂוּ בּוֹ תַּקָּנַת הַשּׁוּק. וְאִם אֵינוֹ מְפֻרְסָם עָשׂוּ בּוֹ תַּקָּנַת הַשּׁוּק וְנוֹתֵן הַנִּגְזָל דָּמִים שֶׁנָּתַן וְלוֹקֵחַ גְּזֵלָתוֹ וְחוֹזֵר וְתוֹבֵעַ הַגַּזְלָן בִּדְמֵי הַגְּזֵלָה. וְאִם כְּבָר נִתְיָאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים קָנָה לוֹקֵחַ עַצְמָהּ שֶׁל גְּזֵלָה וְאֵינוֹ מַחְזִירָהּ:

The laws applying to a person who purchases movable property from a robber are the same as those applying to one who purchases from a thief. If the reputation of the robber was a matter of public knowledge, our Sages did not grant any leniency. If the robber's reputation was not public knowledge, our Sages ordained leniency to enable uninhibited trade in the marketplace, and required the original owner to pay a purchaser the price he paid for the article taken by robbery. He may then take the article and sue the robber for the price of the article. If the owner already despaired of the article's return, the purchaser is considered to have acquired the article itself and is not required to return it.

אָסוּר לֵהָנוֹת מִן הַגַּזְלָן וְאִם הָיָה מִעוּט שֶׁלּוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרֹב מָמוֹנוֹ גָּזוּל מֻתָּר לֵהָנוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ עַד שֶׁיֵּדַע בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁדָּבָר זֶה גָּזוּל בְּיָדוֹ:

It is forbidden to benefit from a robber's property. If even a minor portion of his property was legitimately his, one is allowed to benefit from his property, unless one is certain that the article from which one is benefiting was obtained by robbery.

בְּנֵי אָדָם שֶׁחֶזְקָתָן גַּזְלָנִין וְחֶזְקַת כָּל מָמוֹנָן מִן הַגֵּזֶל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּלַאכְתָּן מְלֶאכֶת גַּזְלָנִין כְּגוֹן הַמּוֹכְסִין וְהַלִּסְטִים אָסוּר לֵהָנוֹת מֵהֶן שֶׁחֶזְקַת מְלָאכָה זוֹ שֶׁהוּא גָּזוּל וְאֵין מִצְטָרְפִים דִּינָרִים מִן הַתֵּבָה שֶׁלָּהֶן שֶׁהַכּל בְּחֶזְקַת גְּזֵלָה:

It is forbidden to benefit from the property of people whom we can assume to be robbers, when all of their property can be assumed to have come from robbery, for their profession is based on robbery - e.g., customs-collectors and highwaymen. We may not change money from their cash-box, for all their money can be assumed to have come from robbery.

נָטְלוּ מוֹכְסִין כְּסוּתוֹ וְהֶחֱזִירוּ לוֹ אַחֶרֶת (נָטְלוּ חֲמוֹרוֹ וְהֶחֱזִירוּ לוֹ חֲמוֹר אַחֵר). הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁזּוֹ כִּמְכִירָה הִיא וְחֶזְקָתָהּ שֶׁנִּתְיָאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים מִמֶּנָּה וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁזּוֹ גְּזֵלָה. וְאִם הָיָה וָתִיק וּמַחְמִיר עַל עַצְמוֹ מַחֲזִירָן לַבְּעָלִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים:

If the tax collectors took his cloak and returned to him a different one (took his donkey and returned a different donkey) - Behold, those [switched properties] are his because this is like a sale, and there is presumption of despairing of ownership by the [original] owners, and he does not know with certainty that this was stolen. And if he is established, and strict with himself, he returns [the things] to the original owners.

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁהַמּוֹכֵס כְּלִסְטִים בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַמּוֹכֵס עַכּוּ"ם אוֹ מוֹכֵס הָעוֹמֵד מֵאֵלָיו אוֹ מוֹכֵס הָעוֹמֵד מֵחֲמַת הַמֶּלֶךְ וְאֵין לוֹ קִצְבָה אֶלָּא לוֹקֵחַ מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה וּמֵנִיחַ מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה. אֲבָל מֶכֶס שֶׁפְּסָקוֹ הַמֶּלֶךְ וְאָמַר שֶׁיִּקַּח שְׁלִישׁ אוֹ רְבִיעַ אוֹ דָּבָר קָצוּב וְהֶעֱמִיד מוֹכֵס יִשְׂרָאֵל לִגְבּוֹת חֵלֶק זֶה לַמֶּלֶךְ וְנוֹדַע שֶׁאָדָם זֶה נֶאֱמָן וְאֵינוֹ מוֹסִיף כְּלוּם עַל מַה שֶּׁגָּזַר הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵינוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת גַּזְלָן לְפִי שֶׁדִּין הַמֶּלֶךְ דִּין הוּא. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא עוֹבֵר הַמַּבְרִיחַ מִמֶּכֶס זֶה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא גּוֹזֵל מְנַת הַמֶּלֶךְ בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה הַמֶּלֶךְ עַכּוּ"ם בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה הַמֶּלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל:

When is the previous case applicable? When the tax collector is like a robber, like when an idolater or the tax collector that is standing above him or the one sent by the king, and there is no limit, rather, he takes as much as he wants and gives [to the king] as much as he wants. But the tax established by the king, and is he said he should take a third or a fourth, or any amount with a limit. And [if] he appoints a Jew to collect this part for the king and it is known that this person is trustworthy, and he does not add anything over what the king has decreed, he is not under the assumption that he is a robber, since the law of the king is law. Not only that, but one who transgresses and smuggles from this tax is stealing from the king, whether the king is an idolater or a Jewish king.

וְכֵן מֶלֶךְ שֶׁמֵּשִׂים מַס עַל בְּנֵי הָעִיר אוֹ עַל כָּל אִישׁ וְאִישׁ דָּבָר קָצוּב מִשָּׁנָה לְשָׁנָה אוֹ עַל כָּל שָׂדֶה וְשָׂדֶה דָּבָר קָצוּב. אוֹ שֶׁגָּזַר שֶׁכָּל מִי שֶׁיַּעֲבֹר עַל דָּבָר זֶה יִלָּקְחוּ כָּל נְכָסָיו לְבֵית הַמֶּלֶךְ. אוֹ כָּל מִי שֶׁיִּמָּצֵא בַּשָּׂדֶה בִּשְׁעַת הַגֹּרֶן הוּא יִתֵּן הַמַּס שֶׁעָלֶיהָ בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה הוּא בַּעַל הַשָּׂדֶה בֵּין שֶׁאֵינוֹ בַּעַל הַשָּׂדֶה וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא מִדְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ אֵינוֹ גֵּזֶל וְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁגָּבָה אוֹתָן לַמֶּלֶךְ אֵינוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת גַּזְלָן וַהֲרֵי הוּא כָּשֵׁר. וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יוֹסִיף וְלֹא יְשַׁנֶּה וְלֹא יִקַּח לְעַצְמוֹ כְּלוּם:

And so too a king who put a tax over the inhabitants of a city, or over each and every person, a predictable thing of every year; or over a field, something predictable. Or if he decreed that everyone who passes over this thing, all his possessions will be taken to the house of the king. Or that every person who is found in the field at the time of working the threshing floor will pay a tax whether he is or not the owner of the field - and all cases similar: this is not theft, and a Jew that is collecting those for the king is not under the assumption of being a thief, and he is a "kosher" person - provided that he does not add, nor change, nor get anything for himself.

וְכֵן מֶלֶךְ שֶׁכָּעַס עַל אֶחָד מֵעֲבָדָיו וְשַׁמָּשָׁיו מִבְּנֵי הַמְּדִינָה וְלָקַח שָׂדֵהוּ אוֹ חֲצֵרוֹ אֵינָהּ גֵּזֶל וּמֻתָּר לֵהָנוֹת בָּהּ וְהַלּוֹקְחָהּ מִן הַמֶּלֶךְ הֲרֵי הִיא שֶׁלּוֹ וְאֵין הַבְּעָלִים מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ מִיָּדוֹ. שֶׁזֶּה דִּין הַמְּלָכִים כֻּלָּם לִקַּח כָּל מָמוֹן שַׁמָּשֵׁיהֶם כְּשֶׁכּוֹעֲסִין עֲלֵיהֶם וַהֲרֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ הִפְקִיעַ שִׁעְבּוּדָן וְנַעֲשֵׂית חָצֵר זוֹ אוֹ שָׂדֶה זוֹ כְּהֶפְקֵר וְכָל הַקּוֹנֶה אוֹתָהּ מִן הַמֶּלֶךְ זָכָה בָּהּ. אֲבָל מֶלֶךְ שֶׁלָּקַח חָצֵר אוֹ שָׂדֶה שֶׁל אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי הַמְּדִינָה שֶׁלֹּא בַּדִּינִין שֶׁחָקַק הֲרֵי זֶה גַּזְלָן וְהַלּוֹקֵחַ מִמֶּנּוּ מוֹצִיאִין הַבְּעָלִים מִיָּדוֹ:

Similarly, if a king becomes angered with a servant or an attendant who is one of his subjects and confiscates his field or his courtyard, it is not considered to be robbery, and one is permitted to benefit from it. If a person purchases it from the king, it becomes his and the original owners cannot expropriate it from him. For this is the law exercised by all kings: to confiscate all the property of their attendants if they become angered by them. Thus, it is the king who annulled the ownership over this courtyard or field, making it ownerless. Therefore, the person buying it from the king legally acquires it. If, however, a king confiscates a courtyard or a field from one of the subjects of his country in a manner that is not in accordance with the laws that he enacted, he is considered to be a robber, and the owners may expropriate the property from the person who purchased it from the king.

כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר כָּל דִּין שֶׁיַּחְקֹק אוֹתוֹ הַמֶּלֶךְ לַכּל וְלֹא יִהְיֶה לְאָדָם אֶחָד בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ אֵינוֹ גֵּזֶל. וְכָל שֶׁיִּקַּח מֵאִישׁ זֶה בִּלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא כַּדָּת הַיְדוּעָה לַכּל אֶלָּא חָמַס אֶת זֶה הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּזֶל. לְפִיכָךְ גַּבָּאֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ וְשׁוֹטְרָיו שֶׁמּוֹכְרִים הַשָּׂדוֹת בְּמַס הַקָּצוּב עַל הַשָּׂדוֹת מִמְכָּרָן מִמְכָּר. אֲבָל מַס שֶׁעַל כָּל אִישׁ וְאִישׁ אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה אֶלָּא מִן הָאָדָם עַצְמוֹ וְאִם מָכְרוּ הַשָּׂדֶה בְּמַס שֶׁעַל הָרֹאשׁ הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ מִמְכָּר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה דִּין הַמֶּלֶךְ כָּךְ:

The general principle is: Any law that a king decrees to be universally applicable, and not merely applying to one person, is not considered robbery. But whenever he takes from one person alone in a manner that does not conform to a known law, but rather seizes the property from the person arbitrarily, it is considered to be robbery. Therefore, the king's dues collectors and his officers that sell fields with a defined tax on the fields, their sale is valid. But a personal tax is only collected from the person himself, and if they sold the field with a personal tax, behold this is not a valid sale unless the king has decreed that it is.

מֶלֶךְ שֶׁהָיוּ דִּינָיו שֶׁכָּל שֶׁלֹּא יִתֵּן הַמַּס שֶׁעַל הַשָּׂדֶה תִּהְיֶה הַשָּׂדֶה לְנוֹתֵן הַמַּס וּבָרַח בַּעַל הַשָּׂדֶה מִפְּנֵי הַמַּס וּבָא זֶה וְנָתַן מַס שֶׁעָלֶיהָ לַמֶּלֶךְ וְאָכַל פֵּרוֹתֶיהָ אֵין זֶה גֵּזֶל אֶלָּא אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת וְנוֹתֵן הַמַּס עַד שֶׁיַּחְזְרוּ הַבְּעָלִים שֶׁדִּין הַמֶּלֶךְ דִּין הוּא כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ:

The following rules apply when the law of a king is that whoever pays the tax for a particular field acquires ownership of that field. If the owner of a field flees to avoid paying the property tax, and another person pays this tax to the king and derives benefit from that field, it is not considered to be robbery. The one who paid the taxes may reap the benefit of the field provided he continues to pay the taxes until the owners return and pay this duty. For the law of a king is binding, as stated above.

וְכֵן מֶלֶךְ שֶׁגָּזַר שֶׁכָּל מִי שֶׁיִּתֵּן מַס הַקָּצוּב עַל הָאִישׁ יִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד בָּזֶה שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן וּבָא יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנָתַן הַמַּס שֶׁעַל יִשְׂרָאֵל זֶה הֶעָנִי הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹבֵד בּוֹ יוֹתֵר מִדַּאי שֶׁדִּין הַמֶּלֶךְ דִּין. אֲבָל אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵד בּוֹ כְּעֶבֶד:

Similarly, if a king decrees that whoever pays a head tax for a person who has not paid acquires the delinquent person as a servant the decree is binding. If one Jew comes and pays a head tax for another indigent, he may compel him to work beyond ordinary limits, for the laws of a king are binding. He may not, however, have him toil as a slave.

מֶלֶךְ שֶׁכָּרַת אִילָנוֹת שֶׁל בַּעֲלֵי בָּתִּים וְעָשָׂה מֵהֶן גֶּשֶׁר מֻתָּר לַעֲבֹר עָלָיו. וְכֵן אִם הָרַס בָּתִּים וַעֲשָׂאָן דֶּרֶךְ אוֹ חוֹמָה מֻתָּר לֵהָנוֹת בָּהּ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה שֶׁדִּין הַמֶּלֶךְ דִּין:

[In the case of] a king who cut down trees belonging to individual property owners and made a bridge out of them, it is permissible to cross the bridge. So too if he destroyed homes to make a path or a wall, one is allowed to benefit from it. And so it is for all similar circumstances, for the king's law is the law.

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּמֶלֶךְ שֶׁמַּטְבְּעוֹ יוֹצֵא בְּאוֹתָן הָאֲרָצוֹת שֶׁהֲרֵי הִסְכִּימוּ עָלָיו בְּנֵי אוֹתָהּ הָאָרֶץ וְסָמְכָה דַּעְתָּן שֶׁהוּא אֲדוֹנֵיהֶם וְהֵם לוֹ עֲבָדִים. אֲבָל אִם אֵין מַטְבְּעוֹ יוֹצֵא הֲרֵי הוּא כְּגַזְלָן בַּעַל זְרוֹעַ וּכְמוֹ חֲבוּרַת לִסְטִים הַמְזֻיָּנִין שֶׁאֵין דִּינֵיהֶן דִּין וְכֵן מֶלֶךְ זֶה וְכָל עֲבָדָיו גַּזְלָנִין לְכָל דָּבָר:

In what instances does this principle [the king's law is the law] apply? When the king's coins are accepted throughout those lands [under his control], for the residents of that country have agreed to him and have accepted that he is their master and they are to him as slaves. But if his coins do not circulate, he is like a robber by force and like a band of armed thieves whose laws are not enforced, and such a king and all his servants are considered thieves in all matters.