Genevah - Chapter 4 - Chabad.org

1When a watchman claims that an entrusted article was stolen from his home1 and takes an oath to this effect,2 and afterwards, witnesses come and testify that he made a false claim and that he is still in possession of the entrusted article, the watchman is required to pay twice the worth of the stolen article. For the watchman is himself a thief.3 If he slaughtered or sold a stolen animal after he took the false oath,4 he must pay four or five times its worth. He is not required to bring a guilt offering for taking a false oath that was discredited by witnesses.5 Nor is he required to add a fifth of the value of the stolen article.6 For a fifth is never paid when a double payment is paid. If witnesses come before he takes an oath, he is required to pay only the principal.7אהַטּוֹעֵן שֶׁנִּגְנַב מִבֵּיתוֹ הַפִּקָּדוֹן - אִם נִשְׁבַּע וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁשֶּׁקֶר טָעַן, וְשֶׁהַפִּקָּדוֹן הָיָה אֶצְלוֹ - הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶּפֶל, שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא עַצְמוֹ כְּגַנָּב; וְאִם טָבַח וּמָכַר אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע, מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. וְאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא אָשָׁם עַל פִּי עֵדִים עַל שְׁבוּעָתוֹ; וְאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא חֹמֶשׁ, שֶׁאֵין הַחֹמֶשׁ מִשְׁתַּלֵּם עִם הַכֶּפֶל. וְאִם בָּאוּ עֵדִים קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע, אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָא הַקֶּרֶן בִּלְבָד.

2When does the above apply? When he took an oath before he misappropriated the entrusted article.8 If, however, he misappropriated the entrusted article, claimed that it had been stolen, and took an oath to that effect, and then witnesses came and discredited his oath, he is not liable for the double payment.9 As soon as he misappropriated the article, he became liable for it and acquired responsibility for it.10בבַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּשְׁלַח יָד בַּפִּקָּדוֹן. אֲבָל אִם שָׁלַח בּוֹ יָד, וְטָעַן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב וְנִשְׁבַּע, וּבָאוּ עֵדִים - פָּטוּר מִן הַכֶּפֶל: שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁלַח יָד, נִתְחַיֵּב בּוֹ וְקָנָהוּ.

3Similarly, if the watchman claimed that the entrusted article was lost and took an oath to that effect, and then claimed it was stolen and took an oath to that effect, and then witnesses came and testified that it was in his possession, the watchman is not liable for the double payment. For at the time he took the first false oath, the entrusted article was no longer considered the property of the original owner.11גוְכֵן הַטּוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת אֲבֵדָה בַּפִּקָּדוֹן וְנִשְׁבַּע, וְחָזַר וְטָעַן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב וְנִשְׁבַּע, וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ עֵדִים - פָּטוּר מִן הַכֶּפֶל, שֶׁכְּבָר יָצָא הַפִּקָּדוֹן מִידֵי הַבְּעָלִים מִשְּׁבוּעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה.

4When a person who discovered a lost article claims that it was stolen and takes an oath to that effect, and afterwards, witnesses come and testify that the lost article was in his possession and that he made a false claim, he is required to pay twice the article’s worth. This is implied by Exodus 22:8, which states that a double payment must be made for “any lost article.” The above applies when he claims that it was stolen by an armed thief, in which instance he would not be held liable. If, however, he claims that it was stolen in a manner that is not beyond his control, he is not liable for the double payment. For he would have been liable to pay for the lost article because of his claim, since a person caring for a lost article that he discovered is considered to be a paid watchman, as will be explained.12דהַטּוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב בַּאֲבֵדָה וְנִשְׁבַּע, וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁהָאֲבֵדָה בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ וְשֶׁקֶר טָעַן - מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶּפֶל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "עַל כָּל אֲבֵדָה" (שמות כב, ח). וְהוּא, שֶׁיִּטְעֹן שֶׁנִּגְנְבָה בְּלִסְטִים מְזֻיָּן, שֶׁהוּא אָנוּס, וּפָטוּר; אֲבָל אִם טָעַן שֶׁנִּגְנְבָה בְּלֹא אֹנֶס, פָּטוּר מִן הַכֶּפֶל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי טַעֲנָתוֹ, שֶׁשּׁוֹמֵר אֲבֵדָה כְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר הוּא כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר.

5When a watchman claims that an entrusted article was stolen and takes an oath to that effect,13 and then witnesses come and testify that the entrusted article is in his possession, and then he again claims that it was stolen and takes an oath to that effect, and then witnesses again come and testify that the entrusted article is still in his possession - even if this sequence repeats itself 100 times - he is liable for a double payment for every claim.14 Thus, if he took five false oaths, he is liable to pay six times the value of the entrusted article, the principal that was entrusted to him and five times its value, because of the five double payments that result from the five false oaths.ההַטּוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב בַּפִּקָּדוֹן וְנִשְׁבַּע, וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ, וְחָזַר וְטָעַן בּוֹ טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב וְנִשְׁבַּע, וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁעֲדַיִן הוּא בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ - אַפִלּוּ מֵאָה פְּעָמִים - חַיָּב כֶּפֶל עַל כָּל טְעָנָה וּטְעָנָה; וְאִם נִשְׁבַּע חֲמִשָּׁה פְּעָמִים, נִמְצָא מְשַׁלֵּם שִׁשָּׁה - הַקֶּרֶן שֶׁהִפְקִיד אֶצְלוֹ, וַחֲמִשָּׁה בַּקֶּרֶן מִשּׁוּם חֲמִשָּׁה כְּפָלוֹת שֶׁל חָמֵשׁ שְׁבוּעוֹת.

6The following rules apply when a watchman claims that an entrusted article was stolen and takes an oath to that effect, and then claims that the entrusted article was lost - and then witnesses come and testify that the article was not stolen, and the watchman admits that it was not lost. Since he must pay twice the value of the entrusted article because of the witnesses, he need not pay an additional fifth as a surcharge because of the other oath,15 although he admitted it to be false. The rationale is that since this involves the same principal for which he is required to make the double payment, he is not liable for the additional fifth.וטָעַן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב וְנִשְׁבַּע, וְחָזַר וְטָעַן טַעֲנַת אֲבֵדָה וְנִשְׁבַּע, וּבָאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁלֹּא נִגְנַב, וְהוֹדָה הוּא שֶׁלֹּא אָבַד - הוֹאִיל וּמְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶּפֶל עַל פִּי עֵדִים, אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם חֹמֶשׁ עַל שְׁבוּעָה אַחֲרוֹנָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוֹדָה, שֶׁהַמָּמוֹן הַמְּחַיְּבוֹ בַּכֶּפֶל, פּוֹטְרוֹ מִן הַחֹמֶשׁ.

7The following rules apply if a person entrusted his ox to two people, they claimed that it was stolen and took an oath to that effect, and afterwards one of them admitted that the oath was false, and then witnesses came and testified that the other one lied. They both must pay the principal.16 If the owner of the entrusted object seizes property belonging to the partner whose oath was refuted in lieu of the double payment for his share of the stolen article, it shall not be expropriated from him. The one who admitted taking the false oath must pay an additional fifth for his share of the stolen article, as must all who voluntarily admit taking false oaths regarding entrusted objects.זמָסַר שׁוֹרוֹ לִשְׁנַיִם, וְטָעֲנוּ טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב וְנִשְׁבְּעוּ, וְהוֹדָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן, וְהַשֵּׁנִי בָּאוּ עָלָיו עֵדִים - שְׁנֵיהֶן מְשַׁלְּמִין אֶת הַקֶּרֶן; וְאִם תָּפַס בַּעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן אֶת הַכֶּפֶל, אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ. וְזֶה שֶׁהוֹדָה - מְשַׁלֵם חֹמֶשׁ, כִּשְׁאָר הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין שְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן שֶׁהוֹדוּ מֵעַצְמָן.

8These rules apply with regard to the obligations of a watchman and a thief in the following situations. The owner of an entrusted object demanded its return from an unpaid watchman. The watchman took an oath that the article was stolen.17 Afterwards, the thief was discovered. The watchman filed a claim against the thief, who admitted stealing the entrusted article. Afterwards, the owner of the entrusted article filed a claim against the thief, and he denied stealing the entrusted article. Witnesses then came and testified that the thief stole the article. If the watchman took a true oath when he claimed that the article was stolen, he is considered the agent of the owners, and the thief is freed from the responsibility for the double payment, because he admitted the theft to the watchman.18 If the watchman took a false oath,19 the question is unresolved.20 Therefore, the thief is not compelled to pay twice the value of the stolen article. If, however, the owner seizes property belonging to the thief in lieu of the double payment, it shall not be expropriated from him.חבַּעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן שֶׁתָּבַע אֶת הַשּׁוֹמֵר, וְנִשְׁבַּע שֶׁנִּגְנַב, וְאַחַר כָּךְ הֻכַּר הַגַּנָּב, וְתָבַע הַשּׁוֹמֵר אֶת הַגַּנָּב, וְהוֹדָה לוֹ הַגַּנָּב שֶׁגָּנַב, וְתָבַע בַּעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן אֶת הַגַּנָּב וְכָפַר, וּבָאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁגָּנַב: אִם בֶּאֱמֶת נִשְׁבַּע הַשּׁוֹמֵר כְּשֶׁטָּעַן שֶׁנִּגְנַב, נִפְטַר הַגַּנָּב מִן הַכֶּפֶל בְּהוֹדָאָתוֹ לַשּׁוֹמֵר. וְאִם בְּשֶׁקֶר נִשְׁבַּע, אֵין מוֹצִיאִין הַכֶּפֶל מִן הַגַּנָּב; וְאִם תָּפְסוּ הַבְּעָלִים הַכֶּפֶל, אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדָן.

The owner demanded the return of the entrusted article from the watchman and he paid for the article,21 and then the thief was discovered. In such a case, the watchman acquires the right to the article and to the double payment.22 The owner filed a claim against the thief, who admitted stealing the entrusted article. Afterwards, the watchman filed a claim against the thief, and he denied stealing the entrusted article. Witnesses then came and testified that the thief stole the article.23 The thief is not compelled to pay twice the value of the stolen article. If, however, the watchman seizes property belonging to the thief in lieu of the double payment, it shall not be expropriated from him. Similar laws apply with regard to the payment of four or five times the value of a stolen sheep or cow if the thief sold or slaughtered it.תָּבְעוּ הַבְּעָלִים אֶת הַשּׁוֹמֵר וְשִׁלֵּם, וְאַחַר כָּךְ הֻכַּר הַגַּנָּב וּתְבָעוּהוּ הַבְּעָלִים וְהוֹדָה לָהֶן שֶׁגָּנַב, וְאַחַר כָּךְ תְּבָעוֹ הַשּׁוֹמֵר וְכָפַר בּוֹ, וּבָאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁגָּנַב - אֵין מוֹצִיאִין הַכֶּפֶל מִן הַגַּנָּב; וְאִם תָּפַס הַשּׁוֹמֵר אֶת הַכֶּפֶל, אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ. וְכֵן הַדִּין בְּתַשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה, אִם טָבַח הַגַּנָּב אוֹ מָכַר.

9When a watchman claims that an article entrusted to him by a minor was stolen and takes an oath to that effect,24 and afterwards witnesses come and testify that the entrusted article is still in his possession, he is not liable. This applies even if the owner entrusted the article to the watchman when the owner was a minor and demanded its return after he attained majority. This is derived from Exodus 22:6, which states: “When a man will give his colleague... articles to watch....”25 A child’s entrusting of an article is of no consequence. Instead, he must be past majority both when he entrusts the article and when he demands its return.טהַטּוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב בַּפִּקָּדוֹן שֶׁל קָּטָן - אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא קָטָן, וּתְבָעוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא גָּדוֹל, וְנִשְׁבַּע, וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ עֵדִים - הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר מִן הַכֶּפֶל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "כִּי יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ" (שמות כב, ו; שמות כב, ט) - וְאֵין נְתִינַת קָטָן כְּלוּם, וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁתִּהְיֶה נְתִינָה וּתְבִיעָה שָׁוִין בְּגָדוֹל.

10When a watchman steals an article entrusted to him from his own domain - e.g., he stole a lamb from a flock entrusted to him or a sela26 from a wallet entrusted to him - if witnesses testify regarding the theft, he is liable for twice the amount of the article.ישׁוֹמֵר שֶׁגָּנַב מֵרְשׁוּתוֹ, כְּגוֹן שֶׁגָּנַב טָלֶה מֵעֵדֶר שֶׁהֻפְקַד אֶצְלוֹ, וְסֶלַע מִכִּיס שֶׁהֻפְקַד אֶצְלוֹ - אִם יֵשׁ עָלָיו עֵדִים, חַיָּב בַּכֶּפֶל.

The above applies even if he returned the seta to its place, and the lamb to the herd. For he remains responsible for them27 until he notifies the owner, since with his theft of the article his responsibility as a watchman is concluded. Thus, it is as if he had not returned anything until he notifies the owner.28וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֶחֱזִיר הַסֶּלַע לִמְקוֹמוֹ, וְהַטָּלֶה לְעֶדְרוֹ - הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ, עַד שֶׁיּוֹדִיעַ הַבְּעָלִים; שֶׁהֲרֵי כָּלְתָה שְׁמִירָתוֹ, וּכְאִלּוּ לֹא הֶחֱזִיר כְּלוּם, עַד שֶׁיּוֹדִיעַ בְּעָלָיו.

Slightly different rules apply if a person29 steals a sela from a wallet belonging to a colleague, or a utensil from his home and then returns the utensil or the sela to its place.30 If the owner knew of the theft, but did not know of its return, the thief is still responsible for the article until his colleague counts his money.31אֲבָל הַגּוֹנֵב סֶלַע מִכִּיס חֲבֵרוֹ אוֹ כְּלִי מִבֵּיתוֹ, וְהֶחֱזִיר דָּבָר הַגָּנוּב לִמְקוֹמוֹ - אִם יָדְעוּ הַבְּעָלִים בִּגְנֵבָתוֹ, וְלֹא יָדְעוּ בַּחֲזִירָתוֹ - עֲדַיִן הַגַּנָּב חַיָּב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ, עַד שֶׁיִּמְנֶה אֶת מָעוֹתָיו.

11When the owner counts his wallet and discovers the full amount, the thief is no longer liable.32 Moreover, if the owner did not know that the article was either taken or returned, it is not eyen necessary for the owner to count his money. As soon as the thief returned the money to its place, he is no longer responsible for it.יאמָנָה אֶת כִּיסוֹ, וּמְצָאוֹ שָׁלֵם הַמִּנְיָן - פָּטוּר. וְאִם לֹא יָדְעוּ הַבְּעָלִים, לֹא בִּגְנֵבָתוֹ וְלֹא בַּחֲזִירָתוֹ - אַפִלּוּ מִנְיָן אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ; אֶלָא כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֶחֱזִירוֹ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, נִפְטַר מֵאַחְרָיוּתוֹ.

12When does the above apply? With regard to an article that is not alive. When, however, a thief steals a lamb from a colleague’s herd, the owner discovers the theft, the thief then returns it to the herd without informing the owner, and afterwards, the lamb dies or is stolen, the first thief is still liable. If, however, the owner counted his sheep, and the herd was complete,33 the thief is no longer liable.34 If the owner did not know that the lamb was stolen or returned, the thief is liable until he informs the owner, so that he will pay more attention to the stolen lamb. This is necessary, because the thief taught it a way other than that followed by the other sheep in this herd.35יבבַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים. אֲבָל הַגּוֹנֵב טָלֶה מֵעֵדֶר חֲבֵרוֹ, וְיָדְעוּ בּוֹ הַבְּעָלִים, וְהֶחֱזִירוֹ לָעֵדֶר שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת הַבְּעָלִים, וּמֵת אוֹ נִגְנַב - חַיָּב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ; וְאִם מָנוּ אֶת הַצֹּאן, וְהִיא שְׁלֵמָה - פָּטוּר. וְאִם לֹא יָדְעוּ הַבְּעָלִים, לֹא בִּגְנֵבָתוֹ וְלֹא בַּחֲזִירָתוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמָּנוּ אֶת הַצֹּאן, וְהִיא שְׁלֵמָה - חַיָּב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ עַד שֶׁיּוֹדִיעַ אֶת הַבְּעָלִים, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּשְׁמְרוּ אֶת הַטָּלֶה הַגָּנוּב; שֶׁהֲרֵי לִמְּדוֹ דֶּרֶךְ אַחֶרֶת, חוּץ מִדֶּרֶךְ שְׁאָר הַצֹּאן שֶׁבְּעֵדֶר זֶה.

« Previous

Genevah - Chapter 3

Genevah - Chapter 5

Footnotes

I.e., an unpaid watchman, who is not held liable if the entrusted article was lost or stolen (Hilchot She’ilah UFikadon 4:1).

For the watchman is not absolved of liability until such an oath is taken (ibid.).

By taking the oath, he freed himself of the responsibility to return the entrusted article, and he is keeping it as his own.

If he slaughtered or sold the animal before he took the false oath, he is not liable for the additional payment, as reflected in the following halachah (Maggid Mishneh).

Although a person is liable to bring a guilt offering after taking a false oath, this is only when he admits lying himself, and not when his oath is discredited by the testimony of others. Rashi, Bava Kama 108b derives this from Numbers 5:7: “And they shall admit their guilt.”

Numbers, ibid., requires a person who misappropriates property via a false oath to pay a surcharge equal to one fifth of the new total. He is, however, liable for this surcharge only when he is obligated to bring a guilt offering.

Until the watchman takes a false oath, we do not assume that he is trying to steal from his colleague. It is possible that he misplaced the article, and is just stalling to delay being called to account.

The misappropriation of an entrusted article, sh’lichat yad, is considered equivalent to gezelah, robbery. From the time a watchman lifts up the entrusted article with the intent of using it for his own purposes, he is considered to have misappropriated it.

Note the Ra’avad and Rabbenu Asher [cited by the Tur (Choshen Mishpat 352)], who differ and maintain that he is liable for the double payment.

10.

At the time he misappropriated the entrusted article, he became liable to return it to its owner, even if it was destroyed by forces beyond his control. As such, he is not considered to have stolen the article by taking a false oath (which warrants a double payment), because he became responsible for it beforehand (Rashi, Bava Kama 107b).

11.

And yet the watchman is not liable for a double payment for this false oath, because the Torah obligated a double payment only when one claimed that the entrusted article was stolen.

12.

See Hilchot Gezelah Va’Avedah 13:10, which explains that he is granted this status because throughout the time he is caring for the lost article, he is considered “occupied with a mitzvah” and is therefore not obligated to fulfill several other positive commandments.

13.

The Rambam is speaking of an instance where the person took the second oath in a different court, which was not aware that he had taken a false oath previously. For once a person takes a false oath, he is not allowed to take an oath again until he repents (Maggid Mishneh).

14.

One might think that one would be liable for a double payment only once for every stolen article. Therefore, Bava Kama 108a and the Rambam feel it necessary to clarify this law.

15.

The oath that the article was lost. Although ordinarily he would have to pay such a surcharge if he admits taking a false oath regarding an entrusted article, in this instance he is not held liable, for the reason explained by the Rambam.
As explained on several occasions, the meaning of “an additional fifth” is one-fifth of the new total, 25% of the original amount.

16.

Implied is that the partner who did not admit the theft is not required to pay the double payment. The Rambam’s rationale follows that of the preceding law, which states that a person is not obligated to pay both a double payment and an additional fifth for the same claim. Bava Kama 08 ו a develops this concept and asks what is the law when, as in the case at hand, there is a need for the payment of both an additional fifth and a double payment regarding the same suit. The Rambam interprets the Talmud as leaving the question unresolved, and therefore rules that the partner whose oath was refuted is not obligated for the double payment, but if it is taken from him by the owner of the stolen property, the latter is entitled to maintain possession.
The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam, as stated in the notes on Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 2:12, and maintains that in all such cases, if property is seized from its legal owner, it must be returned.
The Tur (Choshen Mishpat 352) offers a different interpretation of the passage in Bava Kama, from which it appears that there is no question regarding the partner’s liability for the double payment. The Talmud’s question concerns the other partner’s liability for the 25% surcharge. Note the Kessef Mishneh’s reconciliation of the Rambam’s interpretation.

17.

And thus freed himself from responsibility.

18.

Once the thief admitted his guilt to the watchman, he is liable for the principal and is therefore not liable for the double payment. The fact that he later denied his obligation to the owner is not of consequence.

19.

E. g., he swore that the article was stolen from him by armed thieves (a situation that is considered beyond his control), and it was not.

20.

Bava Kama 108b questions whether or not taking the false oath causes the watchman to cease being considered the agent of the owner. If he were not considered the owner’s agent, the thief’s admission of guilt to him would have no weight, and the thief would be liable for the double payment.
The Tur (loc. cit.) notes that according to Rashi’s reading of this passage, the thief is liable for the double payment.

21.

Instead of freeing himself of responsibility by taking an oath that it was stolen.

22.

See Hilchot She’ilah UFikadon 8:1.

23.

According to the Rambam’s understanding of Bava Kama, ibid., this question is also left unresolved by our Sages. For we are unsure if the watchman considers the owner to be his agent or not.

24.

With regard to the obligation to take an oath regarding an article entrusted by a minor, see Hilchot Sechirut 2:7.

25.

Implied is that in order for the thief to be required to make the double payment (as stated in the continuation of the verse), the person who entrusts the utensils must be a “man” - i.e., above majority.

26.

A silver coin of the Talmudic era equal to 19.2 grams of pure silver.

27.

Even if they are lost or destroyed by forces beyond his control. Although the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 365:3) does not quote the laws regarding payment of twice the amount of the stolen article, because these are not relevant at the time the Shulchan Aruch was written, it does mention this law, because it clarifies the extent of the responsibility of the watchman.

28.

The Rambam appears to be stating that as long as the watchman has not notified the owner of the return of the stolen article, he is still considered a thief, and the money is considered outstanding. Therefore, if witnesses testify regarding the theft, he is liable to pay twice the sum of the stolen article. See the Or Sameach.
The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam, maintaining that the watchman is considered a thief only when he takes a false oath regarding the stolen property.
The Ra’avad also adds that if the watchman returned the wallet to its owner together with the stolen money, and the owner counted the money, the money is considered to have been returned.

29.

In contrast to a watchman, an ordinary person has no responsibility to the owner. Therefore, the obligations governing its return are more lenient.

30.

The Maggid Mishneh emphasizes that the intent is not necessarily to the place from which the article was stolen, but rather to a safe but obvious place in the owner’s domain. Thus, he will surely notice the article in the near future.

31.

This follows the opinion (Bava Kama 118a) that maintains that when a person counts the money in his possession, he will be aware of the extra amount and will realize that the stolen amount has been returned.

32.

See Hilchot Gezelah 1:8.

33.

I.e., including the sheep that had been stolen.

34.

For we assume that the owner took notice of the return of the stolen sheep and will give it the extra attention it requires.

35.

And unless extra attention is shown to it, it might run away.