Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Introduction to Hilchos Gezelah va'Avedah

[This text] contains seven mitzvot: two positive commandments and five negative commandments. They are:
1) Not to rob;
2) Not to withhold money due a colleague;
3) Not to covet [what belongs to a colleague];
4) Not to desire [what belongs to a colleague];
5) To return an article obtained by robbery;
6) Not to ignore a lost article;
7) To return a lost article.

These mitzvot are explained in the chapters [that follow].

Whoever robs an object worth a p'rutah from a colleague transgresses a negative commandment, as Leviticus 19:13 states: "Do not rob."

Violation of this negative commandment is not punished by lashes, because it can be corrected by the fulfillment of a positive commandment. For if a person robs, he is obligated to return what he obtained by robbery, as ibid. 5:23 states: "And he shall return the article he obtained by robbery." This is a positive commandment.

Even if the robber burned the object that he obtained by robbery, he is not punished by lashing, because he remains obligated to pay its value. And whenever the transgression of a negative commandment results in a financial penalty, it is not punished by lashing.

It is forbidden to rob even the slightest amount.

It is forbidden even to rob or to withhold money from a gentile who worships idols. If one robs or withholds money from such a person, one must return it.

What is meant by a robber? A person who takes by force property belonging to a colleague. For example, a person who seizes movable property from a colleague's hand, who enters a colleague's domain and takes utensils against his colleague's will, who seizes a colleague's servants or livestock and makes use of them, or who enters a colleague's field and eats his produce. These and any similar acts are considered robbery, as reflected by II Samuel 23:21, which states: "And he robbed the spear from the Egyptian."

What is meant by withholding a colleague's due? It refers to a person who was given money willingly by a colleague and then, when it was demanded of him, he forcefully maintained possession of it and refused to return it. For example, a person was given a loan or had hired a colleague, and when payment was demanded he forcefully refused to pay. Concerning this we were commanded, Leviticus 19:13: "Do not withhold money from your colleague."

Whoever robs is obligated to return the article that he obtained by robbery itself, as it is written: "And he shall return the article he obtained by robbery." If this article was lost or underwent a change, the robber must pay its value. Whether he admits the robbery himself, or witnesses come and testify that he committed robbery, he is required to pay only the principal that he obtained by robbery.

Even if a person robbed a beam and used it in building a house, Scriptural Law requires that he tear down the entire building and return the beam to its owner, for the beam remained unchanged. Nevertheless, to encourage robbers to repent, our Sages ordained that the robber pay the worth of the beam and did not require him to destroy his building. The same applies in all similar situations.

Even if a person robbed a beam and used it in building a sukkah on Sukkot, and the owner came and demanded the return of the beam in the midst of the festival, the robber is required to pay only its value. After the conclusion of the festival, however, since the beam remains unchanged and it was not permanently affixed with mortar, the robber must return the beam itself.

When a person robs something worth less than a p'rutah, although he has committed a transgression, he is not required to return the article he obtained by robbery.

If a person robbed three bundles of vegetables or of branches that were originally worth three p'rutot, and their value decreased so that the three are now worth only two p'rutot, it is not sufficient for him to return two bundles. He is obligated to return the third, for it was originally worth a p'rutah.

If the person robbed two items together worth a p'rutah and returned one of them, he is not considered to possess an article that was robbed, nor has he an obligation to return the item that was robbed.

When a person robs from a colleague in a settled region, and in the desert offers to return the article that he obtained by robbery, the option is given to the person who was robbed. If he desires, he may take his article. If not, he may tell the robber: "I will accept the return of the article only in a settled region, lest it be taken from me here by powers beyond my control."

In such an instance, the article remains the responsibility of the robber until he returns it to the person in a settled region. The same principles apply with regard to payment for a robbed article.

When a person robs money from a colleague and returns it by including it in change he returns to the person whom he robbed, he fulfills the obligation of returning the article he obtained by robbery.

Moreover, even if the robber returned the money to a wallet belonging to the owner that contains money, he fulfills his obligation, because a person usually checks his wallet at all times, and the owner will count the money that was returned together with his money. The rationale is that an accounting that is made without the owner's having been informed of the money's return is sufficient.

If the robber returned the money that he obtained by robbery to a wallet that is empty, he does not fulfill his obligation. He remains responsible for the money he obtained by robbery] until he informs the owner that he returned the money to that particular wallet.

Anyone who covets a servant, a maidservant, a house or utensils that belong to a colleague, or any other article that he can purchase from him and pressures him with friends and requests until he agrees to sell it to him, violates a negative commandment,even though he pays much money for it, as Exodus 20:14 states: "Do not covet."

The violation of this commandment is not punished by lashes, because it does not involve a deed. One does not violate this commandment until one actually takes the article he covets, as reflected by Deuteronomy 7:25: "Do not covet the gold and silver on these statues and take it for yourself." Implied is that the Hebrew tachmod refers to coveting accompanied by a deed.

Anyone who desires a home, a wife, utensils, or anything else belonging to a colleague that he can acquire from him, violates a negative commandment at the time he thinks in his heart, "How is it possible to acquire this from him?" and his heart is aroused by the matter, as Deuteronomy 5:18 states: "Do not desire...." Desire refers to feelings in the heart alone.

Desire leads to coveting and coveting leads to robbery. For if the owners do not desire to sell despite the offer of much money and many supplications by friends, the person motivated by desire will be moved to robbery, as Michah 2:2 states: "They coveted houses and stole."

And if the owner stands up against them to save his property, or in another way prevents the person motivated by desire from robbing, he will be moved to murder. Take, for example, the narrative of Ach'av and Navot.

Thus, we see that a person who desires another person's property violates one negative commandment. One who purchases an object he desires after pressuring the owners and repeatedly asking them, violates two negative commandments. For that reason, the Torah prohibits both desiring and coveting. If he takes the article by robbery, he violates three negative commandments.

Whenever a person robs a colleague of even a p'rutah's worth, he is considered as if he took his very soul, as Proverbs 1:19 states: "Such are the ways of those who are greedy. They take away the soul of the owner."

Notwithstanding the severity of this sin, if the article that was taken by robbery no longer exists, and a robber seeks to repent and comes of his own volition to return the value of the article he obtained by robbery, our Sages ordained that one should not accept it. Instead, the robber should be helped and forgiven, to make the path of repentance more accessible to those who wish to return. Our Sages did not look favorably on anyone who accepts payment for an article that was taken from him through robbery.

When an object taken by robbery remains unchanged, it itself must be returned to its original owner. This applies even when the owner has despaired of its return, and even when the robber himself has died, and the article is in his children's possession.

If, however, the article underwent a change while in the robber's possession the robber acquires it because of the change and is required to pay its value at the time of the robbery. This applies even when the owners have not despaired of its recovery.

This is the law as prescribed by the Torah, as Leviticus 5:23 states: "And he shall return the object he obtained by robbery." The Oral Tradition interprets that verse to mean: If the object is still as it was at the time of the robbery, it should be returned. If it has undergone a change, he should pay its value.

If the owner despaired of its return, but it did not undergo a change, the robber acquires the right to its increase in value from the time the owner despaired. He is required to pay only the value of the article at the time of the robbery. This is also a Rabbinic ordinance to encourage repentance.

In such an instance, when he returns the object he obtained by robbery, the increase in value is evaluated, and the robber is paid for it by the person he robbed.

If the robber sold the article obtained by robbery or gave it as a present and the owner despaired of its return, the purchaser is not required to return the article itself even though it did not undergo a change. Since the owner despaired of its return - regardless of whether that took place before the sale or afterwards - the purchaser acquires possession of it, because of the despair and because of the transfer from one domain to another.

When a person obtains an article by robbery, causes it to increase in value, and then sells it or bequeaths it to another person, he bequeaths or sells the increase in value, and the purchaser or the heir acquires the right to this increase. Therefore, at the time of judgment, he should be reimbursed by the original owner for the increase in value, and then return to him the article obtained by robbery. The original owner may then collect the worth of the increase in value from the robber, for he did not despair of its return.

Similarly, if the purchaser or the heir caused the object to increase in value, the original owner should reimburse them for that increase.

If the robber sold the object obtained by robbery to a gentile, and the gentile caused it to increase in value, at the time of judgment, the article and the increase must be returned to the original owner.

If the gentile sold it to a Jew after it increased in value, since the robber is a Jew and the person in possession of the article is a Jew, the purchaser is considered to have acquired the increase in value. If, however, the original owner seizes the increase in value without paying for it, it is not expropriated from his possession.

As explained, in order to encourage repentance our Sages ruled that when an article obtained by robbery increases in value after the owner despairs of its return or after it has undergone a change, the robber is entitled to the increase in value. This applies even when the change comes about as a matter of course.

What is implied? If a person obtained a cow by robbery and it became pregnant in his possession, whether or not it bore a calf before he was called to court because of the robbery - since the owner despaired of its return, he is required to pay only the value of the cow at the time of the robbery. Similarly, if he stole a sheep and it grew wool, whether he sheared it before he was called to court or it had not yet been shorn, he is required to pay only its value at the time of the robbery.

If it bore offspring or was shorn, the robber is entitled to the offspring or the shearings. If it had not borne offspring, nor was it shorn at that time, the animal's increase in value is evaluated and may be collected from the original owner. Then the animal itself is returned.

If a person obtained a pregnant cow by robbery, the owner despaired of its return and then it bore offspring, or he obtained a sheep laden with wool by robbery, the owner despaired of its return and then it was shorn, the robber should pay the value of a cow ready to bear offspring and a sheep ready to be shorn.

If the animal bore offspring or was shorn before the owner despaired of its return, the shearings or the offspring belong to the original owner. This applies even if the animal became pregnant or grew wool while in the possession of the thief. Since the owner did not despair, and the animal did not undergo a change, the object obtained by robbery is still considered to belong to its original owner, although the robber is held responsible in cases of loss due to forces beyond his control.

If a person stole or obtained an animal by robbery and consecrated or slaughtered it after its owner despaired of its return, it is considered to be the thief's property only from the time he consecrated it. This was enacted so that the sinner will not profit. All its offspring and its shearings from the time that it was stolen until the time it was consecrated belong to its original owner.

When does the above apply? To an increase in value that comes as a matter of course - e.g., an animal's shearing or its offspring. If, however, an animal was gaunt, and the robber fattened it, the robber may collect the increase in value due to the fattening from the original owner, even if it took place before the owner despaired. The same applies with regard to all instances where the increase in value comes about as a result of expense.

A change that can revert to its original state is not considered to be a change.

What is implied? When a person obtains boards by robbery and attaches them to each other with nails and makes a chest, this is not considered a change. For it is possible to separate them and make them simple boards, as they were previously.

If a person obtained sand by robbery and made it into a brick, he does not acquire it, because one can crush the brick and return it to sand.

If he obtained a strip of metal by robbery and made it into a coin, he does not acquire it, because one can melt the coin and return it to a strip of metal, as it was beforehand. The same principles apply in other similar instances.

If, however, a person obtained boards by robbery and burned them, cut them or carved them, and in this way fashioned them into a utensil; he obtained wool by robbery and dyed it, spun it or whitened it; he obtained threads by robbery and made them into a garment; he obtained a brick by robbery and made it into dust; obtained stones by robbery and smoothed them; or he obtained coins by robbery and melted them - this is considered a change, for if he makes other coins - or similarly undoes the other changes mentioned above - they are considered to be new entities. The same principles apply in all similar situations.

When a person robs old coins, polishes them and renews them, he is not considered to have acquired them, for they will age and return to their previous state. If, however, he obtains new coins by robbery and causes them to look old, he does acquire them. For if they were made to appear new again, that would be considered to be a new development.

A person who robs a date palm that is growing and cuts it down does not acquire it. This applies even if he cuts it into sections. If he makes it into boards, he does acquire it.

If a person obtains large beams by robbery and cuts them into small beams, he does not acquire them. If he cuts them into boards, causing them to be called by a different name, he does acquire them.

If one obtained a palm branch by robbery and separated its leaves, one acquires the leaves. If one obtained palm leaves by robbery and made them into a broom, one acquires the broom.

If one obtains a lamb by robbery and it becomes a ram, or one obtains a calf by robbery and it becomes an ox, it is considered to have undergone a change while in the robber's possession. Therefore, he is considered to have acquired it, and he is required to pay only the value of the article at the time of the robbery, despite the fact that the owner never despaired of the article's return.

If a person obtains a utensil by robbery and breaks it, we do not evaluate its depreciation. Instead, the robber is obligated to pay its worth, and he is given the broken utensil.

If, however, the original owner desires to take the broken utensil, he is granted it, and the robber must pay for its depreciation. This ordinance was instituted for the sake of the owner, and if he does not desire it, he is granted that prerogative. Similar principles apply in other analogous situations.

When an object obtained by robbery does not undergo a change, but its value increases, it itself must be returned to its original owner, and the robber is not entitled to anything. This applies even if the owner has despaired of its return.

For the Sages granted the robber only the increase in value after the owner despaired of the object's return, in instances like the shearing of wool and the offspring. He is not, however, granted any increase in value that comes from the rise in the article's worth when it is returned intact to its owner.

The following rules apply when a person robs a jug of wine from a colleague that was worth a dinar at the time of the robbery and increased in value while in the robber's possession until it was worth four dinarim. If he broke the jug, drank its contents, sold it or gave it away as a present after it increased in value, he must pay four dinarim - its worth when it left his possession. The rationale is that if he had left it, he would have had to return it intact.

If it broke because of other causes or it was lost, the robber must pay only a dinar, its value at the time of the robbery.

If it was worth four dinarim at the time of the robbery, but only one dinar when it left his possession, he must pay the four dinarim it was worth at the time of the robbery. This applies whether he broke it or drank it, or whether it was broken or lost due to other causes. The same principles apply in other analogous situations.

The following rules apply when a person obtains by robbery a basket of fifty dates. If the entire basket were sold together it would cost nine coins, but if the dates were sold one by one they would be sold for ten. The robber is required to pay only nine. We do not heed the claim of the owner, who argues: "I would have sold them one by one."

Similar laws apply if a person damages a colleague's property or is required to reimburse him for a loss in a similar instance. This principle does not apply, however, with regard to property that is consecrated. In that instance, the robber must pay ten coins.

When a person obtains an animal by robbery and it becomes old, or it becomes weak and will never regain its strength - e.g., because of an illness for which there is no cure - a coin and it cracked or was disqualified by the ruling authorities, produce and the entire amount rotted, or wine and it became vinegar, he is considered to be a person who obtained a utensil by robbery and destroyed it, and he must pay the worth of the article obtained by robbery at the time of the robbery.

If, however, a person obtained animals by robbery and they became weaker, but their strength could be restored, servants and they became old, a coin and it was disqualified as currency by one country, but still accepted by another, produce of which a portion became rotten, terumah that became impure, leaven and the festival of Passover was celebrated, or an animal that was used for the purposes of sin, became disqualified for sacrifice on the altar, or was condemned to be stoned to death, the robber may tell the original owner: "Here is your article," and return to him the article obtained by robbery.

When does the above apply? When the article obtained by robbery is itself returned. If, however, the article obtained by robbery was burned or lost after benefiting from it became forbidden, the robber must pay its value at the time of the robbery.

Based on this rationale, if the robber denied possession of the article after deriving benefit from it became forbidden, and affirmed his denial with an oath, he is liable to pay the principal and an additional fifth of its value, and bring a guilt offering.

When a person obtains an animal by robbery and uses it to transport a burden, rides on it, plows or threshes with it or the like, and then returns it to its owner, he violates the commandment against robbery. Nevertheless, he is not liable for any payment, for he did not cause the animal any injury or weakness.

If, however, this person becomes habituated to robbing, withholding property or performing such acts time after time, he should be penalized. This applies even in the diaspora. The court should evaluate the wage or the increase in value that he earned with the animal, and that amount should be paid to the person whose property was taken.

When a person seizes a servant belonging to a colleague and causes him to perform labor, but does not prevent him from performing work for his master, he is not liable. The rationale is that a person is happy that his servants do not go idle. If, however, this prevents him from performing work for his master, the person who seized the servant must pay the master the wages of the servant, as if he were a hired worker.

The following laws apply when a person seizes a boat belonging to a colleague and performs work with it. If the boat is not generally hired out, the damage to the boat should be evaluated and must be paid.

If the boat is generally hired out there are two guidelines that apply. If the person took the boat with the intent of renting it, since the owner did not grant his permission, the owner has the option. He may collect the wage usually paid or he may collect payment for the damage to the boat.

If the person took the boat as robbery, he must pay for the damages. Similar principles apply in all like situations.

The following rules apply when a person dwells in a courtyard belonging to a colleague without notifying him. If the courtyard is not usually rented out, he is not required to pay him rent. This applies even if the person who dwells within generally rents a dwelling, for one person is benefiting and the other is not suffering a loss.

If the courtyard is generally rented out, the person who dwells within must pay rent even though he does not usually rent a dwelling, because he is causing the owner a loss of income.

When a person owned wool that he was dyeing in a vat, and another person came and added other dyes without the consent of the owner, the latter must pay the owner of the wool for the decline in the value of the wool he caused. This payment does not include the value of the dye the owner used for the wool. If the person whose property was damaged seizes the value of dye that he lost, that money should not be expropriated from him.

A person who without the owner's consent takes an object entrusted to him for safekeeping to use for his private purposes in a way that will diminish it, or to take as his own is judged as a robber. This applies whether he takes the article himself, or it is taken for him by his son, his servant or his agent.

The person who takes the article is liable for it if it is destroyed by forces beyond his control, and the object that he took is considered to be within his domain according to the laws that govern all robbers.

A watchman who decides to take an entrusted article for his private purposes is not held responsible for it until he actually takes it. When, however, he takes the article from one place to another in his domain in order to take it for his private purposes, he is liable although he did not take any portion of the entrusted article. For the watchman becomes responsible in such an instance even when the entrusted article remains intact.

As soon as the watchman lifts up the jug to take a revi'it of wine, he is liable for it in the event of its destruction by forces beyond his control, even though he has not taken it.

If, however, he lifts up a wallet containing many coins to take one dinar, there is a doubt whether he is liable for the entire wallet if it is destroyed by forces beyond his control, or he is liable only for the one dinar. Similar laws apply with regard to other instances where a container holds several discrete entities.

When produce was entrusted to a person for safekeeping and he took a portion of it as his own, he is responsible only for the produce that he actually took. The produce remaining in its place remains the property of the original owner. If, however, the entire produce becomes spoiled because of the amount that he took, he is liable for the entire amount.

What is implied? If the watchman tilted a jug while it remained in its place and removed a revi'it or more, and then the jug was broken afterwards, the watchman is liable only for the amount that he took, for he did not lift up the jug. If the wine turned into vinegar, he must pay the value of the entire jug at the time he took it. Similar principles apply in all like situations.

When a person denies in court having been given an object entrusted to him for safekeeping, he is considered to be a robber if the object was in his possession at the time of his denial. He is liable for the article if it is destroyed by factors beyond his control.

A person who borrows an object without the consent of its owner is considered to be a robber.

If a utensil was in the hands of a person's son or servant and another person took it from him and used it, he is considered to have borrowed the object without the consent of its owner. The article is considered to have entered his domain, and he is responsible for it in the event of its destruction by forces beyond his control until he returns it to the owner.

Therefore, if he returns it to the minor or to the servant who was holding it beforehand, and then it is lost or stolen, the borrower is liable. Similar principles apply in all like situations.

When a person seizes collateral from a debtor without receiving license from the court, he is considered to be a robber, despite the debt that he is owed. Needless to say, if he enters the debtor's home and seizes collateral, he is considered to be a robber, for Deuteronomy 24:11 explicitly states: "Stand outside and the man who owes the debt to you will bring the security out to you."