Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Whenever a person becomes financially obligated to a fellow Jew, denies that obligation and takes a false oath to support his denial, should he later admit his obligation he is liable to return the principal that he denied plus a surcharge of one fifth of the new total. He is also liable to bring a sacrifice, which is called a guilt offering, for robbery.

The above applies to any of the following: one who robbed, one who withheld money due a colleague, one who stole, one who took a loan, one who was given an entrusted article, one who discovered a lost article and denied it, a partner with whom money belonging to the partnership remained, and an employer for whom a worker performed work, but was not paid.

To state the general principle: Whenever a person who admitted the obligation would be obligated by law to pay, he must pay the principal and a fifth if he denies his obligation, as Leviticus 5:21 says: "If he denies his colleague's claim regarding an entrusted object...."

When does the above apply? When the person is obligated to pay because of his own actions. When, however, he is liable because of his father, he is not liable for the additional fifth.

What is implied? If one's father robbed or stole or was in debt to others, and the son knew of the matter, and after the father's death the son denied the claim, took an oath and afterwards admitted his liability, he need pay only the principal. For Leviticus 5:23 states: "that he obtained by robbery," implying that one is liable for an additional fifth for one's own robbery, but not for robbery committed by one's father.

When does the above apply? When the object obtained by robbery no longer exists. Different laws apply however, when a person's father obtained an object by robbery and then died, and the object still exists. If the heir denies his obligation, takes an oath to that effect and then admits his liability, he is liable for the principal and the addition of a fifth.

If the father committed robbery, took a false oath, admitted his guilt and then died, his heir must pay the principal and the addition of a fifth.

If the father committed robbery, took a false oath and then died, and the heir admitted the father's guilt, the heir is liable to pay only the principal.

In either instance, the heir is not obligated to bring the guilt offering.

A person who takes a false oath in response to the claim of a gentile and later admits his guilt is obligated to pay the principal, but not the additional fifth, for Leviticus 5:21 speaks of one who "denies his colleague's claim."

Similarly, a person who takes less than the worth of a p'rutah by robbery, denies the charge and takes a false oath to that effect is not liable to pay an additional fifth, for anything less than a p'rutah's worth is not considered a significant financial responsibility.

What is meant by an additional fifth? One fourth of the principal. For example, if a person obtained four zuz by robbery and took a false oath, he must pay five. If the object obtained by robbery itself still exists, it must be returned and a fourth of its value added.

A person who takes a false oath denying a financial claim is not liable to pay an additional fifth unless he himself admits his guilt. If, however, witnesses come and despite his continued denial establish his guilt through their testimony, he is liable to pay only the principal, but not the additional fifth.

The rationale is that the additional fifth and the sacrifice were instituted for the sake of atonement. Therefore, he is obligated for them only when it is his admission that makes him liable.

When a person robs from a colleague, even if he denied the robbery - as long as he did not take a false oath - if he afterwards admits his guilt, he is not liable to seek out the owner to return the money in his possession. Instead, it may remain in the possession of the robber until the owners come and take his due.

If, however, he took a false oath concerning property worth a p'rutah or more, he is obligated to seek out the owner to return the money to him even if he is on far removed islands. The rationale is that once the robber took a false oath, the owner has despaired of the return of his property and will not demand it again.

Even if a robber returned the entire worth of the object obtained by robbery with the exception of a p'rutah, he is obligated to bring it to the original owner. He may not give the p'rutah to the owner's son or agent unless the owner appointed an agent for this purpose in the presence of witnesses.

If the robber brings the principal and the additional fifth to the Rabbinic court in his city, he may bring a guilt offering and gain atonement thereby. The court will then ensure that the object obtained by robbery will reach its original owner. Similarly, the robber may give the article to an agent of the court. Whenever a person returns an object obtained by robbery or the like to a Rabbinic court, he has fulfilled his obligation to return it.

When the robber gave the original owner the principal, but not the additional fifth, the owner waived payment of the principal but not of the additional fifth, or he waived payment of both with the exception of less than a p'rutah's worth of the principal, the robber does not have to seek out the owner. Instead, when the owner comes he will take the remainder of what is due him.

This ruling is followed when the owner waives payment of everything but less than a p'rutah's worth of the principal even when the object obtained by robbery itself exists. We do not suspect that perhaps the value of the article will increase, and thus the portion remaining will become worth a p'rutah.

If, however, the robber gave the owner the additional fifth, but did not give him the principal, or if the owner waived payment of the additional fifth but not of the principal, or he waived payment of both with the exception of a p'rutah's worth of the principal, the robber must seek out the owner or give the money to the Rabbinic court in his town, as explained in the previous halachot.

If the robber returned the principal to the owner after denying his claim and taking a false oath and then denied owing him the additional fifth and took a false oath concerning this, the additional fifth is considered as part of the principal with regard to all matters, and the robber must pay another fifth because of it.

This is derived from Leviticus 5:24, which states: "And he shall add its fifths." The use of the plural teaches that he must add a fifth to a fifth if he continues to take false oaths until the fifth that he denies - and concerning which he takes a false oath - is worth less than a p'rutah.

The following rule applies with regard to a person who had been entrusted with an object for safekeeping and who repeatedly took false oaths concerning the entrusted article. For example, the watchman claimed that the article was lost, took a false oath to support his claim and then admitted that it was in his possession. He then claimed it was lost and took a second false oath and then admitted it was in his possession. He must pay an additional fifth for every false oath, plus the principal.

This is derived from the phrase cited above: "And he shall add its fifths." The use of the plural teaches that he must pay several fifths for one principal.

When a person robs a colleague and then the person whom he robbed dies, he must return the object obtained by robbery to his heirs. If the object became lost or underwent a change, he must pay them its value. If the robber originally denied the robbery and took a false oath to that effect, he must pay the heirs the principal and an additional fifth.

The following laws apply when a person robs his father and takes a false oath, and then the father dies. If the object obtained by robbery no longer exists, or it has undergone a change, he should make a reckoning with his brothers with regard to the principal and the additional fifth. If the object obtained by robbery exists, he is obligated to remove it from his possession. Therefore, he must give the object and the additional fifth to his brothers, and they must make a reckoning with him.

If the robber does not have any brothers, and he is thus the only heir, he must still remove the object obtained by robbery from his possession by giving it to his children.

If this son who robbed his father does not have children, he may give it to his creditor, give it as a loan or give it to charity. In such instances, since he has removed the object itself from his possession, he is no longer under obligation, even though he gave it as a present or repaid his debt with it. He must, however, tell the recipient: "This article was obtained by robbery from my father."

Similar laws apply in the following instance. A person robs a convert, takes a false oath in response to his claim and then admits the robbery to him, and the convert considers the entire obligation a debt. If afterwards the convert dies, the robber acquires the object obtained by robbery as his own. He nevertheless is obligated to remove it from his possession.

When does the above apply? When he admitted the robbery to the convert in the interim. If, however, he robbed a convert who did not have any heirs and took a false oath to him, and the convert died, he is obligated to pay the principal and the additional fifth to the priests of the watch serving in the Temple that week. He then brings a guilt offering and thus achieves atonement.

Based on the Oral Tradition, it was taught that the verse in the Torah Numbers 5:8: "If a person does not have a redeemer..." refers to a convert who died without leaving heirs. The guilt offering the verse refers to is the object obtained by robbery or its worth.

For this reason, a person who returns an object that had been obtained by robbing a convert to the priests at night does not fulfill his obligation. For the verse describes this return as a guilt offering, and sacrifices are not offered at night.

The priests may not divide one object obtained by robbing a convert together with another object obtained by robbing a convert, just as they are not permitted to divide the meat of one guilt offering together with the meat of another guilt offering.

Whenever the value of an object obtained by robbing a convert is not sufficient to give every priest from the watch of that week at least a p'rutah's worth, the robber who returns it does not fulfill his obligation. This is implied by Numbers, ibid., which states "it should be returned to God, to the priest," implying that a significant value must be returned to each priest.

Why does the verse referring to the robbery of a convert use the term "a man"? To teach that if the convert has attained majority, we must research the matter to determine whether or not he has heirs. If, however, the convert is a minor, there is no need to research the matter, for we can assume that he does not have heirs.

With regard to the repayment of property obtained by robbing a convert, the priests are considered as recipients of presents. Therefore, when a person robs chametz from a convert who dies without heirs and maintains possession of the chametz that he obtained by robbery during Pesach, he is obligated to pay the priests its value at the time of the robbery. For if he gave it to them at the present time, it would not be considered to be a gift, for one is forbidden to benefit from it. If, however, the convert himself were still alive, he could tell him: "Here is your article," as we have explained.

When a priest robs from a convert who has no heirs, takes a false oath to him, and then the convert dies before the object obtained by robbery is returned to him, the priest does not acquire the object in his possession. Instead, he must give it to his brethren, the priests of the watch serving in the Temple that week.

The following rules apply when a person robs from a convert, takes a false oath to him, the convert dies, the robber sets aside his guilt offering and the object obtained by robbery with the intent of bringing them to the priests, but dies before he could gain atonement. The robber's sons inherit the money set aside to pay for the object obtained by robbery or the object itself. The animal set aside for the guilt offering should pasture until it receives a disqualifying blemish, as has been explained in the appropriate place.

If the robber gave the money to the priests of the watch, but died before the sacrifice that brings him atonement could be offered, the robber's heirs may not expropriate the money from the priests.

This is derived from Numbers 5:10: "When a man gives it to the priest, it shall be his." Even when the robber is a child who does not have the halachic capacity to give his property away as a present, his heirs cannot have the property expropriated from the priests.

If the robber gave the money to priests from a watch that was not serving in the Temple at that time, and the animal to be sacrificed as the guilt offering to the priests of the watch serving in the Temple that week, the money should be given to the priests of the appropriate watch. For a watch that took money at a time other than its week did not acquire it, and it may be expropriated from the members of that watch.

The guilt offering should not be sacrificed until the robber returns the principal to its owner, or to the priests if it was a convert without heirs who was robbed.

If the robber gave the owner the principal but not the additional fifth and had the guilt offering sacrificed, he is granted atonement, for the additional fifth does not prevent atonement from being granted. He is, however, obligated to give the owner the additional fifth after receiving atonement.

The obligation to pay an additional fifth does not apply with regard to the robbery of Canaanite servants, promissory notes and landed property. This is derived from Leviticus 5:21, which states: "If he denies his colleague's claim regarding an entrusted object...." All the subjects mentioned in the verse are movable property that itself has financial worth. Thus, it excludes landed property - and servants, for they are equated with landed property - and promissory notes, for they themselves are not of financial worth.

Similarly, if these articles were obtained by robbing a convert who has no heirs, there is no obligation to give them to the priests.

Moreover, landed property never becomes the property of a robber, but rather it always remains the property of its rightful owner. Even if it were to be sold to a thousand people in succession and the owner were to despair of its return, it must be returned to its rightful owner without charge.

The person from whom it was expropriated should then sue the person who sold it to him. Each person in turn should sue the one who sold it to him, until the person who purchases it from the robber should sue the robber and collect from him, as will be explained in the following chapter.

The following rules apply when a person robs a colleague of property and depreciates its value - e.g., he digs cisterns, trenches or caverns in it, or he cuts down trees, spoils springs or destroys a building - he is obligated to return the house or the field in its original condition, or to pay the owner for the depreciation of value.

If, however, the property depreciates in value as a result of natural phenomena - e.g., the flooding of a river or a fire that came as a result of lightning - the robber can tell the owner: "Here is your property." For landed property remains in the possession of its owner at all times, and the robber is not responsible for its decrease in value. Therefore, he is responsible only when he personally causes the damages. This is not the case with regard to movable property, as has been explained.

The following rules apply when a person robs a colleague of a field and it was in turn taken from him by robbery and seized by brigands in the name of the king. If this is a condition that plagues the land as a whole - e.g., the king has confiscated the fields or homes of all the land's inhabitants - the robber can tell the owner: "Here is your property." If, however, it was confiscated because of the robber, the robber is obligated to provide the owner with another field.

If the king compelled the robber to show him all the property he owned, and the robber showed him the field that he obtained by robbery together with his other fields, and the king confiscated it, the robber is obligated to provide the owner with another field comparable to the one taken, or to pay its value.

When a person obtains a field by robbery and damages it by his actions, the owner of the field is entitled to collect the damages only from the property in the robber's possession; his obligation is equivalent to that of a loan supported by a verbal commitment.

If the robber was called to court and obligated to pay for the damage to the property obtained by robbery, and afterwards sells other property that he owned, the rightful owner of the property taken by robbery may collect his due from properties that the robber has already sold.

If a person obtains property by robbery and benefits from its produce, he must pay for all the produce that he consumed from the property in his possession.

When a person obtains landed property by robbery and increases its worth, the increase should be evaluated. The robber is placed at a disadvantage. If the increase in the property's value is greater than the expenses he undertook, the owner is required to reimburse him only for the expenses. If the expenses he undertook are greater than the increase in the property's value, he receives reimbursement for the expenses only to the extent of the increase in value.

The following rules apply when a person obtains a field by robbery and sells it, and the purchaser causes its value to increase. If the increase in value is greater than the purchaser's expenses, he should be reimbursed for his expenses by the owner. He should collect the principal and the remainder of the increase in value from the robber.

The purchaser may collect the principal even from encumbered property that the robber had sold. By contrast, he may collect the remainder of the increase in the property's value only from property presently in the robber's possession.

If the purchaser was aware that the field had been obtained by robbery when he purchased it, he is entitled to collect only the principal. He forfeits the increase in the property's value that exceeds his expense.

If his expense was greater than the increase in value, regardless of whether or not he recognized that the field was obtained by robbery, he receives reimbursement for the expenses only to the extent of the increase in value. This he collects from the owner of the field. He collects the principal from the robber, even from encumbered property that the robber had sold.

The following rules apply when a person obtains a field by robbery, sells it, and the purchaser derives benefit from its produce. He should calculate the value of the produce that he consumed and pay that to the owner of the field. He should collect this money from the property in the possession of robber.

If he was aware that it was obtained by robbery, he is not entitled to reimbursement for the produce, and may collect only the principal from the robber.

When a person sells a field that does not belong to him, the sale is not binding and the purchaser does not acquire anything, as we have explained. If, however, after selling the field, the robber purchased the field from its rightful owner, the sale to the purchaser is binding.

Even if the robber gave the field obtained by robbery away as a present and then purchased it from its rightful owner, the present is binding, because the thief took the trouble to purchase it so that he will have acted in good faith.

For this reason, if the purchaser sued the robber for selling him a field that did not belong to him, the robber was obligated to pay, the court ordered that an announcement be made regarding the sale of the robber's property in order to pay the purchaser, and the robber purchased the field from its rightful owner after the announcement was made, the original sale to the purchaser is not binding.

Since a public announcement was made to expropriate his property, it was revealed that the robber had not acted in good faith. We thus conclude that he did not purchase the field from its rightful owner in order to establish the validity of the original sale.

If after selling the field he obtained by robbery, the robber purchased it from its rightful owner, but then sold it again, gave it away as a present or endowed it as an inheritance to another person, he has indicated that his intent in purchasing the field was not to establish the validity of the sale to the person who bought it after it was obtained by robbery.

Similarly, if the robber acquired the property as an inheritance, the validity of the original sale is not established.

The following principles apply if the robber expropriated from its owner the property that he had sold as payment for a debt. If the owner had property other than this, and the robber told him: "I want to collect this," we assume that his intent was to establish the validity of his sale. If, however, the owner had no other property besides this, his intent could have been solely to collect his debt.

If the original owner gave the property to the robber later as a present, the purchaser acquires it. The rationale is that if the robber had not exerted himself on behalf of the owner, he would not have given him a present. Why then did he exert himself on behalf of the owner? So that the owner would give him the property and then he could act in good faith and establish the validity of his original sale.

The following rules apply when a person obtains a field by robbery, and after it was established that his intent was to take it by robbery, he then purchases it from the original owner. If the original owner claims: "I was acting under coercion at the time that I sold it to him. I sold it to him against my will, because he was a robber," the robber does not acquire the field, even though there are witnesses that he purchased the field in their presence. Instead, the field should be restored to its original owner, and the robber should be given back the money that he paid.

When is the money returned to the robber? When the witnesses testify that he counted out the money in their presence.

If, however, the witnesses testify that the owner of the land sold the robber the field and acknowledged that he gave him such and such an amount of money in their presence, and the owner claims that he never received the money and acknowledged this only because of his fear of the robber, then the robber is not given anything. Instead, the field is expropriated from him without payment. Since it has been established that the field was taken by robbery, we believe the owner's claim that he acknowledged the payment only out of fear.

The owner of the field does not have to issue a protest over the sale in such an instance, for it has been established that the field was taken by robbery, and any proof of ownership brought by the robber is not accepted. For this reason, he need not issue a protest.

The laws pertaining to a robber are not the same as those that apply when a person coerces a colleague and inflicts physical harm upon him until he sells the property to him. For the person who applies coercion intends to rob, but as yet has not robbed. Therefore, in that instance, if the owner does not issue a protest, the sale is binding.