Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

In which case the robber is allowed to keep the article itself, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 5.

This applies whether he admitted taking the false oath to the original owner or to the heirs.

He must return the object obtained by robbery and the additional fifth to the estate. Nevertheless, since he has a share in this estate, he need not pay his share.
For example, he took an article worth sixteen zuz. With the additional fifth, he is obligated to pay twenty zuz. If he has three brothers and none of them has the rights of a firstborn, each is entitled to a fourth of the estate. Thus, instead of paying twenty zuz, he must pay only fifteen.

To return his share to him.
The Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 367:5) follow Rashi’s interpretation of Bava Kama 108b. Thus, they differ with the Rambam and maintain that the robber cannot demand his share of the object obtained by robbery back from his brothers.

According to the Rambam, this refers to an instance where the object obtained by robbery exists intact, and the robber is therefore obligated to remove it from his property. If it has already been destroyed, or it has undergone a change, these laws do not apply.

His repentance involves removing the object obtained by robbery from his possession. It is, however, a moral and not a financial obligation, for he himself is the beneficiary of his father’s estate.
Rashi, the Tur and the Ramah (loc. cit.) differ and maintain that if the robber has no brothers, he must return the object obtained by robbery to his uncles, for they are next in line with regard to his father’s inheritance.

Here the intent is a convert who did not father children after his conversion. Thus, he has no legal heirs, and after he dies his property belongs to whoever takes possession of it first. See Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 2:1.

I.e., the principal and the additional fifth.

See the notes on the following halachah.

For it is in his possession at the time of the convert’s death, and he thus assumes legal ownership of it.

By giving it to his sons, a creditor or a charity, as explained above. The Tur and Sefer Me’irat Einayim 367:18 state that it must be given to charity.

When the robber admits the debt to the convert, he becomes obligated to pay the convert for the principal and the additional fifth. Thus, when the convert dies he is freed from that obligation. When he has not made the admission to the convert, however, the obligation did not take full effect at the time of the convert’s death, and the debt is therefore not discharged to the convert. To fulfill his obligation to return the object obtained by robbery, the robber must therefore return the objects to the priests.
From the Rambam’s wording in this and the previous halachah, it is unclear what his ruling would be if the robber admitted having taken the false oath to the convert, but the convert did not consider it a loan. From the previous halachah, it would appear that he is liable. From this halachah, however, it would appear that he is not.
The commentaries have also debated this issue. The Ra’avad states that as long as the convert has not considered the obligation as a loan, the robber must pay the priests. The Maggid Mishneh differs and maintains that even if it was not considered a loan, he is not required to pay the priests.

In the present age, he should pay the sum to charity.

There were 24 priestly watches. Each would serve in the Temple for a week at a time in an ordered pattern. The money returned is divided among all the priests in the weekly watch and not among only those priests (the Beit Av) who served in the Temple that day.

I.e., a relative.

The previous verses repeat the obligation to pay the principal plus an additional fifth when misappropriating money and taking a false oath. Afterwards, the Torah states: “If a man does not have a redeemer to whom the guilt offering can be returned, it should be returned to God, to the priest.” This is one of the 24 presents granted the priests; see Hilchot Bikkurim 1:7 and 10:15.

For every native born Jew will surely have heirs, for the line of inheritance will extend upward until Jacob our patriarch.

I.e., every animal sacrificed as a guilt offering must be divided individually among all the priests. If there are two animals, each priest must be given a smaller piece to each animal, rather than one larger piece of one. Similarly, with regard to property obtained by robbery, each property obtained by robbery must be divided individually.

Rashi, Bava Kama 110a, states that to fulfill his obligation, the robber must add a further sum of his own.

As stated previously, less than a p’rutah is not considered a significant sum of money.

For the same laws also apply to a female convert and to a minor.

This refers to children born after his conversion. Those born to him as a non-Jew are of no significance in this context.

I.e., they are not considered to be the heirs of the convert (and thus an extension of his estate). Instead, the obligation to pay them is a present granted them by God.
This is implied by the verse cited above: “It should be returned to God, to the priest.” The property must be returned to God. After it is returned to Him, He grants it as a present to the priests.

Leaven, which is forbidden on Pesach, remains forbidden after the holiday if it had been owned by a Jew during the festival.

It is thus valueless, and the obligation stated above to give each priest something of value could not be met.

Although the chametz is totally worthless at that time, the robber is still considered to have returned the article, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 4.

This applies even when he admits the robbery during the week his own priestly watch is serving in the Temple.

He, like any other robber, is obligated to return the property “to God.” God in turn grants it to the priests serving in the Temple that week.

Because the object obtained by robbery became the property of the robber at the time of the convert’s death. The robber, however, had a personal obligation to return it. The money he set aside, however, does not become the property of the priests until it is actually given to them.

See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 4:14, which states that when the owner of a guilt offering dies, that offering should not be brought, because there is no concept of atonement through sacrifice after death. The animal should pasture until it receives a blemish that disqualifies it from being offered as a sacrifice. It should then be sold, and another animal should be purchased with the money from the sale and sacrificed as a burnt offering.

One might think that since the robber did not receive atonement, the priests would be enjoined to return the money. This, however, is not the case.

Bava Kama 110b states that giving the money to the priests did convey a partial measure of atonement.

See Hilchot Lulav 8:10 and Hilchot Mechirah 29:1.

For the payment for the object must precede the offering of the sacrifice.

If, however, the robber gave the money to the members of the watch serving in the Temple and gave the guilt offering to another watch, the priests of the latter watch should offer the sacrifice when their time to serve in the Temple arrives, and then the robber attains atonement (Bava Kama 110a).

For the fundamental preparatory step allowing atonement to be granted is the return of the object obtained by robbery.

A defendant is never required to take an oath with regard to these objects. See Hilchot Sh’vuot 7:4. Accordingly, since the fundamental reason for the additional fifth is to atone for a false oath, such a penalty is not imposed in such instances (Maggid Mishneh).

With regard to servants, Leviticus 25:46 states: “And you shall transmit them as a heritage to your children,” indicating they have the same status as landed property that becomes one’s ancestral heritage (Kiddushin 22b).

For a promissory note itself has no intrinsic worth aside from the paper on which it is written. See Bava Kama 105a.

The Ra’avad maintains that they are considered ownerless and can be acquired by any other person after the convert dies. The Maggid Mishneh differs and maintains that according to the Rambam, if the robber takes possession of them with the intent to acquire them after the convert’s death, they become his property. If, however, he does not do so, and another person takes possession first, that person acquires them, as stated in Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 2:2.

In contrast to movable property, which can be acquired by a robber if it undergoes a fundamental change or by a purchaser after the owner despairs of its return. See Chapter 2.

With regard to movable property, by contrast, if the purchaser is obligated to return it, our Sages obligated the owner to reimburse him (Chapter 5, Halachah 7).