Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

When a person informs about property belonging to a colleague and causes it to be taken by a strong, lawless person, he is required to reimburse the owner from the finest property in his possession. If the person who informs about the property dies, the owner may collect his due from his heirs, as is the law concerning others who cause damage.

Whether the strong, lawless person is a gentile or a Jew, the person who informs about the property to be taken by him is considered a moseir and is required to reimburse the owner for everything taken by the lawless person. This applies even if the moseir did not actually hand the other person's property over to the lawless person, but merely informed him about it.

When does the above apply? When the moseir showed the lawless person his colleague's property on his own volition. If, however, gentiles or Jews compelled a person to show them property belonging to a colleague, he is not liable to reimburse his colleague.

Nevertheless, should he physically give over his colleague's property to a lawless person, he is liable to reimburse his colleague even though he was forced to do so. The rationale is that a person who saves himself with money belonging to a colleague is obligated to reimburse him.

What is implied? A king decreed that wine, straw or the like should be brought to him. A moseir arose and said: "So and so has a storehouse of wine or straw in this and this place." If the king's servants went and took possession of the other person's property, the moseir is required to compensate him.

If the king compelled this moseir to go and show him the storehouses of wine or straw, or to show him property belonging to a colleague who is fleeing from the king, and the moseir showed him because of the compulsion, he is not liable. If he had not shown these resources to the king, he would have been beaten or killed.

If the moseir took his colleague's property and handed it to the lawless individual, he is liable to pay, although the king compelled him to do so.

When is he liable to pay if, under duress, he took his colleague's property and handed it to the lawless individual? When the property did not come into the lawless person's possession previously. Different laws apply if, however, the lawless person compelled a Jew to show him a colleague's property, and the lawless person stood over the colleague's property and it came into his possession.

If he then compelled a Jew to transport the colleague's property to another place, even if the person who transported the property is the moseir who showed it to the lawless person, the Jew is not liable. The rationale is that since the lawless person stood at the side of the storehouse, it is considered as if all its contents had been already destroyed; it is as if they had been consumed by fire.

The following rule applies when two litigants are involved in a dispute concerning landed or movable property, each one claiming that it belongs to him. If one of them turns the property in question over to a gentile, he should be placed under a ban of ostracism until he removes the lawless person from the situation, returns the circumstances to their former state and brings the matter for judgment in a Jewish court.

When a person was apprehended by gentiles because of a colleague, and his money was taken by them because of that colleague, the colleague is not liable to reimburse him.

The only instance that reimbursement is required from a colleague when a person is apprehended on that colleague's behalf is when a person is apprehended because of someone's failure to pay the head tax that is applied to all the inhabitants of a country each year, or because of the gift that every individual is required to give the king when he or his soldiers require hospitality. In these instances, the person who failed to pay is obligated to reimburse the person who made the payment, provided the money was taken from him explicitly on account of his colleague, and this took place in the presence of witnesses.

The following laws apply when there are witnesses that a person informed about property belonging to a colleague to a lawless person in a manner that obligates him for reimbursement - i.e., he pointed out his colleague's property on his own initiative or was compelled actually to bring the property to the lawless person, but the witnesses do not know the value of the loss he caused. If the person whose property was taken claims that he lost a specific amount, while the moseir denies that such a loss took place, and the person whose property was taken seizes property belonging to the moseir, it is not expropriated from him. Instead, the plaintiff is required to take an oath while holding a sacred article, and then he is entitled to maintain possession of the property he seized.

If the plaintiff did not seize the moseir's property, property may not be expropriated from the moseir unless there is definite proof of the extent of the loss he caused.

A moseir who showed a colleague's property to a lawless man on his own initiative is not given the prerogative of taking an oath. This applies both to a severe oath, or a sh'vuat hesset. For such a person is deemed wicked; there is no disqualifying factor greater than this.

When, however, a person was compelled to show a lawless man a colleague's property or compelled actually to bring this property to the lawless person, in which instance he is liable to pay, he is not deemed a wicked person. He may be liable to pay, but he is entitled to take an oath, like other worthy men.

It is forbidden to inform about a colleague to the gentiles and endanger his physical person or his property. This applies even when the person concerned is a wicked person who commits sins, and even if he causes one irritation and discomfort. Anyone who actually informs about a Jew and endangers his person or his property to the gentiles will not receive a portion in the world to come.

It is permissible to kill a moseir in any country, even in the present age, when the court no longer metes out capital punishment.

It is permitted to kill him before he informs. When he says: "I will inform on so and so and endanger his person and/or his property" - even property of minimal value - he has made it permissible for others to kill him.

He should be warned and told: "Do not inform." If he says brazenly, "No. I will inform about him," it is a mitzvah to kill him, and whoever kills him receives merit.

If the moseir carried out his threat and informed on a fellow Jew, it appears to me that it is forbidden to kill him, unless he has made it an established pattern to inform. In such an instance, he should be killed, lest he inform on others.

In the cities of the west, the common practice is to punish the mosrim who have made an established pattern of informing with regard to people's property, and to hand the mosrim over to gentiles to punish them, beat them and imprison them, according to their wicked ways.

Similarly, one who causes difficulty and irritation to the community may be handed over to the gentiles to be beaten, imprisoned and fined. It is, however, forbidden to hand over to gentiles a person for causing irritation to one individual.

It is forbidden to destroy property belonging to a moseir, although it is permitted to destroy his life. The reason is that his money is given to his heirs.

When a rodef pursues another Jew to kill or to rape him or her and breaks utensils - either those belonging to the person he is pursuing, or those belonging to another person - he is not liable to make financial restitution. The rationale is that he is liable to be killed, for pursuing another Jew warrants his own death.

When a person who is being pursued destroys utensils belonging to the rodef, he is not liable. The rationale is that the rodef's property should not be considered dearer than his life. If he breaks utensils belonging to others, he is liable. For a person who saves his own life with property belonging to someone else must make restitution.

When a person pursues a rodef to save the person he is pursuing, and in so doing breaks utensils - whether those belonging to the rodef or those belonging to another person - he is not liable. This does not follow the letter of the law, but is a Rabbinic ordinance, enacted so that a person will not refrain from trying to save his colleague, or will hesitate and proceed carefully while he chases after the rodef.

When a ship is about to sink because it is heavily loaded, and one person stands up and makes it lighter by jettisoning some of its cargo, he is not liable. For the cargo is considered like a rodef who is pursuing them to kill the passengers. On the contrary, by jettisoning the cargo and saving them, he performed a great mitzvah.

Blessed be God who grants assistance.