Genevah - Chapter Four

When a watchman claims that an entrusted article was stolen from his home and takes an oath to this effect, 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.

If he slaughtered or sold a stolen animal after he took the false oath, 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. Nor is he required to add a fifth of the value of the stolen article. 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.

When does the above apply? When he took an oath before he misappropriated the entrusted article. 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. As soon as he misappropriated the article, he became liable for it and acquired responsibility for it.

Similarly, 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.

When 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.

When a watchman claims that an entrusted article was stolen and takes an oath to that effect, 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.

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.

The 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, 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.

The 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. 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.

These 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.

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.

If the watchman took a false oath the question is unresolved. 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.

The owner demanded the return of the entrusted article from the watchman and he paid for the article, and then the thief was discovered. In such a case, the watchman acquires the right to the article and to the double payment. 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.

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.

When a watchman claims that an article entrusted to him by a minor was stolen and takes an oath to that effect, 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...." 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.

When 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 sela from a wallet entrusted to him - if witnesses testify regarding the theft, he is liable for twice the amount of the article.

The above applies even if he returned the sela to its place, and the lamb to the herd. For he remains responsible for them 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.

Slightly different rules apply if a person 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. 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.

When the owner counts his wallet and discovers the full amount, the thief is no longer liable. Moreover, if the owner did not know that the article was either taken or returned, it is not even 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.

When 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, the thief is no longer liable.

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.