Buying Stolen Items - Rabbi Yisrael Meatuf shlita

00:02 Speaker 1 You’re listening to “Lema’an Yishme’u,” a podcast of Machon Halacha Chabad.

00:09 Speaker 2 We can go step by step. First, what if you know for certain that it’s stolen? Then what happens if it’s suspicious—a suspicious item? To understand that, we’ll first learn about theft and robbery in general. When must the item be returned? Does the thief—the person who stole it, the robber—return the item itself? If he changed the item, does he have to return it as it is? Then the next stage: Is it permissible to buy stolen items? What’s the problem with that, and when is it permissible?

00:52 Speaker 3 Changes to the item—what counts as a change?

00:55 Speaker 2 That’s the question. We’ll see what counts as a change: a substantial change, an insubstantial change, a temporary one, a permanent one. And at the end we’ll give practical examples. Let’s start with a few questions. An Arab comes along and offers to sell me a computer. I ask him, “How much are you selling it for?” He says, “Very cheap.” “Why are you selling it so cheaply?” He says, “I stole it. I stole it from a non-Jew in Tulkarm.” Am I allowed to buy it from him or not? Another question: I bought a secondhand phone. I’ve already bought it. Now I look through the device and see names. I can see that someone else used it, and I begin to suspect that it might be stolen. I call the number listed for the father. He says, “Oh, that was stolen. Someone stole it from my son a few days ago.” What do I have to do now? Do I have to return it to him or not? What about the money I paid? The thief is no longer around. What do we do? Two last examples, and then we’ll get to the principle itself. A man looked at the security footage from renovations in his home and saw his workers stealing materials from his neighbor and using them in his house. What does he do now, after the fact? They’re already inside the wall, inside the house. And a fourth question: a car that you know was stolen. You come to a garage looking for spare parts for your car. The mechanic says, “Here you go, I have cheap spare parts.” You ask, “Why are they so cheap?” He says, “They’re from a stolen car. An Arab came by, stole it and sold it to me”—or perhaps the mechanic stole it himself; I don’t know. Is it permissible to buy the spare parts or not? How is this different from the first case we mentioned, the stolen computer? The computer was stolen; it itself

03:05 Speaker 2 was stolen. Here these are spare parts: a car was stolen and then dismantled. The parts were removed from the car. Something happened to it along the way. So let’s see. As usual, we’ll begin with the sources. The Torah says, “He shall return the stolen property that he stole.” A person who stole committed a transgression, but even after committing it, he has an obligation to return what he took. But look at the wording: “He shall return.” It doesn’t just say, “He shall return the stolen property.” It says, “He shall return the stolen property that he stole.” The Gemara asks: Why say “that he stole”? If it is as it was when he stole it, he must return it. If the stolen property is exactly as it was when he stole it, he returns it. And if not? If it is no longer exactly as it was when he stole it, the Gemara says, “He need only pay its value.” He no longer has to return the stolen item itself; it’s enough to pay its monetary value. You are required to return the stolen item only when it remains as it was.

04:14 Speaker 3 As it was.

04:15 Speaker 2 As it was.

04:16 Speaker 3 So if it—

04:17 Speaker 2 The question now is what counts as a change. That’s the question. But we’ve already established the rule: If it’s as it was when he stole it, he must return it. If it has undergone—uh, if it’s no longer as it was when he stole it, paying its value is enough. If the stolen item is still in the condition it was in when it was stolen—

04:44 Speaker 3 If it hasn’t undergone a change.

04:45 Speaker 2 If it hasn’t undergone a change, he must return it.

04:48 Speaker 4 If it’s still intact?

04:50 Speaker 2 What “intact” means is also a question. So let’s see. You can see it here in the diagram: here’s the person with the stolen item. If the stolen item remains intact, still as it was, there is an obligation to return the item itself. I deliberately used the word “obligation.”

05:10 Speaker 3 Why?

05:11 Speaker 2 Exactly. I deliberately said there is an obligation to return it; I didn’t specify who has to do so. It doesn’t matter where the item is. If it hasn’t undergone any change and the owner hasn’t despaired of recovering it—nothing has happened—then wherever it is, it must go back to its owner. Whether someone gets paid for it, we’ll discuss. But an item that has undergone neither a change nor the owner’s despair is supposed to go back to its owner.

05:31 Speaker 3 What about a sukkah?

05:33 Speaker 2 Right. There’s a special rule about that; we’ll get to it later. It’s called the enactment concerning a stolen beam.

05:40 Speaker 3 A beam?

05:41 Speaker 2 A beam. That means someone took something, stole something, and has already built it into a structure.

05:48 Speaker 3 The enactment for those who repent, right?

05:49 Speaker 2 Yes, it has both names. Under the enactment for those who repent, the Sages ruled that he wouldn’t have to return the item itself, because otherwise he would have to dismantle the house, take things apart.

06:01 Speaker 3 But with a sukkah, after seven days he can still return everything.

06:03 Speaker 2 Correct, with a sukkah. During the seven days, the enactment applies. Once the seven days have passed, you have to return it.

06:08 Speaker 4 Still, it was there for seven days.

06:11 Speaker 2 Now, that’s when the stolen item remains as it was. But if the stolen item has undergone a change—and we’ll soon see what “change” means—the robber is no longer required to return the item itself. It’s enough for him to pay its value. In other words, if it underwent a change—give him a sheet—if it underwent a change and he then sold it to me, after making that change, I no longer have any involvement with the theft or with the person it was stolen from. It has nothing to do with me. I keep it. The robber must pay him, because he already changed the stolen item.

06:49 Speaker 3 If he takes it as well.

06:50 Speaker 2 Right, we’ll see in a moment—

06:51 Speaker 3 Ah.

06:53 Speaker 2 We’ll see the definitions of a change in a moment. A third rule: after the owner has despaired of recovering it, what happens? We know—we’ve already had many, many classes about lost and found property in the previous lessons—that an item may be taken after its owner has despaired of recovering it. Is theft the same? Suppose someone stole an item and the owner despaired of recovering it. For one reason or another, we know the owner has despaired. Does that mean the item now belongs to the robber? The answer is that there’s a difference between a lost item and stolen property. When did the owner’s despair occur? With a lost item, it occurred before you picked it up. The owner had already despaired; now you pick it up and acquire it. But suppose you picked up a lost item that has an identifying mark, before the owner despaired of recovering it. A long time passes and he now despairs. That doesn’t change things. This is called “it came into his possession through a prohibition.” It had already come into your possession unlawfully. The same applies to the robber: when he stole it, he acquired possession unlawfully, so the owner’s subsequent despair doesn’t help. As long as it remains with him, that despair doesn’t help. Therefore, even after the owner has despaired, the robber must still return it. The buyer doesn’t have to. If the robber sold it to someone, when did the item come into that buyer’s possession? After the owner had despaired. The owner’s despair had already occurred while it was with the robber, so the buyer received it afterward.

08:23 Speaker 3 Even if not, that’s a change of ownership, isn’t it?

08:26 Speaker 2 The owner’s despair together with a change of ownership means you can keep it. Despair alone doesn’t help.

08:33 Speaker 3 The buyer has to return it.

08:33 Speaker 2 The buyer has to return it. That’s what I said at the beginning: if the item remains as it was, with neither the owner’s despair nor a change to the item, it must be returned as it is. It doesn’t matter where it is. It could pass through ten people’s hands and still has to go back to its owner.

08:47 Speaker 3 No, wouldn’t just one of those be enough? Just a change of ownership?

08:50 Speaker 2 A change of ownership alone doesn’t help.

08:52 Speaker 3 What’s the difference between theft and... Here you need both.

08:57 Speaker 2 The owner’s despair plus a change of ownership works. Despair alone doesn’t. If the item is still with the robber and the owner despairs of recovering it, that doesn’t help. So... that’s why I said at the start of the class that today, in this part of the class, we’ll discuss items we know for certain are stolen.

09:14 Speaker 3 For certain?

09:14 Speaker 2 For certain. You know they’re stolen. In the next class, I’ll talk about items you suspect are stolen, where there’s uncertainty and many possibilities. We mentioned a car, for example. Say everyone knows his spare parts are stolen, but you still don’t know whether this particular part is stolen. That’s a different rule. Today, though, we’re talking about something you know for certain is stolen. I gave examples at the beginning. It’s less common, but it happens. Now, what actually counts as a change? There are several rules.

09:49 Speaker 3 There’s a problem with stolen goods, because some people actually place orders with the thief. They tell him, “Bring me this, this and this,” and he goes and steals them.

09:59 Speaker 2 They order stolen goods.

10:01 Speaker 3 Stolen goods, and then he goes and steals them to bring to those people, because he doesn’t already have them. So...

10:05 Speaker 2 Then the buyer is really part of it. He’s considered to be assisting.

10:08 Speaker 3 No, the issue is when he’s now selling you the stolen goods he took. These people know they’re stolen. This is a business, so to speak—full-fledged cooperation. That’s the most serious problem.

10:21 Speaker 2 Yes, when you know, that’s the most serious case. When you know. Now, let’s see. We’ll give... Let’s see. First case: there was no change at all—no change of name, I mean. No change of name. What does that mean? Here in the picture you see a plank, and someone cut it in two. What was it called before? A plank. What is it called now? A plank. That doesn’t count as a change. If its name hasn’t changed, it doesn’t count as a change. It was a big plank, and now it’s a small plank. It’s still a plank. Now, when its name does change, there are two possibilities: a temporary change and a permanent change. Let’s look at an example. A temporary change. Here you see... This is an example the Alter Rebbe gives. Here you see stuffing inside a pillow. The case is about a craftsman who works on people’s things. He has scraps left over that he needs to return to them, but he doesn’t, so he has stolen property in his possession. It accumulates, and he fills a pillow with it and sews it shut. Now, in principle, it has undergone a change of name. Why? It was stuffing, and now people call it a pillow. It has changed. But he could just as easily open the pillow and take the stuffing out. That’s called a change that can be reversed to its original state. It isn’t a permanent change. It’s a temporary change.

11:51 Speaker 3 But someone who knows it’s a pillow knows.

11:53 Speaker 2 Right, but in a case where someone knows—say you go to buy from this person, and you know he deals with these things and is known to have stolen property. You buy a pillow from him, and you understand where the filling came from: from what he stole. Now he’s made a change here. Does that make it permissible or not? It’s a temporary change. Note that a temporary change helps only when combined with the owner’s giving up hope of recovering the property. It’s similar to a change of possession. Like...

12:22 Speaker 3 In other words, only if the owner gave up hope.

12:24 Speaker 2 Only if he gave up hope, plus there was a temporary change, does it help.

12:28 Speaker 3 But in this case, how would the owner give up hope because of a thief? He wasn’t a thief to him. The owner gave him fifty meters of fabric to sew him a coat.

12:34 Speaker 2 Exactly, exactly.

12:35 Speaker 3 He took twenty meters on the side.

12:36 Speaker 2 Right.

12:37 Speaker 3 As far as the owner is concerned, he got his order.

12:38 Speaker 2 Exactly. So with these things, you have to work it out. When you see the item, you ask yourself whether the person is aware of what happened or not. For example, a stolen car. You know the whole car was stolen as it was. That’s a good example of what we’re discussing now: a temporary change. Say a garage owner stole the car, removed the battery, and is selling it to you. Removing it is a temporary change. Why? Because just as he removed it, he could put it back. But something has changed: until now it was part of a car, and now it’s an item in its own right. It’s like the stuffing you put into a pillow, which became part of the pillow. So now, presumably, does the car’s owner know it was stolen or not?

13:26 Speaker 3 He knows.

13:26 Speaker 2 He knows. His car was stolen, but he’s probably given up hope of recovering it, so there’s giving up hope here.

13:32 Speaker 3 If he’s certain, he won’t pay him the money.

13:33 Speaker 2 Probably. There’s giving up hope, and there’s... This removal is a temporary change. The two together help, and you can buy it. You can buy it in the first place. Now, what happens if, for example, it becomes known about a garage owner—we know for certain that he doesn’t steal cars. When people come to him for repairs, he swaps parts. He sees a new part, takes it, and puts in an old one. Let’s say, in this class we’re talking about—what?

14:05 Speaker 3 [unclear].

14:06 Speaker 2 Yes, he... Now, in this class we’re talking about something that’s absolutely certain. In the next class we’ll discuss what happens when it isn’t certain. You know he did it; he tells you, “I took this out of someone’s car. I cheated him out of it,” and so on. Now, was there a change here? When he stole it, there was no change at all. What did he steal? He didn’t steal the car; he stole the item. So first, there was no change. And there was probably no giving up hope either, because how would the owner even know what had happened in his car?

14:31 Speaker 3 He slips it out from under him.

14:33 Speaker 2 Yes. In that situation, you’re not allowed to buy it, because nothing has happened that would permit it. Now, the strongest case is a permanent change. A permanent change—here you see someone sanding planks. But note that there also has to be a change of name. In other words, he sands the planks and then builds something from them—say, a box. Building the box itself isn’t called a permanent change, because it can be taken apart. But the sanding he did to the planks cannot be reversed. It cannot be reversed.

15:05 Speaker 3 And the fact that he cut it, too.

15:07 Speaker 2 Right, but cutting it didn’t change its name at all. It was a plank and remained a plank. Here he both sanded it and built a box. So now there has been both a change of name and a physical change: he sanded it, and it cannot return to its original state.

15:23 Speaker 3 You told me earlier, for example, someone ordered tiles for his house at seven o’clock. “Look, the tiles in this car look good to me; put them in.” Then afterward you look at the nails and say, “Hey, the neighbor stole that from me. He stole it, and now it’s already attached to the wall.”

15:36 Speaker 2 Right.

15:36 Speaker 3 Take it apart... You probably can’t get it back from him; it’s already attached to the wall.

15:41 Speaker 2 Okay, now we have to see whether there’s a change of name here. It’s... Seemingly, it’s now attached to the house, so that wouldn’t be a change of name. So, if you can take it apart—

15:49 Speaker 3 No, not take it apart. You understand what I mean.

15:50 Speaker 2 Assuming it can’t be taken apart. There are cases where... you have to take it apart. Assuming it can’t be taken apart, then it’s a change, a complete change. A complete change. But again, the question is—

15:58 Speaker 3 That’s another thing as well.

15:59 Speaker 2 I’ll tell you what the difference is.

16:00 Speaker 3 Nails. You can damage the wood, harm it so that you can’t sell it anymore. That’s not the point. He didn’t sand it. He put a board here with nails. Try taking it apart. You might be able to; you can take it apart.

16:12 Speaker 2 I think it would make a difference whether those planks break or not.

16:17 Speaker 3 It will remain a plank, but it won’t necessarily retain its quality; its quality will be ruined.

16:22 Speaker 2 So apparently the point is that they can’t go back, as though they... Look, the holes he made in the plank are holes too. He made holes and everything. But if he took, uh, I don’t know. The example I want to give is someone who made a ring out of it. That’s exactly something that can be reversed.

16:39 Speaker 3 That’s the example. [unclear]. If he took two straight planks and made a window, you can take the whole thing apart and return it to exactly what it was.

16:45 Speaker 2 You know what? Someone bought something from IKEA that came disassembled. Someone else came and assembled it.

16:53 Speaker 3 Yes.

16:53 Speaker 2 Now it can go back exactly, exactly to how it was at first, when all the holes and everything were already in place. So that’s a change that can be reversed to its original state. Now what follows? A permanent change—we haven’t discussed that yet. A permanent change helps on its own. You don’t need the owner to give up hope; it helps on its own. That means that even if the owner hasn’t given up hope at all, there has been a permanent change.

17:13 Speaker 3 In front of the camera. But yes, you can.

17:17 Speaker 2 So a permanent change means you can buy it. You don’t need the owner to give up hope.

17:24 Speaker 3 Paint—paint is a permanent change.

17:26 Speaker 2 Paint. Now, if painting it didn’t change its name, that isn’t enough. There has to be a change that cannot be reversed—which the paint really is; the painting cannot be undone. But in addition, he needs to do something that changes its name.

17:39 Speaker 3 A permanent change too, even sanding. Light sanding is light sanding.

17:45 Speaker 2 Look, the sanding discussed in halachah means taking pieces of wood, sanding them, and then building a ring from them. Okay, let’s summarize again. A change means that the stolen item itself no longer has to be returned. So the thief returns money instead of the item itself, and someone who bought it from the thief keeps it. That’s what the change does.

18:12 Speaker 3 To sell it. Do you have to return the item itself if he changed it?

18:17 Speaker 2 If he changed it—the thief, or the—

18:20 Speaker 3 Let’s say the thief. If he changed it and can sell it, why would he want to keep...?

18:25 Speaker 2 As far as I remember, no. Once he has changed it, that’s it. Now, without a change of name—if it’s a change that hasn’t affected the essence of the item, not a substantial change, and it hasn’t changed its name—it doesn’t help at all. It’s as though he did nothing. If it’s a temporary change, then the owner must also have given up hope; only together does that help. Without giving up hope, it doesn’t help. If it’s a permanent change, it helps even without the owner giving up hope.

18:52 Speaker 3 For every change made to it, you have to put an announcement in the newspaper. You put an announcement in—

18:57 Speaker 2 Right. So once you, if you—

18:59 Speaker 3 You know.

18:59 Speaker 2 Right. In a case where you don’t know exactly what happened before, you have to assess whether the owner gave up hope or not. So if—

19:06 Speaker 3 You have to distinguish between the different cases. This is something that’s known. I’ll give an example. Come now—you know it’s already gone.

19:12 Speaker 2 In a case of doubt, then—

19:13 Speaker 3 That can’t be. That’s a different issue. But if he stole [unclear], let’s say, for example, someone took something from him off the step at the entrance. Now I let him know, and he gets confused. You understand? Then someone else comes and says to him, “Sell it to me.” Now the person who found it [unclear]. What am I supposed to do now? It’s no longer in its original state. I’ve already given up hope of getting it back.

19:39 Speaker 2 That’s in a case of doubt, when you don’t know whether the owner gave up hope or not. Generally, I’ll tell you what this is about. It’s a very big subject, a very big subject. There’s a robber, a thief, a non-Jew, a Jew. There are disputes upon disputes about it. What do you do when there’s doubt? Do you assume he probably gave up hope? Probably didn’t give up hope? In general, which do people give up hope of recovering more quickly: something taken by robbery or something stolen?

19:59 Speaker 3 Something stolen.

20:00 Speaker 2 In principle, on the one hand, with robbery, you know—you saw someone snatch it and leave. If you didn’t take him to court, you probably gave up hope. On the other hand, with a thief... On the other hand, with a thief, you don’t see who stole from you at all, so you’re also more likely to give up hope. There are disputes about this. What do you do when there’s doubt? It’s very, very complicated. But indeed—

20:20 Speaker 3 I can regret it, do teshuvah, and return the item. If I robbed someone, I can put it back with him.

20:25 Speaker 2 Yes, on the other hand—

20:26 Speaker 3 I don’t know if it disappeared.

20:27 Speaker 2 Yes, right, right. In th-that respect, robbery has an advantage over theft. So that’s... That’s why I chose examples where you know, or can assess, what happened. Once you don’t know, that’s a different story. Now, until now we’ve spoken about a change. What about giving up hope of recovery? When does it help, and when doesn’t it? We mentioned this earlier, but let’s go through it systematically. If there was only giving up hope—the robber robbed someone, and afterward he hears the man tell his friend, “That’s it, I’ve already given up hope of getting it back”—does that mean he can keep the item and pay him for it instead, or not? The answer is no. Why? Because it came into his possession unlawfully. Giving up hope does not help with something that came into his possession unlawfully. He is holding it unlawfully.

21:09 Speaker 3 Return it to him.

21:10 Speaker 2 He has to return the item itself, not the money. Giving up hope plus—plus a temporary change. We mentioned this earlier. He made a temporary change to it, so that does help, and he can keep it. Another possibility is giving up hope plus a change of ownership. The owner has already given up hope of recovering what was stolen, and then I bought it. For example—

21:30 Speaker 3 What did you pay for it?

21:31 Speaker 2 What?

21:32 Speaker 3 What, you paid for it?

21:32 Speaker 2 I paid the thief for it. Now let’s take the example we discussed earlier, about the... the person who—

21:39 Speaker 3 What does a change—a temporary change—mean? He didn’t pay money for the item.

21:43 Speaker 2 Giving up hope plus a temporary change—I’m talking about the robber himself; he didn’t sell it to anyone at all. Giving up hope plus a change of ownership means it passed to someone else. Let’s use the example we gave earlier. Someone bought a secondhand phone and discovers it was stolen. Now he calls the number. As he’s speaking to the father and the father says, “Wow, we’d completely given up hope of getting it back. We thought it would never come back to us. Good thing you found it,” and so on—the buyer realizes that there had already been giving up hope and a change of ownership, so he’s no longer obligated to return it.

22:13 Speaker 3 When it comes into the robber’s possession, that doesn’t—it doesn’t count as giving up hope.

22:17 Speaker 2 What?

22:17 Speaker 3 When it comes into the robber’s, the thief’s, possession, giving up hope doesn’t help.

22:21 Speaker 2 Yes, but it all happened before it came to you.

22:24 Speaker 3 To the own—to the buyer.

22:26 Speaker 2 Yes. The owner gave up hope before it came to the buyer. There’s a dispute over whether it has to be before, or whether it can also be afterward. But in general, giving up hope together with a change of ownership does help. Now, that’s according to the letter of the law, according to the—

22:38 Speaker 3 Giving up hope before it goes from the robber to...

22:40 Speaker 2 From the robber to the buyer. That’s according to the letter of the law. In other words, I’ll give you two possibilities. With that same phone, I call the owner and see that he hasn’t given up hope. He says, “It was stolen yesterday; I’ve been looking for it since yesterday.” I believe him that he hasn’t given up hope, so I have to return it to him.

22:59 Speaker 3 Wait, but does he have to pay me what it cost?

23:01 Speaker 2 Ah. This is where the enactment to protect buyers comes in. The Sages enacted it because otherwise—if someone discovers an item was stolen and returns it—people won’t want to buy things. They might suddenly discover that something was stolen and have to return it.

23:14 Speaker 3 He can also pay.

23:15 Speaker 2 So they enacted that the owner has to pay for the—the item he’s getting back.

23:19 Speaker 3 He’ll get it back without having stolen it.

23:20 Speaker 2 Exactly. How much will he get? What happens...? He says to him—

23:24 Speaker 3 The person who stole it from him.

23:25 Speaker 2 Yes. Now he says to him, “How much did you pay for it?” He says, “Three hundred shekels.” He says, “A new one like that costs two hundred and fifty. Why did you pay three hundred?” But that’s not the buyer’s problem. I paid three hundred for it; I get the three hundred back. I get the amount I paid. Unless—if the owner doesn’t want it, he doesn’t have to take it. The buyer will have to turn to [unclear] and say, “Look, I bought it. Go to the thief; find some way to get the money out of him.” But the buyer isn’t at fault. So that’s if the owner hadn’t given up hope. If he hadn’t given up hope, the buyer has to return the item and will get his money back. By the way, what if he knew it was stolen and bought it? Like the example we gave at the beginning involving a non-Jew—we haven’t discussed non-Jews yet—but someone tells you, “I stole this from a non-Jew,” and you want to buy it. Let’s set the non-Jew aside: if you bought something you knew for certain was stolen, you’re not entitled to get your money back. You knew it was stolen. The item goes back to its owner, and you have to go to the thief.

24:21 Speaker 3 With a non-Jew, you can.

24:24 Speaker 2 Ah, regarding—also regarding a non—what?

24:28 Speaker 3 It doesn’t apply to a non-Jew.

24:31 Speaker 2 Right. Now, if it was stolen from a non-Jew—yes, in general, the Alter Rebbe says that all the prohibitions against benefiting from theft and robbery apply to a non-Jew as well. That’s what he writes. We’ll expand on the subject of a non-Jew later. All right. Until now we’ve discussed the robber himself: when the item becomes his and when it doesn’t. We’ve also discussed what happens after the fact if I bought it. The question now is whether I’m allowed to buy something stolen in the first place. More precisely, what’s the problem with buying something stolen? I didn’t steal it; I’m only buying it. What’s wrong with that? Let’s see. We’ll read it inside. We’ll read part of it, and if there’s time, we’ll read more. Section 9, the second passage. The Alter Rebbe says: “It is forbidden to buy from a thief an item that he stole, and it is a grave sin, for one thereby supports those who commit transgressions. Of this it is said, ‘One who shares with a thief hates his own soul,’ and one causes him to commit further thefts, for if he cannot find a buyer, he will not steal.” Let’s stop here for a moment. He says here that you support those who commit transgressions and cause the thief to commit further thefts. How do you cause him to? By buying something he stole. Because if he knows that... Yes, in the Gemara it’s called, “It is not the mouse that steals, but the hole that steals” [unclear]. Right?

26:03 Speaker 3 It’s an option.

26:04 Speaker 2 Yes, he has somewhere to sell it, so he steals. Now, what’s interesting is that in the Rambam, this verse that the Alter Rebbe brings appears at the end. The Alter Rebbe puts it in the middle. The Rambam says: “It is forbidden to buy from a thief an item that he stole, for one thereby supports those who commit transgressions and causes further thefts.” At the end he writes, “And of this it is said, ‘One who shares with a thief hates his own soul.’” The Alter Rebbe puts that in the middle. We’ll see—if there’s time, I’ll tell you why I think that is. What’s more, the Tur puts the two points right together. He writes, “Supports those who commit transgressions by causing him to commit further thefts.” In other words, what is this—what are you doing here? What does it mean to support him? You’re causing him to commit further thefts. That’s the problem here. By putting the verse in the middle, the Alter Rebbe separates the two. There are two distinct reasons here: supporting those who commit transgressions, and causing him to commit further thefts. We’ll come back to that shortly. Now look at section 10. Actually, before we continue, let’s finish one more sentence here, on the third line of section 9. The fourth line: “Even though he could take it to a place where people do not know he is a thief.” Seemingly, what’s the problem if I buy it? He could go somewhere else, where nobody knows he’s a thief, and sell it there.

27:32 Speaker 3 Right.

27:34 Speaker 2 “Although he could take it to a place where people do not know he is a thief, that is not so readily available to him.” It is not so easy for a person to keep looking for places where no one knows him so he can sell things. “And if everyone who knows and recognizes him refuses to buy from him, he will not steal as much.” Once you take away his ability to sell to people around him who know him, it means that every time he wants to sell something, he has to go somewhere people do not know him. That will reduce the number of thefts he commits. “Therefore, everyone who knows him is forbidden to buy from him.” In other words, it is not necessarily that he will steal only because of you. He can still steal and sell in all sorts of places. But if everyone around him stops buying, it will reduce the thefts. That is why it is forbidden to buy. Let’s continue: It is likewise forbidden to buy from a robber, unless one intends to benefit the owners by returning it to them.

28:36 Speaker 5 In order—

28:36 Speaker 2 In order to return it to the owners.

28:39 Speaker 5 And they will reimburse him for it.

28:40 Speaker 2 And they will reimburse him for it. Since we have already started reading this, let’s finish it: “Provided that the owners could not have recovered it themselves had he not bought it.” Pay attention: earlier we discussed someone who bought an item without knowing it was stolen, and then discovered it was stolen. There is the enactment for the protection of buyers in the marketplace: he returns the item and receives his money back. Now we are talking about a case where he knows it is stolen. He knows it is stolen, and he is forbidden to buy it. But what if he wants to buy it for the owners’ benefit, to return it to them? What happens if the owners could have recovered it themselves? There is a procedure: you go to the police, file a claim, or whatever it may be. They could have gotten it back. They say to him, “You rescued it for us, but why did you pay money for it? I could have done that for free.” Pay attention: he will not get his money back. Even though he acted for the owners’ benefit, he will not get his money back. When does he get reimbursed? When they could not have recovered it themselves. If the owners could have recovered it themselves, he does not get his money back. Now, that is one prohibition: you may not buy from a robber. Why? Because you strengthen the hands of someone committing a transgression and cause him to commit other thefts. Notice a third point. In section 10, there is a case where someone was not sure whether the item was stolen, and so on. The Alter Rebbe continues: “But if he knows that this is the stolen item itself, he is forbidden to benefit from it, whether by buying it or while it is still in the robber’s possession, such as by riding on an animal.” There is a separate prohibition here: benefiting from stolen property. Apart from the prohibition against encouraging the thief and so on, you yourself are forbidden to benefit from a stolen item. As long as it is considered stolen property, you may not benefit from it.

30:32 Speaker 5 Stolen property.

30:33 Speaker 2 Right. If it is still considered stolen property. In other words, if the owners had given up hope of recovering it and you bought it without knowing it was stolen, and now you discover that it was stolen, that status has already ended. The designation of “stolen property” has fallen away from it. You are forbidden to benefit from it.

30:48 Speaker 5 With the owners’ giving up hope.

30:49 Speaker 2 Because there is both the owners’ giving up hope and a change of possession. But without those things, you may not benefit from it. A change of possession alone does not help. Either one alone does not help. In short, neither the owners’ giving up hope alone nor a change of possession alone is enough. If the owners have only given up hope, that means the item is still with the robber; there has been no change of possession. The robber himself cannot acquire it through the owners’ giving up hope alone. What you said is written right here. The Alter Rebbe says: “Even if the owners have already given up hope of recovering it,” that does not help, “because giving up hope alone does not remove the stolen item from its owners’ possession so that the robber acquires it as his own, as with a found object.” This is not like a found object, where the owners’ giving up hope alone makes it yours. What is the difference? “Because it came into his possession through the prohibition of robbery. Therefore, it always remains in its owners’ possession as long as it is in the robber’s possession.” As long as the robber has it, it still belongs to the owners. Only when it leaves his possession does it become the buyer’s. Let’s skip to section 11 and finish the subject of benefiting from it. He says: “Likewise, one may not enter a house known to have been stolen to shelter from the sun in hot weather or from the rain when it rains, or cross a field known to have been stolen.” If you know that someone forcibly evicted a person from his house and stole the house, you may not benefit from that house. Even going inside to escape the rain or the sun is a benefit. There is a prohibition against benefiting from stolen property.

32:22 Speaker 5 Acquiring property.

32:23 Speaker 2 No, that is a good question. I hope to—

32:26 Speaker 5 Someone was evicted from his home, or it was stolen from him, and someone else bought it.

32:30 Speaker 2 I hope that in the third class we will... talk about that. Acquiring property.

32:37 Speaker 5 But he bought it from the person. There are many things we have bought. [unclear] A lot of people bought things. Many, many, many people bought [unclear] from stores. He bought it in a store. What remains of the store is mine. They bought it in a store, the house, because [unclear] the police. Look here. I have photographs. Look at the notice from my daughter’s wedding. It is mine. What do we do?

33:03 Speaker 2 Well, first of all, it is hashgacha pratis that you asked about this, because I had not finished explaining the law earlier, and it is very important. We were talking before about a case where the owners had given up hope and there had been a change of possession, and we said that in that case you do not have to return it. In principle, you do not have to return it. If the owners had not given up hope, you have to return it and you receive your money back. If they had given up hope or there was a change of possession, you do not have to return it. But I did not finish this point. The Alter Rebbe says that the custom is to return it in every case. Why? He writes there that, in that region, this was the law of the land. The rule under that government was that stolen property had to be returned in every case, and therefore that is what one must do. But the Shach adds that this is not only because of the government’s law; it is also an enactment that was instituted because returning it is the right and proper thing to do. So it follows that even where the owners had given up hope or there was a change of possession, there is still a custom, and reason, to return it. It is along the lines of what we discussed regarding a found object, if you remember: even after the owners have given up hope, one should return it beyond the letter of the law. Here the Alter Rebbe writes that the custom is to return it as a matter of law. In what sense is it a matter of law? Because the law of the land is law. But even where that is not the law, there is still reason to return it because of the enactment. So that answers what you are saying. If someone recognizes his item, you can tell him, “Listen, I do not believe it is yours.” But he would have to bring witnesses that it really was his. You understand? If you do believe him, then you have an obligation to return it. But he cannot sue you for it.

34:33 Speaker 5 No, no, no, leave that aside. How much will I pay you for it?

34:39 Speaker 2 Incidentally, he has to pay. He has to pay, yes, as we discussed earlier. He has to pay even if... even if the owners had not given up hope, because I bought it for... Oh, you mean that he knew it was stolen—the person who bought it. If that person—

34:51 Speaker 5 If he knew.

34:51 Speaker 2 If the person who bought it knew it was stolen, then, if the owners had not given up hope, he would have to return it without getting his money back. But if they had already given up hope, that is a little different. Let’s get into it. The Tzemach Tzedek says that, strictly speaking, you may keep it.

35:04 Speaker 5 So if it becomes clear... the knowledge that it... that he never had it in his life, he found it, how much can he pay you? Now, strictly speaking, if he took the money, he cannot.

35:13 Speaker 2 Strictly speaking, he may keep it altogether. But under the enactment and the custom, he should return it, and here he can receive his money back. The Alter Rebbe—the Tzemach Tzedek inclines toward saying that he can receive his money back in this case.

35:23 Speaker 5 In other words, they do give him the money.

35:26 Speaker 2 No. What the Alter Rebbe said earlier about whether he gets his money back was about the strict law: when you are required by law to return it. In that case, if you knew it was stolen, you do not get your money back; if you did not know, you do. In a case where the owners had given up hope or there was a change of possession, you are no longer required by strict law to return it. But because of the custom and the enactment, you do have to return it. Here the Tzemach Tzedek says that you may be able to get your money back even if you knew it was stolen.