Buying Stolen Items - Rabbi Yisrael Meatuf shlita

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

00:09 Speaker 2 We can go step by step. First, what if it’s definitely stolen? Then, what if it’s suspicious—a suspicious item? To understand that, let’s first learn about theft and robbery in general. When does it have to be returned? Does the thief, the robber, have to return the actual item? If he altered it, does he still have to return it as it is? And then the next step: is it permissible to buy stolen items? What’s the problem with that? When is it permissible?

00:52 Speaker 3 An alteration to the item—what counts as an alteration?

00:55 Speaker 2 That’s the question. We’ll see what counts: a substantial alteration, a minor one, 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.” May I buy it from him or not? Another question: I bought a secondhand phone. I’ve already bought it. Now I look through the device. I see names; I can see that someone used it before, and I start to suspect it might be stolen. I call a number saved in it, the father’s number. 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 into the learning itself. A man checks the camera footage from renovations in his home and sees his workers stealing materials from the 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 you know was stolen. You go to a garage looking for spare parts for your car. The mechanic says, “Here you go, I have spare parts cheap.” You ask, “Why are they so cheap?” He says, “It’s a stolen car. An Arab came by, stole it and sold it to me.” Or maybe he stole it himself; I don’t know. May you buy the spare parts or not? How is that different from the first case, with the stolen computer? The computer was stolen,

03:05 Speaker 2 the whole thing was stolen. Here these are spare parts: the car was stolen and then dismantled. The parts were taken off the car. It has gone through a process. So let’s see. As usual, we’ll start with the sources. The Torah says, “He shall return the stolen property that he stole.” A person who committed robbery has committed a prohibition, but even after that, he has an obligation to return what he took. But notice 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: What do the words “that he stole” teach us? If it is as it was when he stole it, he must return it. If the stolen item is exactly as it was when he stole it, he must return it. And if not? If it’s 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, because you’re obligated to return the stolen item itself only when it remains as it was.

04:14 Speaker 3 As it was.

04:15 Speaker 2 As it was. The question now is what counts as an alteration. That’s the question. But we already know the rule: if it’s as it was when he stole it, he has to 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 at the time of the theft—

04:44 Speaker 3 If it hasn’t undergone an alteration.

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

04:48 Speaker 4 If it’s with the thief?

04:50 Speaker 2 Whether it’s with the thief 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 is still intact, just as it was, it must be returned as it is. I deliberately used the word “must.” That’s it. I intentionally said it must be returned; I didn’t specify who has to return it. It doesn’t matter where it is. If it hasn’t undergone any alteration and there’s been no yei’ush—the owner giving up hope of recovering it—nothing at all, then no matter where it is, it has to go back to its owner. We’ll talk about payment, but an item that has undergone neither alteration nor yei’ush 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 law about that; we’ll get to it later. Yes, it’s called takanas marish.

05:40 Speaker 3 Marish?

05:41 Speaker 2 Marish. It means that someone took something, stole something, and already built it into a structure.

05:48 Speaker 3 Takanas hashavim, isn’t it?

05:49 Speaker 2 Yes, it has both names. Takanas hashavim. To encourage people to make amends, they instituted that he would not have to return the actual item, because that would mean dismantling the house, taking things apart.

06:01 Speaker 3 But that’s a sukkah. After the festival he can still return everything.

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

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

06:12 Speaker 2 Now, that’s when the stolen item remains as it was. But if it has undergone an alteration—and in a moment we’ll see what an alteration means—then the robber no longer has to return the stolen item. It’s enough for him to pay its value. In other words, if it has undergone, if it has undergone an alteration—I need to give him a sheet of paper. If it has undergone an alteration and he then sold it to me, after making the alteration, then I’m no longer involved with the theft. I have no dealings with the person it was stolen from; it has nothing to do with me. I keep it. The robber has to pay him. He already altered the stolen item.

06:49 Speaker 3 That too.

06:50 Speaker 2 Right. We’ll soon see the definitions of an alteration. A third law: what happens after yei’ush? We know—we’ve already had many classes about lost and found items, in earlier lessons—that after the owner gives up hope of recovering an item, you may take it. Is robbery the same? If someone stole something and the owner gave up hope of recovering it—we know, for various reasons, that he gave up hope—does that mean the robber now gets to keep it? The answer is that there’s a difference between a found item and stolen property. When did the yei’ush happen? With a found item, when did the owner give up hope? Before you picked it up. The owner had already given up hope, and now you pick it up and acquire it. But suppose you picked up a lost item with an identifying mark before the owner gave up hope, and only after a long time did he give up hope. That doesn’t change things. It’s still a case of “it came into your hands while subject to an obligation.” It had already come into your hands when you were not permitted to keep it. The same applies to the robber: he took it unlawfully, so the owner’s subsequent yei’ush doesn’t help. As long as it’s with him, yei’ush doesn’t help. Therefore, even after yei’ush, the robber still has to return it. A buyer does not. If the robber sold it to someone, when did that buyer receive it? After yei’ush. The owner had already given up hope while it was with the robber, so the buyer received it after yei’ush.

08:23 Speaker 3 Even if not, there’s a change of possession, isn’t there?

08:26 Speaker 2 Yei’ush together with a change of possession allows you to keep it. Yei’ush by itself may not 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 stolen item remains as it was, with neither yei’ush nor an alteration, 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 the owner.

08:47 Speaker 3 No, isn’t one of them enough? Just a change of possession?

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

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

08:57 Speaker 2 Yei’ush plus a change of possession works. Yei’ush alone doesn’t work. When the item is with the robber and the owner gives up hope, that doesn’t help. So... right. That’s why I said at the start of the lesson that in this part we’ll talk about items that are definitely stolen.

09:14 Speaker 3 Definitely?

09:14 Speaker 2 Definitely stolen. You know they’re stolen. In the next lesson we’ll talk about items you suspect are stolen—cases of doubt, with many possibilities. We spoke, for example, about a car, right? There’s a garage where everyone knows the spare parts are stolen, but you still don’t know that this particular part is stolen. That’s a different law. Here we’re talking about something you know for certain is stolen. I gave examples at the beginning of things that are definitely stolen. It’s less common, but it happens. Now, what is an alteration, really? What counts as an alteration? There are several rules.

09:49 Speaker 3 There’s a problem with stolen goods, because some people, for example, place orders with the thief. They say, “Bring me this, this and this,” and he gets it for them. He gets...

09:59 Speaker 2 They order thefts.

10:01 Speaker 3 Thefts, and then he goes and steals to bring them what they asked for, because he already has a buyer lined up. So...

10:05 Speaker 2 Then that person is really part of it. He’s considered someone who assists in the wrongdoing.

10:08 Speaker 3 No, the problem is that he’s now selling you the stolen property, the things he took. Those people know that it’s... It’s all an operation, so to speak, full and complete 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 can... yes. So let’s look at the first case. There was no change at all—no change of name, that is. 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 large plank, and now it’s a small plank, but 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 of a temporary change. Here you see stuffing inside a pillow. This is an example the Alter Rebbe gives. He’s talking about a craftsman who works on things for people. He has leftover material that he needs to return to them, but he doesn’t, so it’s stolen property in his possession. It accumulates, and he fills a pillow with it and sews it shut. In principle, its name has changed. Why? It was stuffing, and now people call it a pillow. But he could just as easily open the pillow and take it out. That’s called a change that can be reversed—a change that isn’t permanent. A temporary change.

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

11:53 Speaker 2 Right, but in a case where you know—say you go to buy from someone you know deals in these things, and he has a reputation for possessing stolen goods. You buy a pillow from him, and you realize where the filling came from: something he stole. Now he’s made a change to it. Does that make it permissible or not? It’s a temporary change. Note that a temporary change only helps together with the owner’s giving up hope of recovering it. It’s similar to a change of ownership. 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 and there was a temporary change—together, they help.

12:28 Speaker 3 But in this case, how would the owner have given up hope? The man didn’t steal it outright. Someone gave him fifty meters of fabric, [unclear], and he still has some.

12:34 Speaker 2 Exactly, exactly.

12:35 Speaker 3 Twenty meters [unclear] on the side.

12:36 Speaker 2 Good.

12:37 Speaker 3 As far as the owner is concerned, he received more material.

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. Take a stolen car, for example. You know the whole car was stolen as it was. That’s a good example of the temporary change we’re discussing. 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 took it out, he can put it back. But there was a change: until now it was part of a car, and now it’s a separate item. It’s like the stuffing put into a pillow, which became part of the pillow. 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 has 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 the removal is a temporary change. The two together help you: you can buy it. You can buy it in the first place. Now what happens if, for example, there’s a garage owner people know for certain does not steal cars, but when people bring their cars in for repair...

13:56 Speaker 3 He swaps parts.

13:56 Speaker 2 He swaps parts. He sees a new part, takes it, and puts an old part in its place. Let’s say—right now, in this class, we’re talking about... What?

14:06 Speaker 3 A kind of expert.

14:06 Speaker 2 Yes. In this class we’re talking about a case where you’re absolutely certain. Next class we’ll talk about what happens when you aren’t certain. You know he did it; he tells you: “I took this out of somebody’s car. I cheated him out of it,” right? Now, was there a change? 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 the owner probably hasn’t given up hope either, because how would he even know what happened to his car?

14:31 Speaker 3 He slips one past 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. Here you see someone sanding planks. But note that the name has to change too. 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 can’t be undone. It can’t be undone.

15:05 Speaker 3 Nor can the cutting he did.

15:07 Speaker 2 Right, but cutting it didn’t change its name. It was a plank and remained a plank. Here he both sanded it and built a box. So there was a change of name and a physical change: the sanding means it can’t return to its original state.

15:23 Speaker 3 You mentioned an example earlier: someone ordered something and had ceramic tiles installed at home. [unclear] Then you look at the tiles and say, “Wow, the neighbor stole these from me”—or stole them from the neighbors—and now they’re already stuck to the floor.

15:36 Speaker 2 Right.

15:36 Speaker 3 Once a tile breaks, you can’t put it back where it was. It’s already attached to your place.

15:41 Speaker 2 Okay, now we need to see whether its name has changed. It’s... ostensibly, 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 can build.

15:50 Speaker 2 Assuming it can’t be taken apart. Some can... we need to consider that, yes. Assuming it can’t be taken apart, it’s a complete change. A complete change. But again, the question is—

15:58 Speaker 3 There’s one more thing.

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

16:00 Speaker 3 Nails. You can damage the wood, do something to it so you can no longer repair it. That’s not right. He didn’t sand it; he just used glue and nails. If you try to take it apart, it might split or come apart.

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

16:17 Speaker 3 It would remain a plank, but it wouldn’t necessarily retain the same condition or quality it had before.

16:22 Speaker 2 So apparently the point is that they wouldn’t go back to how they were. Look, the holes he made in the plank are holes. He drilled holes and everything. But if he took—I don’t know. The example I want to give is a plank he made into a ring. How exactly could that go back?

16:39 Speaker 3 That’s the example. [unclear] If he took two straight planks and made holes, he can take the whole thing apart and have exactly what he had before.

16:45 Speaker 2 You know what? Someone bought something from IKEA that came in pieces, and another person came and assembled it.

16:53 Speaker 3 Yes.

16:53 Speaker 2 Now it can go back exactly to how it was at the start, when all the holes and everything else were already in place. So that’s a change that can be reversed. Now what do we get from this? We haven’t discussed permanent change yet. A permanent change works on its own. You don’t need the owner to give up hope; it works on its own. So even if the owner hasn’t given up hope or anything, there was a permanent change.

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

17:17 Speaker 2 So a permanent change makes it possible to buy the item. You don’t need the owner to give up hope.

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

17:26 Speaker 2 Paint. Now, if painting didn’t change its name, that isn’t enough. You need a change that can’t be reversed, and the paint really can’t be undone. But in addition to that, you’d need to do something that changes its name.

17:39 Speaker 3 Even a permanent change, even sanding. Sanding the raw material is still sanding the raw material.

17:45 Speaker 2 Look, the sanding discussed in halachah is when someone takes pieces of wood, sands them, and then builds a box from them. Okay, so let’s summarize again. A change means he isn’t obligated to return the item itself. Instead, the thief pays money for it, and someone who bought it from the thief keeps it. That’s what the change does.

18:12 Speaker 3 To sell it. Does he 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 Say the thief. If he changed it, can he sell it and do whatever he wants with it? Go on.

18:25 Speaker 2 As far as I remember, no. Once he’s changed it, that settles it. Now, without a change of name: if he made a change that did nothing to the item’s essence, no substantial change, and didn’t change its name, it doesn’t help at all. It’s as though he did nothing. If it’s a temporary change, you also need the owner to give up hope. Only then does it help; without that, it doesn’t. If it’s a permanent change, it helps even if the owner hasn’t given up hope.

18:52 Speaker 3 [unclear] You have to put an announcement in the newspaper. You put an announcement in...

18:57 Speaker 2 Exactly. So once you—if you—

18:59 Speaker 3 Are aware.

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

19:06 Speaker 3 To publicize it widely—that’s something that becomes known. I’ll give an example. Suppose you come now and find [unclear] at the lookout.

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

19:13 Speaker 3 That can’t be. That’s the question. But if it’s a theft where he could know—for example, someone took the step from his entrance, and he knows someone took it. Now if you tell him, he’ll be confused. You understand? Then someone else comes to him and says, “Give it back to me.” Now, that person paid for it. He didn’t see it, didn’t sell it—he paid for it. Why would I still be upset about it now? I’ve already given up hope of getting it back.

19:39 Speaker 2 So that’s a case of doubt, when you don’t know whether there was yeiush—whether the owner gave up hope—or not. In general, I’ll tell you what this is: 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 say he probably gave up hope? Probably didn’t? In general, which do people give up hope of recovering sooner: something taken by robbery or something stolen secretly?

19:59 Speaker 3 Something stolen secretly.

20:00 Speaker 2 In principle, on the one hand, with robbery you know—you see someone snatch it and leave. If you didn’t take him to court, you’ve probably given up hope. On the other hand, with a thief... On the other hand, when you see that someone stole from you, you’re also more likely to give up hope. So there are disputes about this. What do you do in a case of 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’s disappeared.

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

21:09 Speaker 3 He has to return it to him.

21:10 Speaker 2 He has to return the item itself, not the money. Yeiush plus a temporary change—we mentioned that earlier. He made a temporary change to it, so that does help, and he can keep it. Another possibility is yeiush plus a change of possession. The owner of a stolen item has already given up hope, and then I buy it. For example—

21:30 Speaker 3 What, you paid 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...

21:39 Speaker 3 What’s a change—a temporary change? I didn’t pay; I also paid.

21:43 Speaker 2 With yeiush plus a temporary change, I’m talking about the robber himself; he didn’t sell it to anyone at all. Yeiush plus a change of possession means it passed to someone else. Let’s use the example we gave earlier. Someone buys a secondhand phone and discovers it was stolen. Now he calls about it. When he calls 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 and so forth, the buyer realizes there was already yeiush and a change of possession. He is no longer obligated to return it.

22:13 Speaker 3 When it comes into his possession, he hasn’t given up hope.

22:17 Speaker 2 What?

22:18 Speaker 3 When it comes into the robber’s—the thief’s—possession, he hasn’t given up hope.

22:21 Speaker 2 Yes, but all of that is before it comes to you.

22:24 Speaker 3 To the buyer.

22:26 Speaker 2 Yes, the yeiush happened before it came to the buyer. There’s a dispute about whether it has to happen beforehand or whether it can happen afterward too, but generally, yeiush together with a change of possession does help. Now, that’s according to the strict law, according to the—

22:37 Speaker 3 Yeiush before it passes from the robber to...

22:40 Speaker 2 From the robber to the buyer. That’s according to the strict law. In other words, I’ll give you two possible scenarios. With that same phone, I call the owner and see that he hasn’t given up hope. He says, “It was stolen from me 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. That’s where the enactment for the protection of 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 is stolen and have to return it. So they enacted that the owner has to pay for the—he gets the item back. Exactly. How much does he get? What happens—

23:23 Speaker 3 The person it was stolen from.

23:24 Speaker 2 Yes. Now the owner asks him, “How much did you pay for it?” He says, “Three hundred shekels.” The owner says, “A new one like that costs two hundred and fifty. Why did you pay three hundred for it?” That’s not the buyer’s problem. I paid three hundred for it, so I get the three hundred back. I get the money I paid, unless—if the owner doesn’t want to, he doesn’t have to. He’ll have to pursue the matter and say, “Look, I bought it. Go to the thief and get the money out of him somehow.” But the buyer isn’t at fault. So that’s if there was no yeiush. If there was no yeiush, he has to return the item, and he’ll 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 it’s something you know for certain was stolen and you bought it, you aren’t 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 What about a non-Jew—is that allowed?

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

24:28 Speaker 3 It doesn’t matter that he’s a non-Jew. You return it to the owner.

24:31 Speaker 2 Right. Now, if it was stolen from a non-Jew—yes, in general, the Alter Rebbe writes that all the prohibitions against benefiting from theft and robbery apply to a non-Jew too. We’ll discuss the subject of a non-Jew in more detail later. All right, until now we’ve talked about 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. Or more precisely, what’s wrong with buying something stolen? I didn’t steal it; I’m only buying it. What’s the problem? So let’s see. We’ll read it inside. We’ll read some 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 the article 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 he causes the thief to commit further thefts, for if he could not find a buyer, he would not steal.” Let’s stop there for a moment. He says here that the buyer supports those who commit transgressions and causes the thief to commit further thefts. How do you cause that? By buying something he stole. Because if he knows that—yes. In the Gemara it’s called, “It isn’t the mouse that steals; it’s the hole that steals.” Yes?

26:03 Speaker 3 That’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 cites appears at the end. The Alter Rebbe puts it in the middle. The Rambam says: “It is forbidden to buy from a thief the article he stole, for one thereby supports those who commit transgressions and causes him to commit further thefts.” At the end he writes, “Of this it is said, ‘One who shares with a thief hates his own soul.’” The Alter Rebbe puts it in the middle. If there’s time, I’ll tell you what I think the reason is. What’s more, the Tur puts the two points right together. He writes, “He supports those who commit transgressions, causing him to commit further thefts.” In other words, 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 split this into two. There are two distinct reasons here: supporting those who commit transgressions, and causing him to commit further thefts. We’ll talk more about that shortly. Now look at section 10. Maybe 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 they do not recognize him as a thief.” Seemingly, what’s the problem if I buy it? He could go somewhere else, where no one knows he’s a thief, and sell it there.

27:25 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 isn’t so easy for a person to keep looking for places where nobody knows him so he can sell things. “And if everyone who knows him refuses to buy from him, he will not steal as much.” Once you take away his ability to sell to the people around him who know him, that alone will reduce it. Every time he wants to sell something, he’ll have to travel to a place where nobody knows him. That will reduce the number of thefts he commits. “Therefore, anyone who knows him is forbidden to buy from him.” In other words, it isn’t necessarily that your purchase alone will cause him to steal. He can still steal and sell in all sorts of places. But if everyone around him refuses to buy, he’ll steal less. That’s why buying from him is forbidden. Let’s continue: “Likewise, it is forbidden to buy from a robber, unless one intends to benefit the owners by returning it to them.”

28:36 Speaker 5 Well, in order to—

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

28:39 Speaker 5 They will reimburse him.

28:40 Speaker 2 And they will reimburse him. Since we’ve started reading it, let’s finish the passage: “Provided that the owners could not have recovered it themselves if he had not bought it.” Notice that earlier we discussed someone who bought an item without knowing it was stolen, and then found out. There is a rabbinic enactment to protect buyers: when he returns it, he gets his money back. Now we’re talking about someone who knows it’s stolen. He knows, so he’s forbidden to buy it. But what if he buys it for the owners’ benefit, intending to return it to them? What happens if the owners could have recovered it themselves? There’s a procedure: they can file a police complaint, bring a claim, whatever it might be. They could have gotten it back. They can tell him, “You’ve cost us money. Why did you pay for it? We could have done it for free.” Notice that he won’t get his money back, even though he acted for the owners’ benefit. When will he be reimbursed? When they could not have recovered it themselves. If the owners could have recovered it themselves, he doesn’t get his money back. Now, that is one prohibition: buying from the robber is forbidden. Why? Because it supports someone committing a transgression and causes him to commit other thefts. Notice a third point. Section 10 discusses a case where someone isn’t sure whether the item is stolen, and so on. The Alter Rebbe continues: “But if he knows that this is the stolen item itself, it is forbidden to benefit from it—whether by buying it or while it is still in the robber’s possession, such as by riding the animal.” There is a separate prohibition here against benefiting from stolen property. Besides the prohibition against supporting the thief, you yourself are forbidden to benefit from a stolen item. As long as it is still considered stolen, you may not benefit from it.

30:30 Speaker 5 If you bought a stolen item.

30:33 Speaker 2 Right. If it is still considered stolen. In other words, if the owners had already given up hope of recovering it and you bought it without knowing it was stolen, and now you discover that it was, that status has already ended. It is no longer classified as stolen property, and you may benefit from it.

30:48 Speaker 5 The owners’ giving up hope.

30:49 Speaker 2 Because there was 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 doesn’t help. Neither one alone helps. In short, neither giving up hope alone nor a change of possession alone is enough. Giving up hope alone means the item is still with the robber; there has been no change of possession. The robber himself cannot acquire it merely because the owners gave up hope. 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. For giving up hope alone does not remove the stolen item from its owners’ possession so that the robber acquires it and it becomes his, as with a lost object.” This isn’t like a lost object, where the owners’ giving up hope alone is enough for you to acquire it. What is the difference? “Because it came into his possession through the prohibition of robbery. Therefore, it always remains the owners’ property as long as it is in the robber’s possession.” As long as the robber has it, it still belongs to the owners. Once it leaves his possession, it becomes the buyer’s. Let’s skip to section 11 and finish the subject of benefiting from stolen property. He says: “Likewise, it is forbidden to enter a house that is definitely stolen, to escape the sun or to shelter from the rain, or to pass through a field that is definitely stolen.” If you know someone forcibly evicted a person and stole his house, you may not benefit from that house. Even entering to escape the rain or the sun is a benefit. There is a prohibition against benefiting from stolen property.

32:22 Speaker 5 A court-appointed receiver.

32:23 Speaker 2 That’s a good question. I hope—

32:26 Speaker 5 Someone removed a person from the house, or stole it from someone who had bought it.

32:30 Speaker 2 I hope we’ll discuss that in the third class. A court-appointed receiver.

32:37 Speaker 5 He bought it from [unclear]. He buys it from the person. There are many cases—we said that entire towns were [unclear], but we aren’t familiar with them. Many people bought things in shops in those towns. He bought it in a shop. What’s left of the shop belongs to me. They bought the shop, the house. Here’s the police [unclear]. Look here, I have photographs. Look at my daughter’s wedding. That’s mine. What do we do?

33:03 Speaker 2 Well, first of all, it’s hashgachah pratis that you asked, because I hadn’t finished explaining the ruling earlier, and it’s very important. We were discussing a case where the owners had given up hope and the item had changed hands, and we said that in that case you don’t have to return it. In principle, you don’t have to return it. If the owners had not given up hope, you must return it and you receive your money back. If they had given up hope or there had been a change of possession, you don’t have to return it. But I didn’t finish that point. The Alter Rebbe says that the custom is to return it in every case. Why? He writes there that the law of the government in that region required stolen property to be returned in every case. Therefore, that is what one must do. But he adds another layer: it isn’t only because of the law of the government. There is also an enactment to return it, because returning it is the right thing to do. So even where the owners had given up hope or the item had changed hands, there is still a custom, and a reason, to return it. It’s like what we discussed regarding a lost object, if you remember: even after the owner has 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 government is binding. But even in a place where that isn’t the law, there is still reason to return it under the enactment. So that answers what you’re saying. If someone recognizes his item, you can tell him, “Listen, I don’t believe it’s yours.” He would then have to bring witnesses that it really was his. Understand? But if you do believe him, then you have an obligation to return it. You don’t... But he cannot compel you to return it.

34:33 Speaker 5 No, no, no, leave it, leave it. How much should I pay you for it? I’ll show you. After all, he took—

34:39 Speaker 2 By the way, he has to pay. He has to pay, as we discussed earlier. He has to pay even if it’s... Even if the owners hadn’t given up hope, because I bought it for... Oh, you mean the person who bought it knew it was stolen. If the buyer 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, it’s a little different. Let’s get into that. The Tzemach Tzedek says that, strictly speaking, you can keep it.

35:04 Speaker 5 So if [unclear] a picture [unclear] that I found it, how much is it going to cost me to pay you? Now, strictly speaking, if we’ve already taken the money, we don’t have to.

35:13 Speaker 2 Strictly speaking, I can keep it altogether. But because of the enactment and the custom, he should return it, and here he can receive his money back. The Alter Rebbe—the Tzemach Tzedek is inclined to say that he can receive his money back in this case.

35:24 Speaker 5 What, the Alter Rebbe allowed you to get your money back?

35:26 Speaker 2 No. When the Alter Rebbe discussed whether or not you get your money back, as we said, that was in the earlier case, where you have to return it as a matter of law. If you knew it was stolen, you don’t get your money back; if you didn’t know, you do. In a case where the owners had given up hope or the item had changed hands, you no longer have to return it as a matter of law, but you should return it because of the custom and the enactment. Here the Tzemach Tzedek says you may be able to get your money back even if you knew it was stolen.