Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/360

Paragraph 1- Anyone who robs is required to return the actual theft, as the verse states, “and he shall return the theft that he robbed.” If the item was misplaced or changed, the robber would pay its value, regardless of whether the robber confessed on his own or witnesses came and testified that he robbed. Even if he robbed a beam and built it in a large building, because the beam has not changed, biblical law requires he destroy the entire building and return the beam to its owners. The Rabbis, however, instituted as a regulation to assist those who repent, that he would only pay its value and not ruin the building. ''Even if he robbed a beam and made a sukkah on Sukkos with it, and the owner comes and makes a claim on Sukkos, he would only have to pay its value. After Sukkos, however, because the beam has not changed and the sukkah was not built with cement, the robber must return the actual beam. If one robbed real property and built large buildings on it, he must destroy everything and return the land to the owner because they did not create a regulation to assist those who repent when it applies to real property.''

Paragraph 2- If one robs less than a pertuah, although he has violated the commandment, he would not be required to return it.

Paragraph 3- If one robbed three bundles worth three perutos, and the value depreciated and the three are now worth two perutos and the robber returned two, the robber is required to return the third because it was originally worth a perutah.

Paragraph 4- If two stole something worth a perutah and one returned, although there is no theft in existence, there is no commandment to return the theft.

Paragraph 5- If the stolen item changed, even if the owner did not give up he would not have to return the item, but just its value that is worth at the time of the robbery. This assumes it is a change that will not revert to its original state. How so? If one stole wood and attached it with nails and created a box, that would not qualify as a change because it is possible to take it apart and it will return to what it was originally. If one robbed dirt and created a brick, he would not acquire it because if he were to crush the brick the dirt it would revert to what it was. If one robbed strips of metal and made a coin, he would not acquire because if he were to crush the coin, it would revert to what it was. The same applies to anything similar.

Paragraph 6- If one robbed wood and sanded it and cut it or made an engraving in it and created vessels, or he robbed wool and died it, combed it, whitened it or created clothing, or if one robbed a brick and created dirt or robbed stones and smoothed them or money and melted it, that would qualify as a change because if he were to create other money, that would be a new creature. The same applies to anything similar. Something is only called a change where the name of the robbed item changes because of the change.

Paragraph 7- If one robs old money, cleans them and makes them like new, he would not acquire because they can become old and revert to what they were. If he robbed new money and made them old, he would acquire because if he were to make them new that would be a new creature. ''If one robbed stones and crushed them, he would acquire. If he robbed wool and died it or whitened it in a way that it cannot revert, he would acquire.''

Paragraph 8- If one robbed an attached palm tree and cut it, he would not acquire, even he cut it in segments. If he made it beams, he would acquire.

Paragraph 9- If one robbed large beams and made them small, he would not acquire. If he cut them into tablets until their name was changed, he would acquire.

Paragraph 10- If one robbed a branch of a palm tree and separated its leaves, he would acquire. If he robbed the leaves and made them into a broom, he would acquire. If one robbed a sheep and it became a ram or he robbed a calf and it became an ox, he would acquire.