Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/361

Paragraph 1- Giving up hope alone would not suffice to allow a robber to acquire.

Paragraph 2- In the case of giving up hope with an inferior change in name in that it can revert to its original state, there are those who say the robber would acquire and only be required to pay back its value.

Paragraph 3- When is this true? Where it is known that the owner gave up hope. In the case of a standard robbery, however, the owner has not given up hope.

Paragraph 4- Giving up hope with a change in possession would enable the robber to acquire. These laws are discussed in Siman 353.

Paragraph 5- A change in possession is only where the robber sold or gifted the item to another. There are those who say that if he sold with a guarantee or he gifted it in error or against his will, it is not considered a change in possession. If another came and took it from the robber’s home against his will, however, it is as if he took it from the owner’s home. The victim can choose whether to collect from the first robber or the second robber or, if he prefers, he can collect half from this robber and half from the other. If the second robber paid back the first, or the first robber waived his claim to the second, it is of no effect, because the second robber’s case is only with the original, regardless of whether the second robber knew the first robber had robbed or he was unaware. Even if the second robber consumed the item he would still be required to pay the owner.

Paragraph 6- When is this true? Where the owner has not given up hope. If the owner gave up, however, and someone comes and consumes the item, he would be exempt. Granted if the item was still in existence he would be required to return it, but now that he consumed it, he is exempt.

Paragraph 7- If the robber dies and bequeaths the item to his children, that would not be considered a change in possession. Rather, it is as if their father was still alive in that if the item was still in existence and did not change they would be required to return it, even if the owner gave up hope. If the item changed and was still in existence, they would pay its value. If they consumed it, however, regardless of whether they consumed it while the father was alive or after he died, and it was consumed prior to the owner giving up hope, they would be required to pay. If they consumed after the owner gave up hope, they would be exempt, assuming their father did not leave them any property. If their father left them property, however, even if they consumed after the owner gave up hope they would still be required to pay. Similarly, if the father sold the item or gifted it to another and he left properties, the inheritors would be required to pay. In this case, it makes no difference whether the orphans were adults or minors. If the adults said they are aware that their father made an accounting with the victim and he no longer had anything of the victim’s in his possession, they would be believed. There are those who say that only applies where the only reason we know of their father’s robbers is because they said so. If there were witnesses as to the robbery, however, they would not be believed.

Paragraph 8- If one robs another in front of witnesses, there are those who say he does not have to return it in front of witnesses, while others say he is required to.