Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/363

Paragraph 1- If one robbed an animal and it aged or became weak in a way that it will not revert, such as a disease with no effective cure, he robbed a coin that cracked or was voided by the king- there are those who say that even in the case of coin that the king disqualified, the thief can say, “here it is in front of you”- he robbed fruits that all rotted or he robbed wine that spoiled, it is as if he robbed a vessel and broke it and he must pay the amount it was worth at the time of the robbery. If he stole animals and they weakened in a way that they could revert, he robbed slaves that aged or robbed a coin that was voided in this jurisdiction but can be used in another jurisdiction, he robbed fruits where only some of them rotted, he robbed terumah that became impure, he robbed chametz and Passover arrived or he robbed an animal and a sin was done with it, it was disqualified from being sacrificed or was being taken out to be stoned, however, the robber may tell the owner “here it is in front of you,” and return the actual item.

Paragraph 2- When is this true? Where the robber returned the robbed item. If the item was burnt or misplaced after the benefit prohibition took effect, however, he would be required to pay the value of the item at the time of the robbery.

Paragraph 3- If one robs an animal and carries a load on it or plows or threshes with it or anything similar, and then returns it to its owner, although he has violated a negative commandment, he would not be required to pay anything, because he did not cause any loss nor weaken the animal. If this robber is one that is established to steal, to withhold money or to do any of these things time after time, we would penalize him, even in the Diaspora. We would appraise the payment or appreciation that the robber received from the animal and he would pay the victim.

Paragraph 4- If one seizes another’s slave and has him do work for him without interfering with other work, he would be exempt because it is good for a person that his slave not become accustomed to being idle. If it does interfere with the slave’s other work, he would pay him as if the slave were a worker.

Paragraph 5- If one seizes another’s boat and does work with it, and the boat was not intended to be rented out, we would appraise how much loss the boat suffered and he would pay that amount. If it was intended to be rented out and he went down as if he were renting, because he went down without permission, if the owner wants to collect rent, he may do so, and if he prefers to collect the depreciation, he may do so. If he went down as a form of robbery, he would pay the depreciation. The same applies to anything similar. The same is true if he took it to borrow without the owner’s consent, and he would be a robber. If the robber rented it out to someone else, he must give the rental payment to the owner because it is intended to be rented out.

Paragraph 6- If one dwells in another’s courtyard without the owner’s consent and the owner told him to leave and he did not do so, the squatter would be required to pay the full cost of rent. If the owner did not tell him to leave and the courtyard is not one generally rented out, the squatter would not be required to pay, ''even if he forced the owner out of the house against his will and he now lives there. Even if the owner usually did rent it out but right now he was not going to rent it out, we would follow its current status.'' This is true even if this squatter generally rents a place for him, because it is a case where one party benefited and the other party did not lose. ''This is only where the squatter already lived there. He cannot, however, in the first instance, force the owner to let him live there. Although we generally force one not to have a Sodomite trait in a situation where one party benefits and the other doesn’t lose, that is only in a situation where if the owner wanted to benefit he could not benefit. In this case, however, where had the owner of the courtyard wanted to benefit and turn a profit by renting it out, he could have, we would not force him to rent it out at no cost. If the courtyard is one that is generally rented out, even if this squatter does not generally rent, he must pay the owner because he caused him a loss of money. If he did not live there but just stole from him, however, he would be exempt from paying the rental. A standard house today is intended to be rented out, even if it has never been rented out.''

Paragraph 7- There are those who say that where the courtyard is not generally rented out and we say the squatter does not have to pay rent, if the squatter caused even a small loss, such as where the house was new and he caused a loss by blackening the walls, although the loss caused by such blackening is small, we would roll in a requirement for him to pay the full value of what he benefited. ''Thus, if this squatter does not have the practice to rent, he would be exempt. There are those who disagree.''

Paragraph 8- There are those who say that this that we said that a squatter does not have to pay for a courtyard not generally rented out is only where the squatter did not reveal that he would have paid had the owner not let him live there for free. If he revealed his intention that he would pay if he had to, he would have to pay.

Paragraph 9- There are those who say that this that we said that a squatter does not have to pay for a courtyard not generally rented out would even apply where he rented the property from someone else under the impression that it was his, and it turned out not to belong to him. He would still not have to pay, even if he entered with the intention to pay the person he believed to be the owner. Even if he already paid the person he rented from, he would return the money to him. Since it was clear he gave the money in error, he is required to return it to him.

Paragraph 10- There are those who say that this that we said that a squatter is required to pay rent for a courtyard that is generally rented out would apply even if he rented from Reuven and paid him and it turned out that property did not belong to Reuven, but to Shimon, and the squatter would be required to pay Shimon. ''This is only where Shimon or his agent is local and they were trying to rent it out. If Shimon is not in the city, however, and nobody is trying to rent it out on his behalf, it is like a courtyard that is not generally rented out, and even though he rented it from Reuven he would not be required to pay Shimon anything, as was discussed.'' The squatter would then make a claim on Reuven on what he gave him. Even if he rented from Reuven for less than its worth, he would need to pay Shimon the appropriate amount of rent and would then make a claim against Reuven for what he gave him. If he rented from Reuven for an expensive amount, and the house turned out to belong to Shimon, he would only be required to pay the amount that others rent out for. Even if he already paid Reuven, Shimon would only collect the amount that others rent out for. If the money already came to Shimon, however, and he claims he would not have rented it out for less, out of doubt we would not remove the money from him. ''If a Jew fled the city and the government official took his house and lent it to another Jew, he would not have to pay the owner because it is not a house that is generally rented out given that if the second Jew would not live there a gentile would live there. If one rents a house from another and then sublets it to some else for more than he was renting it for, and he had permission to sublet in the way that was discussed in Siman 316, he can keep the profits. If he did not have permission to sublet, the profit would go to the owner. If one tells another to live in his courtyard, the guest would not have to pay. If there were two partners on a house and one of the partners rented out the entire house without the other partner’s knowledge, the renter must pay the second partner’s share to him. If he did not rent the entire house, but just the portion of the partner that rented to him, however, he would not have to give the second partner anything.''

Paragraph 11- If one had wool and soaking ingredients, and another came and robbed them and dyed the wool with the ingredients, and the dyed wool depreciated in value until it was only worth what it was worth while it was still white, and the victim asks the robber for the value of the ingredients from the robber, he would be exempt. If the victim seized the money, we would not take it away from him.