Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/388

Paragraph 1- If one damages the possessions of another and is unsure how much he damaged, the victim would swear and collect. How so? If one took another’s wallet and threw it into the water or fire, or gave it to a thief and it was misplaced, and the owner says it was filled with gold coins, while the tortfeasor says he doesn’t know what was in it and perhaps it was full of dirt or straw, the victim would swear while grasping a holy item and collect. This assumes he claims something that he is profiled to own or to have deposited with him and it is typical to place them in a wallet or any similar case. ''A wallet placed in a sack on Shabbos or Yom Tov is considered a typical place. The same applies to anything similar. If it is not typical to place the items in this vessel, however, the owner was negligent and the tortfeasor would be exempt.'' How so? If one grabbed a full and covered thermos or basket and threw it into the sea or burnt it, and the victim claims there were precious stones inside, he would not be believed. There are those who say that even if there were witnesses that were there, he would be exempt because he was negligent, as was discussed. If the victim seized from the tortfeasor, we would not remove it from him- there are those who disagree- and the victim would swear there were precious stones inside and would collect from that which he seized. The same applies to anything similar. If the tortfeasor knew that the wallet was full of gold coins, but does not know how much, and the victim says they were worth 1,000, he would collect 1,000 without an oath, so long as he is profiled to have that amount, because the tortfeasor is required to swear but is unable to do so. There are those who say the victim would swear and collect, and this is the primary view.

Paragraph 2- If one hands over money to a bandit, regardless of whether the bandit was a gentile or Jew, he would be required to pay from his best properties whatever the bandit took, even if the informer did not physically take and give the properties but just spoke. If he dies, we would collect from his inheritors like any other tortfeasor. ''There are those who say we would only collect from inheritors where he already litigated. If he did not litigate, however, the inheritors are not required to pay. If a woman informed, we place a shmuti on her. If he she has money that her husband does not have rights to, she would pay. If she has usufruct properties, the husband would consume her fruits while she is alive, and when she dies he would be required to pay the victim. The same applies to other victims, and the husband only has the status like any other inheritor who is required to pay.'' When is this true? Where the informed showed the properties on his own. If a gentile or Jew compelled him to show, and he showed, he would be exempt from paying. If he was compelled to show his own properties and he showed another’s, he would be liable. If he physically took and gave the properties, even if he was compelled he would be required to pay, because one who rescues with another’s money is liable. How so? If the king decreed to bring him wine or straw or anything similar, and the informer got up and said so and so has a storehouse of wine or straw in such and such place, and they went and took it, the informer would be liable. ''Even if they afflicted him and did not tell him why, and he showed them another’s money, he would be liable. One is not considered compelled unless he receive blows and affliction, but not monetary compulsion. If one saw that a damage would occur to him, he is permitted to rescue himself, even if it means the damage will occur to someone else.''

Paragraph 3- If the king compelled this informer until he showed them the possessions of this other person who was fleeing from them, and he showed them, he would be exempt, because if he did not show them they would have struck or killed him.

Paragraph 4- If one took another’s money with his hands and gave it to the bandit, he would be required to pay regardless, even if the king compelled him to bring it. If two partners were creditors together, and a government official compelled one of them to waive the debt, he would be exempt because that is not considered physically handing over. When is it true that if one is compelled to bring and does so he would liable? Where the money did not reach the bandit’s domain. If the bandit compelled the Jew until he showed him, however, and the bandit stood by the money and it entered his domain, which means he had the ability to rule over it and take it, and he compelled the Jew to bring him to another location, he would be exempt, even if this informer that showed him was the same one that brought him, because once the bandit is standing next to the storehouse, everything the Jew owns is lost and as if it was burnt.

Paragraph 5- If litigants had a dispute over real property or movable items, and each one says the property belongs to him, and one of them got up and handed it over to a bandit, we would excommunicate him until he reverts the item to what it was and has the bandit removed from the picture, and they will litigate in Jewish court. ''He would not, however, have the status of an informer even though he caused the other a significant loss, because an informer is only someone who intends to cause damage, but not one who intends to remove what is his. There are those who disagree and hold he is considered an informer and he would be required to pay the entire damage unless the other party was refusing to litigate. All the more so would he be considered an informer where they warned him originally not to litigate in secular court and he violated their warning.''

Paragraph 6- If one was taken because of another, and the gentile took money from him because of such other person, such other person is not required to pay him, because no person is required to pay for another who was taken because of him except for one taken for the annual set tax on each person or for the gift each person must give the king when he or his soldiers pass through, in which case he would be liable to pay him back. This assumes they explicitly took from such person because of so and so in the presence of witnesses. This is discussed further in Siman 128.

Paragraph 7- If one has witnesses against him that he handed over another’s money, such as where he showed the bandits on his own or he was compelled and physically took and gave over, but the witnesses do not know how much of a loss he caused by handing over, and the victim claims it was such and such amount while the informer denies the claim, and the victim seizes from the informer, we would not remove from him. Rather, he would swear while grasping a holy item and would acquire that which he seized. There are those who say that in a case of uncertain law, seizure is not effective. If he does not seize, we would not remove from the informer other than with a clear proof. If they knew the circumstances but they needed to settle with the official for such and such amount, the victim would swear and collect. There are those who say that if the informer says he does not know how much of a loss he caused, the victim would swear and collect. ''This is all where one handed over money. If he handed over the another’s physical person to bandits, however, the victim would swear and collect. The same is true where he caused the person to be seized, because it is like he damaged him physically and he must pay for the entire damage. If one tells another that he informed on him, and the defendant denies it, the defendant would take a heses oath. There are those who say he must swear to him in front of the official that he did not hand him over. This process only needs to be made where there is a solo witness testifying that he handed over, but gentiles are not believed on this. If two people informed together, each one would pay half. If they informed one after the other, the latter informer would be exempt because so long as the victim was not exempt from the original handing over, the damage came from the first act, even if he did not actually inform but just saw a bandit or gentile who would tell the government official. There are those who say that if someone was struck by another, he may take him to secular court, even if this will cause the defendant significant damage.''

Paragraph 8- We would not have an informer who showed on his own swear a strict oath or a heses oath because he is wicked and no one is disqualified more than he is. ''Even if he did not yet inform, but said he will go and inform and he said so publicly, he would become disqualified to testify and we do not apply the principle that a person tends to exaggerate without carrying through in such a case. There are those who disagree except in a case where he is established to inform. Even if we don’t know whether this person typically informs or not, the counterparty may stand up to him and rescue using a gentile, even if it will result in damage to the informer.'' In the case of an informer who was compelled to show or to bring and he did so with his own hands, however, although he is required to pay he is not wicked. He simply has to pay back. We would have him swear like any other valid person. Similarly, if one confessed to informing and there were no witnesses on the matter, although he would not become disqualified by his own admission, he would still be required to pay.

Paragraph 9- One is prohibited from handing over a Jew to an idolater, whether it’s the Jew’s physical person or his money, even if he was wicked and a sinner and even if he caused him pain and suffering. ''This is only where he caused him pain with mere words. If he informed, however, the victim may inform on him, because legally he may kill him in a situation where there is a concern he may inform again or where there is no other way for him to rescue himself. If there is another way to rescue himself, however, it is like two individuals who each informed on each other and whomever caused the greater loss would pay the full amount of the difference.'' Whomever informs on a Jew to an idolater, whether it is his person or his money, receives no share in the next world.

Paragraph 10- One is permitted to kill an informer in all places, even today. One is permitted to kill him before he informs. As soon as he says he is going to inform on so and so’s person or money, even if it is a small amount of money, he has given himself up to be killed. We would warn him and say do not inform. If he is brazen and says he still plans on informing, there is a mitzvah to kill him. Whomever kills him first would receive the merit. ''If there is no time to kill him, no warning is necessary. There are those who say that one cannot kill an informer unless it is impossible to rescue the victim with one of the informer’s limbs. If it is possible to rescue with of his limbs, however, such as by cutting off his tongue or blinding his eyes, one is prohibited from killing him because is no worse than any other pursuer.''

Paragraph 11- If the informer did as planned and informed, one is prohibited from killing him unless he is established as an informer, in which case one may kill him because he may inform on others.

Paragraph 12- If one informs on the public and causes them pain, one may inform on him to the gentiles to strike him, to imprison him or to fine him. One cannot inform on him, however, because of an individual’s pain. ''If someone is involved in forgery or something similar, and there is a concern he will damage the public, we would warn him not to do it. If he does not heed their warning, they may inform on him by saying nobody else is involved other than him. If one wants to flee and not pay the idolater what he owes, and another reveals the matter, he does not have the status of an informer because he did not cause him any loss, but just required him to pay what he owed. He has still acted improperly because it is like he returned a lost item to an idolater. If he caused him damage, he must pay whatever damage he caused.''

Paragraph 13- One is prohibited from destroying the money of an informer, notwithstanding the fact that he may destroy his person because the money is fit for his inheritors. There are those who say that one is permitted to take his money for himself, and he is only prohibited from destroying it.

Paragraph 14- One may accept testimony on an informer outside his presence. The testimony does not have to conform exactly.

Paragraph 15- If one has been established to hand over a Jew or their money in the hands of a gentile three times, we would seek counsel and plans to have him removed from the world ''indirectly, even though one may not physically kill him. If one relates words of informing over in front of the public and community, and it ends up being heard by the government and causes damage, although he does not have the status of an informer, we would still penalize him as the judges see fit. If one sends an agent to informer and the agent is established as one who would do it, the sender is liable. We do not apply the principle that there is no agency for a sin because the agent is established to do this. Similarly, if one handed over a paid document to a gentile and he knows that it will be given over to the government official and he will force the Jew to pay back a second time, he would be required to pay.''

Paragraph 16- The expenses incurred to remove an informer must be paid by all the city-residents, even those that paid the tax in another city.