Halacha for Wednesday 18 Elul 5779 September 18 2019

A Thief Who Wishes to Repent-Continued

In the previous Halacha, we discussed the enactment of our Sages which dictates that when a thief comes to return a stolen object, one must refuse to accept it so that thieves do not become disheartened from repenting. Nevertheless, there are several details associated with this law, as we shall now discuss.

The Words of Maran Ha’Shulchan Aruch
Maran Ha’Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat, Chapter 366) states: “If a notorious thief comes to repent on his own and the stolen object is no longer accessible, the owner may not accept reimbursement from him so that he will not hold back from repenting. However, if the thief wants to fulfill his Heavenly obligation and return it, we do not protest if the owner accepts it.” We will now explain the words of Maran.

A “Notorious Thief”
First of all, when Maran refers to a “notorious thief,” he means to say that the edict not to accept the stolen object only applies to a thief who is infamous in his robberies. However, if the thief is not one by profession, rather, he happened to have stolen once or twice, the owner may in fact accept repayment from him, for his Teshuva (repentance) process is not as difficult since he can easily come up with the money to reimburse the few people he stole from.

The source of this law lies in the words of the Tosafot who quote Rabbeinu Yitzchak Ba’al Ha’Tosafot as saying that the ruling of our Sages not to accept the stolen object only applies to a well-known thief because it is difficult for him to part with his assets so the Sages opened the pathways of repentance for him. However, the owner may accept reimbursement from one who has stolen only occasionally.

Repenting on His Own
Furthermore, when Maran refers to a thief “who comes to repent on his own,” he means that only when the thief comes to return what he stole from his own good will do we not accept it from him. However, if the thief shows no signs of repentance for his evil ways and the owner is able to extract reimbursement from him through Bet Din (Rabbinical Court) and the like, our Sages never enacted not to accept it from him, for the entire enactment was only for a thief who repents by his own initiative while this thief is not repentant at all. The Rosh (Rabbeinu Asher bar Yechiel, father of the Tur) writes this in his commentary and adds that we find in many places in the Talmud that Rabbinical judges forced defendants to reimburse the owner for stolen objects and this is per the letter of Torah law. Only in situations similar to the story above, where the thief offers repayment on his own accord, must the owner refuse to accept reimbursement.

When the Stolen Object is No Longer Accessible
When Maran writes, “If the stolen object is no longer accessible”, this means that the Sages only established not to accept repayment from the thief when the actual stolen object is no longer in his possession. For instance, if someone stole an electronic device and the like and the device is still in the thief’s possession, he must surely return it to its owner and the owner may accept it, for the enactment of our Sages does not apply here. However, if the device is no longer in his possession, for instance, because the thief sold it or lost it and now the thief would like to repay its value to the owner, the owner should not accept repayment. This detail is delineated explicitly in the above Gemara: “Rav Nachman says, they [the Sages] only established this when the stolen object is no longer in his possession.”

If the Thief Wishes to Repay the Stolen Object’s Value in any Event
Finally, when Maran writes that if the thief wishes to fulfill his Heavenly obligation and return its worth, the owner may accept it, this means that if the owner has already told the thief that he absolves him of his obligation to pay and he is no longer responsible for repayment and the thief insists that the owner accept reimbursement, the owner may accept it. This is similar to the law of a loan canceled by Shemita that in such a situation, a lender may accept repayment of a loan canceled by Shemita.

Summary: If a thief comes, of his own good will, to repay the value of an object he stole from a given individual and he is a person who was a thief by profession and the actual stolen object is no longer in his possession, the owner must not accept this thief’s reimbursement. If after being informed that the owner absolves him from reimbursing him the thief nonetheless insists that the owner accept reimbursement, the owner may, in fact, accept it.

Ask the Rabbi


8 Halachot Most Popular

The Laws of the Holiday of Sukkot

As per the request of many of our members and as a public service, we shall now list a synopsis of some laws which are essential for the upcoming Sukkot holiday: The Sukkah must be made of three walls and Sechach (the roof). The walls may be made of any material which can withstand a normal wi......

Read Halacha

Cognac, Brandy, and Champagne- The Jews of the Ship that was Swept Out to Sea

In the previous Halacha we have explained the law that our Sages imposed a prohibition on a non-Jew’s wine and usually, the wine is not only forbidden to consume, it is likewise forbidden to benefit from. Champagne Clearly, champagne is absolutely forbidden for consumption if it was not pr......

Read Halacha

Laying a Mouse Trap on Shabbat

Question: May one lay a mouse trap on Shabbat? Answer: In the previous Halachot we have discussed that one of the forbidden works on Shabbat is trapping; one who traps an animal on Shabbat is liable for the Torah prohibition of Shabbat desecration. We have written that if one traps animals which ......

Read Halacha

Wine Poured by a Non-Jew

In olden times, idolatrous non-Jews would customarily pour wine as a libation offering to their various idols and deities. This was quite a common practice. Such wine is forbidden for consumption or to derive benefit from (such as by selling it to another non-Jew) by Torah law, for anything that is ......

Read Halacha


Things Seen Under a Microscope

Fish are permissible for consumption when they bear the two kosher signs the Torah lists, which are fins and scales. The Poskim discuss whether fish that have scales which are only visible under a microscope are kosher because they in fact do have scales or if they are considered non-kosher because ......

Read Halacha

Spraying Poisons and Pesticides on Shabbat- Animals Which Graze on Shabbat

Question: May one place or spray poisons against harmful insects or other pests on Shabbat? Answer: The basis for the answer to this question depends on a related matter which we shall discuss in this Halacha. In the next Halacha, we will summarize the law regarding placing or spraying poisons ag......

Read Halacha

Spraying Poisons Against Pests on Shabbat- The Bottom Line

A Synopsis of What We Have Learned Thus Far Yesterday, we have explained that one may place an animal onto grass on Shabbat in order to let it graze there. Although the animal will be detaching grass from the ground, since this action is not connected to the individual at all, it is permissible. ......

Read Halacha

Setting a Trap on Shabbat

Question: May one set a trap for animals when the trap continues to operate on Shabbat? Answer: In the previous Halacha we have established that one of the thirty-nine works forbidden on Shabbat is trapping. This means that if one traps a living creature on Shabbat, one is liable for Shabbat dese......

Read Halacha