Is There an Obligation to Pay a Thief Who Refurbished the Stolen Property? And More

Rabbi’s Opening Post

Is There an Obligation to Pay a Thief Who Refurbished the Stolen Property? And More

Sent on 3/11/2006

| |

Is there an obligation to pay a thief who refurbished the stolen property? And more

Today I received a copy of an email that was sent in Yerucham, and this was its wording:

To all my acquaintances and all those who showed concern for my bicycle

There is news!

The bicycle was found this afternoon, making its way down the main street with a young boy sitting on it. The bicycle had indeed changed color from green to blue (spray paint), the lock and kickstand had disappeared, the front brake was torn, and the seat of …[=the writer’s son] was serving as a seat in place of the original seat that had disappeared. Aside from that, there were other positive developments: the punctured front wheel had been replaced with another wheel.

A focused charge brought the desired result: the bicycle returned to its owner.

Thanks, of course, to the Holy One, blessed be He, who assisted me, and to all the well-intentioned people who took an interest and offered support.

(…)

P.S. Does anyone know whether I am obligated to pay the thief for repairing the puncture, or to look for the owner of the new wheel that was put on instead?

I am not entirely sure that the question was asked seriously, but I would be glad to submit it to public consideration:

1. Is there an obligation to pay the thief for the puncture repair? Let us assume there was no other damage.

2. Is there an obligation to look for the owner of the replacement wheel? Is there an obligation to return the wheel itself to him, or its value instead (under the rabbinic “beam” enactment)?

I should note that I wrote him an answer, and in the course of my remarks I made an assumption: although from the thief’s standpoint the wheel is stolen property and not a lost item, since it came into his possession through a prohibited act, in my view from the owner’s standpoint the wheel is a lost item and not stolen property, and therefore it should be discussed under the laws of lost property (returning it on the basis of identifying marks and the owner’s relinquishment of hope).

3. Is this assumption correct?

I would be glad to hear your views on all three questions.

It would also be interesting to consider whether any of us would ponder such questions after something had been stolen from him and he had managed to recover it from the thief—may he live long and well. Clarification: the last sentence was made as part of the publicity campaign on behalf of the yeshiva in Yerucham.

_________________

Source (the “Stop Here, Think” forum): http://www.bhol.co.il/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=2074845&forum_id=1364