Property – a metaphysical interest or a social convention?

Hello, Your Honor,

I was confused by the lessons on Platonism and jurisprudence:
According to Rabbi Gibraltar, there was no system of laws in the ghetto, and therefore there is no social consensus regarding property. This concept has essentially been abolished, and therefore there is no theft.

On the other hand, ownership is a seemingly metaphysical matter, which connects the owner of the thing to the thing.

I thought maybe I could solve the problem by having theft that is legally prohibited and theft that is Torahically prohibited.
Perhaps in a situation like the ghetto, the legal prohibition of theft has of course been dropped because there is no enforcement system and therefore no concept of ownership of a social convention, but there is certainly the metaphysical concept, and the name of Torah theft added by the Torah has not been abolished?

Maybe you answered this and I missed it?