A thief pays the principal according to the value of the stolen article when he stole it, and he pays the twofold payment, fourfold, and fivefold payments according to the value of the stolen article when he is sued in court.
If, however, the stolen article is still in the thief's original state, he returns the article as is.
If an unpaid custodian claimed that a deposit he was safekeeping was stolen and swore to that effect but then admitted the fact that he took the item for himself, he pays the principal, adds one-fifth, and brings a guilt offering.
Art: The Payment Of Dues by Georges de La Tour
2 comments:
So why is a run-of-the-mill thief penalized less than a trusted person who betrays that trust? Is a non-Jew who breaks the Sabbath more liable than a Jew who does the same thing?
If a trusted friend claimed that the object in his possession was stolen, and instead appropriated it, he is penalized the same as any thief. However, if in addition he took a oath while holding a Torah or tefillin in his hand, denying that he had the object, and then later repented and confessed, then he is penalized by paying principle, plus 1/5 of the principle, plus brings a sacrifice. The payment is thus 1.2 of the principal, which is less than 2 times that the thief pays. The guilt offering is between him and God. But then his false oath is forgiven.
So I probably was not clear, for otherwise your question would be hard to answer.
Post a Comment