[Avodah] Stolen goods

[Zev Sero]

Michael Kopinsky wrote:
> (Carried over from Areivim)
> Zev Sero <zev at sero.name <mailto:zev at sero.name>> wrote:
>> Stadlan, Noam wrote:
> 
>>>While some may note that halacha may state that there is no obligation
>>>to return the objects of non-Jews, imagine this scenario.  A person
>>>steals money, and then offers the money to people, all the while
>>>pronouncing to one and all that the money that is being offered is
>>>stolen, and even pointing out the victim of the theft.  Does halacha
>>>really allow you to stand in line for a hand out from this person?

>> I don't see why not.  It would of course be a midas chassidus and a
>> great kiddush hashem if one were then to return ones share to the
>> victim, but one certainly need not be moser nefesh for that.

> The CC in Sefer Hamitzvos Hakatzar writes that the issur of geneiva is 
> to steal, or to deal with stolen goods.  (I also thought it was a pele 
> gadol that he said that.)

I don't think one can place this much reliance on a sefer of that
kind, to make drashot based on diyukim in its language.  Much more
likely "lo dak".


> The chinuch (224) [...] holds (unlike the CC) that the problem of 
> buying stolen goods is machzik y'dei ovrei aveirah, not geneivah. 
> While this is still not enough reason to be moseir nefesh, this seems
> to be an issue of issur, not just midas chassidus.

Even when the victim is not "rei`acha", and therefore there is no
mitzvah of hashavat aveidah, or any issur on `oshek?  Remember that
is the hypo RNS posed, and which I answered.

As I see it, the makor of the issur to buy stolen goods is from the
gemara "lo `achbera ganav ela chora ganav".  By creating a market in
stolen goods we cause thieves to steal more.  Thus the victim of a
fence is not the owner of the goods he buys, but rather the thief's
*next* victim, as well as the victims of all the other thieves who
steal only because they know this market exists.

None of this would seem to apply, though, in our hypo, because we are
not *buying* the stolen goods but accepting them as a gift.  I'm not
sure we can say that doing so "creates a market" in Robin-Hoodism to
the extent that it should be assur as a "chora" that invites more
"`achbarim".  And certainly not to the extent that we should rather die
than accept the stolen goods, especially when the owner is one whose
aveidot do not have to be returned.  (Nevertheless, I think one is
entitled to be machmir on oneself and be moser nefesh if one wants to,
in order to create a kiddush Hashem, or simply because one doesn't
want to benefit from something that belongs to someone else.)

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev at sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas