When a Thief Wants to Repent: The Surprising Halacha of Returning Stolen Goods

The Baraita (teaching of the Sages) in Tractate Bava Kamma 94a states: “When robbers return stolen goods — we do not accept them.”

The Sages observed that many thieves refrained from repenting out of fear that if they returned all they had stolen, they would be left with nothing. To encourage repentance, they ruled that we do not accept restitution from robbers who wish to repent, allowing them to return to honest living without despair.

However, as noted by many halachic authorities, this rule has specific limits and exceptions, as clarified by the Shulchan Aruch.

The Ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 366)

“A well-known robber who comes of his own accord to repent — if the stolen item no longer exists, we do not accept restitution from him, so that he will not refrain from repenting. However, if he insists on paying in order to fulfill his Heavenly obligation, we do not stop the victim from accepting it.”

Explanation of the Ruling

1. “A well-known robber” —
   The Shulchan Aruch specifies that this ruling applies only to a habitual or notorious thief, known publicly for acts of theft or robbery. In such a case, the Sages feared that if he were required to pay back everything, the difficulty would deter him from repentance altogether. However, if a person stole only once or twice in isolated incidents, it is permitted to accept restitution from him, since his repentance is less daunting and within reach.

2. “Who comes of his own accord to repent” —
   This leniency applies only when the robber voluntarily comes forward to make amends out of his own conscience and desire to repent. If he is still defiant, and the victim or court (Beit Din) can compel him to pay, then the Sages’ decree does not apply. In that case, it is perfectly permitted — and even required, to take the payment, since he is not acting out of repentance but coercion. This distinction is clearly stated by the Rosh in his commentary.

3. “If the stolen item no longer exists” —
   The Sages’ decree not to accept repayment applies only when the stolen object itself is no longer intact or available. For example, if someone stole a car emblem, and the emblem is still in his possession, he is obligated to return it, and the owner is permitted to take it back. If however the emblem was sold, lost, or destroyed, and now the thief wishes to compensate monetarily, then we do not accept payment: “Rav Nachman said: The Sages only enacted this rule when the stolen object no longer exists.”

4. “If he wishes to fulfill his obligation toward Heaven” —
   If the thief says, “Even though you have forgiven me, I still want to pay you back to make things right before Heaven,” then it is permitted for the victim to accept the payment.

To summarize, in the case presented — where the thief was a habitual robber, known for regularly stealing car emblems, and now the emblems are no longer in his possession:

• Since he is coming of his own free will to repent, and the stolen items no longer exist, the victim should not accept repayment, in accordance with the Sages’ decree.

• Instead, the victim should forgive him to encourage his teshuvah (repentance).

• However, if the thief insists and begs that the victim take the money so that he can feel reconciled before Heaven, it is permitted to accept it.

In all such matters, it is proper to consult a competent rabbinic authority for personal guidance.