Should the Thief's Restitution Be Accepted?

The Talmudic Braita in Bava Kamma (93b) states: "From robbers who return [stolen goods] - we do not accept." The Sages observed that robbers were reluctant to repent due to their fear of being left with nothing after returning everything they stole, so they ruled that one should not accept returned stolen items from robbers. We have already written that there are several specific laws in this matter, and it is not always forbidden to accept the stolen property, as mentioned in the rulings of Maran the Shulchan Aruch.

This is what Maran the Shulchan Aruch writes (Choshen Mishpat 366):"A well-known robber who comes to repent on his own accord, if the stolen item no longer exists - we do not accept from him, so as not to prevent him from repenting. But if he wishes to fulfill his heavenly obligation and returns it - we do not prevent the victim from accepting it."Now let us explain Maran's words:First, when he wrote - a "well-known" robber who comes to repent - he means that only when the robber is notorious for theft and robbery -only then does the decree not to accept the stolen goods from him apply. But if this is not his regular practice,and he only stole once or twice incidentally - then it is permitted to accept the stolen property from him, since his repentance is not so difficult, and he is capable of repenting.And when he wrote: "who comes to repent on his own accord," he means that only when the robber comes of his own goodwill to pay for what he stole - then we should not accept it from him.But if he persists in his rebelliousness, and there is a possibility to recover the stolen property through a rabbinical court or similar means - in such a case, our Sages did not decree not to take from him, since he persists in his rebellion and has no intention of repenting at all. Our Sages only made this beneficial decree for a robber who comes to repent on his own initiative. This law was written by the Rosh in his commentary.

And what he wrote: "if the stolen item no longer exists," means - the Sages only decreed not to take from the robber when the stolen item itself is no longer in his possession. In our case, regarding the car emblem thief, if the emblem still exists in his possession - he must certainly return it. And the victim is permitted to take it, because the Sages' decree about preventing repentance does not apply here. But if the emblem is not in his possession, such as if he sold it or lost it and so forth, and now he comes to pay for the stolen item - one should not accept any payment from him at all. This is explained in the aforementioned Gemara: "Rav Nachman said, they only decreed this when the stolen item no longer exists."

And what he wrote at the end, that if the robber wishes to return it to fulfill his obligation before Heaven, it is permitted to accept from him - this means that if one tells the robber: "I forgive you, and you don't need to return it to me," and the robber says: "Nevertheless, I want to pay you" - it is permitted to accept from him.

In summary:In our case, where the thief regularly stole car emblems, and the emblems are no longer in his possession,and he comes of his own goodwill to repent - it is forbidden to accept payment from him, and one should forgive him. But if he insists and requests that the payment for the stolen item be accepted anyway - it is permitted to take it from him. In any such case, it is appropriate to consult with a Torah scholar.

Rulings of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, courtesy of "Daily Halacha" website