The Snatched Zuz
‘None Pay Regard To R. Shimon’s Dictum …’
(Kiddushin 52b)
The Talmud (Bava Kamma 66a-67a) establishes that a robbery victim loses legal ownership of what was stolen from him only if the following two conditions are met:
First, he must have despaired (experienced ye’ush) of ever retrieving the stolen object. Second, the object must have changed hands: there must have been a shinnui reshus, namely, a physical change of possession.
It would thus be obvious that if a thief sells a stolen item after the owner has despaired of it ever being returned, and the [original] owner later finds out that this item is now in the possession of someone who has acquired it from the thief – he may not demand [from the buyer] that the object be returned to him. His only recourse is to address the complaint to the thief and demand payment from him.
Robbery Involves Ye’ush
Our daf relates an incident where an individual snatched a zuz (coin) from his fellow and threw it to a woman, exclaiming, “[With this coin] You are betrothed to me.” That individual then came to Raba to inquire whether the betrothal (kiddushin) was valid. Raba responded that we do not follow R. Shimon’s dictum (namely, that robbery involves ye’ush, meaning that a victim must necessarily despair of the recovery of an item for the stolen object to be considered legally abandoned). Accordingly, he ruled that the betrothal was not valid.
Rabbinical Or Biblical?
The Rishonim, our early halachic authorities, deduce from Raba’s phrasing of the response that if we have definite knowledge that the victim has despaired of the return of the stolen object and has abandoned the item, the betrothal effected through that object will be valid.
The Rosh (Bava Kamma 7:2) rules nonetheless that such a betrothal (kiddushin) is only Rabbinically valid because of the Rabbis’ stringent attitude in that matter but does not have the full force of a betrothal based on biblical requirements. He explains that the validity of such a betrothal is in question because of the lack of one of the prerequisites of legal abandonment (Bava Kamma 66a-b, stated at the outset), namely, that the legal ownership of the coin had not changed.
Shinnui Reshus
The Ran (at the end of our chapter, Ha’ish mekaddesh, 23a in the pages of the Rif) argues that the betrothal in such an instance is biblically valid because the condition of change of possession – shinnui reshus – did occur when the woman took (or caught) the object with her hand. Thus, though the thief himself never acquired ownership of the coin, the woman’s acceptance of it and possession of it validated the betrothal.
A Grave Sin
Rambam (Hilchos Ge’neva 5:1) heaps scorn on such a betrothal regardless of its validity. He rules, based on the Gemara (Kiddushin 56b) that it is forbidden to purchase from a thief any items that he has stolen. It is a grave sin, for such an act is equivalent, in effect, to aiding and abetting sinners and encouraging them to continue to steal. If they did not find customers for stolen items, they would not steal…
