Responsum: On the Theft of Books

Question: May our master, the great rabbi, head of the court, head of the study house, may he be protected by heaven, teach us the law in the following case:

“Reuben” went to seek his livelihood overseas. Since his sons were young, he left behind a Bible for them to read. However, violent non-Jews arose against them and forcibly took the book from them. That place lacks a regional government or proper authorities from whom victims can claim redress, but the sons have been ceaselessly appealing for the return of the volume and have not despaired of getting it back. Meanwhile, those non-Jews took the book to another city, where they sold it to a Jew. The Jew who purchased the book from the non-Jews proceeded to consecrate it to the local synagogue.

Now Reuben, the owner of that Bible, has died overseas, and his sons, who have since come of age, have come to demand the book that was snatched from them, as described above. They discovered that those violent non-Jews had sold it to a Jew and that the Jew had already consecrated it. Please, our master, may he live forever, teach us whether these orphans have the legal right to remove the volume from its current place and reclaim possession of it. After all, it was forcibly taken from them. Also, they did not despair of recovering it; first of all, because they were still minors, and secondly, they assumed that their father was alive and that he would come back and restore the book to them from wherever it had been taken. Furthermore, both the city where they were living and the location where the book was taken are lawless places, and thefts and robberies are frequent in those non-Jewish kingdoms, and thus there is no one to whom to turn to make amends. May our master instruct us regarding this question, and may he receive his full reward from God.

Answer: If the sons were minors when the Bible from which they would read was stolen from them, and it was taken forcibly, and they have been claiming it from that point onward without success, but have not despaired of seeking it, and meanwhile those oppressors went and sold the book to a Jew, who subsequently dedicated it to a synagogue, we maintain that this sale conducted by the non-Jews is void. This is in accordance with the statement of our sages:

If one rescues objects from a band of soldiers, from bandits, or from a river, they belong to him [m. Bava Kamma 10:2]. This is the case only if it is established that the owner has despaired of retrieving them, not if it is unknown whether he has despaired of their recovery or not. R. Ashi said: They taught this only in the case of a non-Jewish bandit, as non-Jewish courts judge with force.¹ However, in the case of a Jewish bandit, where the victim says, “Who will say,”² even if it³ is unknown, it is assumed that the victim has despaired of recovering his property. [b. Bava Kamma 114a]

Consequently, in the case at hand, where the robbers are non-Jews and also the owners have not despaired, as the questioner expressly stated, the sale of these robbers is void. [ . . . ]

Regarding the nullification of the sale, we maintain that if property comes into one’s possession through unjust seizure, the laws of Sikarikon⁴ do not apply [see m. Gittin 58b]. And the conclusion of the Gemara there is that no law of unjust seizure exists in Babylonia. What is the reason? Since there is a regional government, and yet the owner did not go and complain, we say that he waived his rights. [ . . . ]

Thus, if it turns out that the violent non-Jews indeed sold the book, their sale is void, and the law is that the owners’ money must be given back and that they return their book. If they claim that they have already dedicated it to the synagogue, this argument is not accepted, as we follow the general principle that a person cannot consecrate something that does not belong to him [see b. Arakhin 26b].

Source: CUL T-S 12.194.