Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/364

Paragraph 1- If witnesses testified on someone that he entered so and so’s house in his presence and took vessels and they are unsure how much was taken, the law was discussed in Siman 90.

Paragraph 2- If witnesses saw one enter another’s house outside the presence of the homeowner, and he took vessels from the house, even if he took them out in the open and even if this homeowner generally sells his vessels, if the owner says he stole them and the other responds that he had permission because the owner had sold or gifted them to him or he seized it as payment for a debt, he would not be believed, because anyone who enters another’s home outside the owner’s presence and takes vessels from there and brings them out in front of witnesses, is presumed to be a robber. Thus, he must return the vessels to the homeowner. No oath is required because the witnesses saw what he robbed. After he returns the vessels he can then make a claim against the homeowner on whatever claim he has, and they will litigate.

Paragraph 3- Similarly, if there was only one witness and the owner claims he robbed the vessel, while the other party says he purchased it, collected it as a debt or it was deposited with him, he would be required to return the vessel to the owners without an oath, because had there been two witnesses he would be required to pay, and now that there is only one he is required to swear, but he is unable to swear because he is not contradicting the witness, and anyone who is obligated to swear but cannot do so must pay. Thus, if he denies it and says he never entered the house and did not take anything, because there is only one witnesses and he contradicts it, he would swear a biblical oath that he did not take anything from the house and he would be exempt. See earlier 90:3.

Paragraph 4- If one grabbed strips of silver from another in front of a solo witness, and he says he grabbed it but claims it belonged to him, he would be required to return it.

Paragraph 5- If he grabbed gold coins from another in front of a solo witness and he claims he was grabbing his own item and there were 20 gold coins, even if the witness does not know how much he grabbed, he would pay back the 20 because we know with certainty he grabbed the gold coins, which means he is required to swear and because he cannot swear he must pay.

Paragraph 6- If the grabber says he grabbed 20 and they belonged to him, and the victim says he grabbed 100, the grabber would pay 20 and take a heses oath on the remainder.

Paragraph 4- If one entered the home of another outside his presence and took vessels in front of a solo witness, and the witness does not know how much he took, and the owner says there were 20 vessels in house, while the robber says he only took 10 and they belong to me, he would be required to return the 10 because he is obligated to swear and is unable to do so. He would not even swear a heses oath on the rest, because the owner cannot make a certain claim against the robber.

Paragraph 8- If one tells another that he robbed 100 from him and the defendant says he did not rob, he would take a heses oath. If he admits he robbed 50, he would pay the 50 and swear a biblical oath on the rest just like any other party who swears because he has not been established with witnesses as a robber.

Paragraph 9- Similarly, if one makes a claim on another that he entered his home and robbed vessels, and the defendant says he took them as collateral for the debt he was owed, and the owner says he owes him nothing, although the defendant admits he took collateral without permission, because there are no witnesses testifying he robbed, he would swear and collect his debt from the collateral.