Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/373

Paragraph 1- If one robbed a field and sold it, and the buyer caused an appreciation, and the appreciation was more than the expense, the buyer would collect the expense from the owner. There are those who say that even if the field was not worth as much as it was at the time of the robbery, such as where the robber caused a depreciation, the buyer would still collect the expenses from the victim. There are those who disagree. The buyer would collect the principle and the remaining appreciation from the robber. The principle can be collected from properties sold to others, but the rest of the appreciation can only be collected from unencumbered properties. If the buyer knew it was robbed when he purchased it, he can only collect the principle from the robber and would lose the difference between the appreciation and the expenses. If the expenses were more than the appreciation, regardless of whether the buyer knew it was stolen or not, the only part of the expenses he would receive is the amount the property appreciated, and he would take it from the owner. There are those who say that because he knew the property did not belong to him, he would even lose the expenses. There are those who say that if the robber explicitly guaranteed, he must give what he guaranteed. There are those who disagree. The buyer would collect the principle from the robber and can collect from properties sold to third parties.

Paragraph 2- Any fruits the buyer consumed while the property was in his possession must be returned to the victim. The law regarding those fruits are the same as the law of appreciation. If the buyer did not know it was stolen, he can collect from the robber’s unencumbered properties. If he knew it was stolen, he cannot collect anything.

Paragraph 3- If the seller claims the buyer knew it was robbed, and the buyer claims he did not know, the seller has the burden of proof.