Bava Kamma 098

1:
This last chapter of Tractate Bava Kamma deals mainly with the issue of what today we might call "receiving stolen goods". However, in modern parlance the phrase serves to indicate reception of goods knowing them to be stolen and this acting as a kind of accomplice to the theft. As we shall see, essentially, this is not the issue with which this chapter deals. Our mishnah consists of two clauses.

2:
The first clause of our mishnah is concerned with the situation of people who inadvertently benefit from stolen property. Our mishnah describes two possible scenarios. It could be that David stole money from Sarah and the thief was never discovered. David used that money to maintain his family in food, shelter and other necessities. Alternatively, David was never discovered to be the thief and he dies unrepentant. His heirs are now in possession of his property, some of which is stolen property. In either case, the members of the family were not involved in the theft. It is for this reason that our mishnah states that if they should subsequently discover that the deceased stole the money they do not have to return it to its original owner. We may surmise that the reason for this ruling is because the person from whom the property was stolen has probably despaired of ever recovering it. An exception to this ruling is if what was stolen is real estate.

3:
The sages in the Gemara [BK 112a] restrict this ruling of our mishnah. They rule that if what was stolen still exists it must be returned; it is only if it has been used up that repayment need not be made. Later poskim [halakhic decisors] cancelled the ruling of the mishnah to all intents and purposes: both money and real estate must be returned even by innocent heirs.

4:
We now come to the second clause of our mishnah. This clause is concerned with receipt of money from people who might reasonably be suspected of theft and robbery. Two examples are given: tax-gatherers and beadles.

5:
The government of the Roman Empire would budget for its needs and then require of the various provinces of the empire payment of a proportional share in the budget. The officers of the provinces would give a licence or franchise to the highest bidders to collect taxes from the people. As with most franchises this was seen as a legitimate means of making a profit! The tax-collectors paid for their franchise out of their own pocket and they were then free to recoup from the people as much as they possibly could. Human nature being what it is, they usually made a handsome profit at the expense of the people. This is why tax-gatherers were hated and despised.

6:
As long as the tax-gatherer collects money from the citizens only to the extent of his payment to the government his activity is legitimate. In modern terms we would say that collection for taxes, rates and customs dues that have been determined by the legal government must be paid by Jews according to the principle [BK113a] which states that "the law of the land is the law" which must be obeyed. But all sums that a tax-gatherer may extract from citizens above and beyond what was laid down by the government is considered by halakhah to be stolen property.

7:
The beadle was just another kind of tax-gatherer. It is possible that the tax-gatherer collected his money from taxes on goods and chattels whereas the beadle collected his money from the cash that people carried with them.

8:
Our mishnah rules that if one has coins of a large denomination that one wishes to exchange for coins of smaller denominations one should not take coins from a tax-gatherer or a beadle, all their money being tainted with the suspicion of robbery.

9:
The Jews had their own system of collections for charitable purposes. Both money and food were collected on a daily and a weekly basis. The conclave of the sages would appoint men known to be honest and upright as charity commissioners whose task it was to collect money and food from people according to the charity needs of the community and the assumed financial status of the donor. This was done by knocking on doors and stopping people in the steet.

10:
Our mishnah rules that the charity commissioners should not take money from tax-gatherers and beadles who have been granted a franchise by the secular authorities: as we have already explained, all their money is considered as being tainted with the suspicion of robbery.

11:
This ruling applies to money that the tax man is carrying around with him as he plies his trade. However, if the money he gives to charity is taken from his home we may assume that it is his personal property and not stolen property. He is suspected of robbery, not of theft. The same applies if he donates in the street when all he has with him is his own private purse.