With the help of Heaven
One Who Stole and Does Not Know from Whom He Stole
Sources and Reasons:
1). Maran the Shulchan Aruch writes (Choshen Mishpat, sec. 366, para. 2): Shepherds, collectors, and tax collectors find repentance difficult, because they stole from the public and do not know to whom they should return [the money]. Therefore, they should use it for the needs of the public, such as wells, ditches, and caves. End quote. The Sema (subsec. 5) writes that the reason is that the victim of the theft will also benefit from the things made with the stolen money. End quote. Obviously, however, this is not complete repentance, as the Sema writes (sec. 231, subsec. 34), since it is not certain that the victim will benefit from it, or that he will benefit to the value of the theft. Nevertheless, it constitutes at least partial repentance.
2). In my humble opinion, nowadays one may give the value of the theft to chesed organizations that lend out non-consumable items, such as Yad Sarah, Ezer Mizion, hospitals, and the like. One may likewise buy siddurim for the Kotel[1] and the like with the money, or donate to mikvaot and the like.
3). However, it is not effective to give the money to charity organizations such as Chasdei Naomi, Yad Ezra VeShulamit, and the like, for how do we know that the victim is needy and will come to benefit from this? (This is unlike what is written in the book Halichot Moed, Yom Kippur, p. 229.) Nor should one donate to yeshivot, nor donate consumable items or food. It also stands to reason that placing the item somewhere from which the victim presumably will not benefit is ineffective, such as donating toward Torah lectures in another city. This is likewise written in a similar vein in Shut Afraksata DeAnya, vol. 4 (sec. 316).
4). Likewise, regarding tzedakah: although one could have said that he should give the value of the stolen money to tzedakah and state verbally that he is giving it for the benefit of the victim, and we rule that a person is pleased for a mitzvah to be performed with his money even where there is a monetary loss, as the Shulchan Aruch writes (Orach Chaim, sec. 437, para. 3). Although the Magen Avraham (sec. 14, subsec. 10) writes that this applies only where the loss is minor, but not where the loss is substantial—and accordingly forbids using another person’s books without his knowledge—nevertheless, one could say that where the money is already lost to the victim, he is certainly pleased with this at least, even where the loss is substantial.
However, this requires consideration: why, then, did the Gemara not offer this simple solution? Necessarily, since we require, “and he shall return the stolen item that he stole,” a spiritual restitution is not effective, for the benefit must be provided materially rather than spiritually. This is also the conclusion of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein in Shut Igrot Moshe (Choshen Mishpat, vol. 1, sec. 88): giving the amount to tzedakah for the merit of the victim is not effective. Rabbi Zilberstein likewise writes this in his book Chashukei Chemed (Yoma 85b), unlike what appears to emerge from Shut Afraksata DeAnya (ibid.).
5). I saw a novel ruling in the book Or LeTzion (Chochmah U’Mussar, p. 216), which states as follows: This money that the government takes from us—if we are already obligated to pay it, let us at least intend that it be for tzedakah. For the government commonly distributes money to people, and perhaps there are truly needy people among them. He should likewise intend that perhaps he stole from the public, and our Sages of blessed memory said: one who stole and does not know from whom, should provide for public needs. With this money taken by the government, public needs are provided—roads, lighting, and the like—from which everyone benefits. Since public needs are provided through his money, his sin of theft is thereby atoned for. End quote. However, it would seem from his words that he was discussing obligations from which Torah scholars are exempt, such as city security; see Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah, sec. 243, para. 2), for their Torah study protects them. For regarding other municipal obligations, such as lighting repairs and the like, they are obligated in any event; how, then, could they exempt themselves through this? Since much of our money goes toward protecting the city and the state, and perhaps even most of the annual budget goes toward state security, and part of this money is taken from residents through VAT payments, one whose Torah is his occupation—meaning that he has no occupation other than Torah—should intend that the money spent on his purchases serves as atonement if he perhaps stole from the public. He should likewise have this intention regarding municipal tax payments, part of which is taken for city security.
6). See also Shut Minchat Shlomo (second edition, sec. 135), which writes that when one steals from the public and his remedy is to provide for public needs, this is only an attribute of piety and not required by law. According to this, one may certainly rely on the words of Or LeTzion in this matter.
[1]Ahavat Chesed writes in the name of the Shelah that similarly, one may donate books to a beit midrash.
This response was translated automatically from Hebrew and has not yet been reviewed by a person. Therefore, it may contain inaccuracies and should not be considered a definitive reference.
