Bava Kamma, Chapter 9, Mishnah 1. We are continuing with the topic of the obligation to return a stolen object, and in the case where the thief swore falsely - even to add a fifth (twenty-five percent) to it, before he can bring his guilt offering. Our Mishnah discusses a case where the victim of the theft is a convert who had no children born to him after his conversion.
The rule is that "a convert who converts is like a newborn child" - like a person who has just come into the world. Therefore, halachah does not recognize the biological family ties he had previously: his brothers, his parents, and even his children born before the conversion. Hence, if he had no children born to him after his conversion, a unique scenario is created: a person who has no heirs at all.
When such a person passes away, his property does not pass to anyone but remains ownerless, and whoever claims it first acquires it. Consequently, in a simple case of theft - although the thief has an obligation to return it - once the victim dies, all that he has becomes ownerless, and the thief is permitted to keep the stolen object. The question the Mishnah comes to clarify is what the law is when the thief not only stole from the convert, but also swore falsely that he did not owe him. For now, if he seeks atonement, he must bring a guilt offering, and he cannot bring it until he returns the stolen object and adds a fifth to it - and to whom will the money be given? The Torah discusses this explicitly in the Book of Bamidbar (Chapter 5), and this is the subject of the Mishnah.
The text of the Mishnah:
"Hagozel es hager" - We are dealing with a convert who had no children born to him after his conversion.
"Venishba lo" - The thief swore falsely to the victim that he did not steal from him, while in fact he did steal.
"Vameis" - The convert died before the thief managed to rectify the wrong.
"Harei zeh meshalem keren vechomesh lakohanim" - He does not give only the hundred he stole, but a hundred and twenty-five: the principal plus the fifth - and it all goes to the kohanim.
"Ve'asham al hamizbe'ach" - And only afterward does he bring his robbery guilt offering as a sacrifice on the Altar.
The source of the law in the verse:
The Mishnah concludes "as it is stated," for this law is explicit in the verse. First, we must understand the phrase "if the man has no redeemer": Chazal deduce that there is no person in Israel who has no heirs, since the family tree of every Jew goes back to Yaakov Avinu, so everyone is cousins to one another, and he certainly has heirs somewhere. Rather, it must be dealing with a convert, who is reborn and starts from the beginning, and therefore if he has no children of his own - he has no heirs.
"Im ein la'ish go'el lehashiv ha'asham eilav" - If the victim has no heirs to whom the "asham" (guilt) can be returned. The word "asham" here, which literally means guilt, does not refer to the sacrifice and the animal, but to the source of the guilt - the stolen object. The thief stole a hundred from the convert, the convert died and has no heirs, and there is no one to return the hundred to.
"Ha'asham hamoshav laShem lakohen" - The stolen object, as well as "the returned" - the additional twenty-five percent - go to Hashem; He is the recipient, as it were, and He transfers them to the kohanim. The kohanim are considered to be "eating from the High Table" and "acquiring from the High Table": Hashem intervenes to care for His beloved convert who passed away, and gives what is given to Him, as it were, to the kohanim.
"Milvad eil hakipurim asher yechaper bo alav" - Returning the hundred and twenty-five to the kohanim is in addition to the ram of atonement, which is the robbery guilt offering, through whose sacrifice the thief attains atonement for having sworn falsely regarding his theft.
Practical halachah:
This law applies only at the time when the Beis Hamikdash stands and the kohanim serve in it and merit to eat from Hashem's table, as it were. But at a time when there is no Beis Hamikdash and no sacrifices, the kohanim are not entitled to this, and therefore one who stole and swore falsely to a convert who has no children, and the convert died - he shall return the hundred and twenty-five not to the kohanim but to charity, and it will be divided equally among the poor.
If the thief died before he managed to complete his obligation:
"Hayah ma'aleh es hakesef ve'es ha'asham" - The thief goes up to Yerushalayim with the hundred and twenty-five designated for the kohanim as explicit in the verse in his hand, and with him is also the ram he consecrated to be his robbery guilt offering, which he is bringing up for sacrifice. The word "asham" here refers to the animal itself.
"Vameis" - Before he managed to give the money or offer the sacrifice, the thief died.
"Hakesef yinasen levanav" - The hundred and twenty-five separated to be returned and given to the kohanim pass to the heirs of the thief.
"Veha'asham yir'eh ad sheyista'ev, veyimacher veyipelu damav lenedavah" - The animal is left to graze until it develops a blemish, is sold, and its value goes for a communal freewill offering.
The reason for this: The purpose of giving the money is to ensure atonement for the robber and enable him to bring his guilt-offering. Once he has died, he no longer brings a guilt-offering and there is no way to atone for him. The halachah is that if he had already repented - meaning he completed the part between him and his Creator: he admitted to doing a forbidden act, took upon himself not to return to it, and confessed - his death atones for him; and if not, he has no atonement and he will have to face judgment in Heaven. Regardless, the money in his possession is now just regular money, and therefore passes to his heirs.
However, an animal that was consecrated becomes holy. It cannot be offered, because an atonement sacrifice is not brought for someone who is no longer among the living, and therefore it is left to pasture until it develops a blemish that disqualifies it from being offered - such as if it grows old and develops a cataract in its eye, or is injured on the way and its ear is slit, and the like. Once it is disqualified - "veyimacher" - the Temple is allowed to sell the blemished ram and receive its money, and this sale acts as a sort of redemption, transferring the sanctity of the animal to the money.
"Veyiplu damav linedavah" - the money is given to 'nedavah' (a freewill offering), and this refers to those shofaros, the public collection boxes that were in the Temple for gathering money to buy freewill burnt-offerings. These sacrifices were offered as 'kayitz hamizbe'ach' (summer fruit for the altar): When the altar was idle, they would bring animals to be offered as burnt-offerings to Hashem solely for the sake of holy offerings, so that the altar would always be active, as this is for its honor. Thus, this money is used to buy communal burnt-offerings.
To complete the topic - a sin-offering versus a guilt-offering:
With a sin-offering, the rule is that if it cannot be offered because it will not atone - there are five ways in which this happens, and the main one is the death of the owner, as in the case before us - it is left to die, since it has no redemption at all. This is a Halachah given to Moshe at Sinai, and that same Halachah given to Moshe at Sinai itself determines that if this occurred with a guilt-offering and not a sin-offering, it is not left to die, but rather pastures until it can be redeemed; and once it develops a blemish, it is redeemed, and its money goes to a freewill offering.