Siman 372

If one robbed land and damaged it while in his possession, or ate its produce, such that the robber is obligated to pay the owner of the field the value of what the robber damaged or the value of the produce he ate—he does not collect from properties that the robber sold to others after the robbery, like the law of a loan with a deed where one collects from encumbered properties. Rather, he collects from unencumbered properties like the law of an oral loan, for the buyers do not know how much he damaged or how much produce he ate so that they might be careful not to buy lands from him. Therefore, if the robber stood in judgment and was found liable to pay such-and-such, and afterwards sold properties, the victim collects the damage and the produce from them; for even though there is no deed in this case, nevertheless, every act of a beit din has a voice, and they should have been careful, and they caused their own loss, and the victim collects from them and they return to the seller, the robber. And if he only stood in judgment regarding the damage and not regarding the produce, or regarding the produce and not regarding the damage, he only collects from encumbered properties for that which he stood in judgment, and the one does not assist the other to seize from encumbered properties for it as well, such that we would say that since he stood in judgment for the one, the buyer should have known about the second thing as well. And it is a simple matter that if the robber gave the victim a deed with witnesses regarding the damage and the produce, he collects from encumbered properties even before he stood in judgment, for it is no worse than other debt deeds. And it appears to me that even when it is known that the buyer did not know of the deed or the act of the beit din, nevertheless he collects from him just as with a debt deed when the buyers did not know; for by Torah law one collects from encumbered properties even with an oral loan, as the lien is from the Torah, as I wrote in siman 39. It is only that with an oral loan the sages enacted not to collect from encumbered properties for the sake of the order of the world, and therefore with a deed or when he stood in judgment, where they did not enact this, it automatically stands upon the Torah law.

And such is the law when they seized it from the robber on his account in a manner that he is obligated to pay, as written in siman 371: if he stood in judgment and afterward sold, the victim of the robbery collects from what he sold; but from what he sold before he stood in judgment, he does not collect. And even though there is a rumor regarding the robbery [Sma, subsection 2], for it is not known to the buyers if they seized it from him on his account, or on account of the victim of the robbery, or on account of a regional plague [it appears to me]. And know that in the Yerushalmi, chapter HaGozel [halacha 6], there is a dispute when the extortionist took it on account of the victim of the robbery whether the robber is obligated to pay him. However, from all the poskim who left their words unspecified and wrote only that if they took it on account of the robber he is obligated to pay the victim of the robbery, it is clear that if it was on account of the victim of the robbery, he does not need to pay him [and see there in the commentator, and it requires further study].

If one robbed a field and improved it through labor, such that the victim of the robbery is obligated to pay him as was written there, the victim of the robbery seizes it as it is with its improvement, and they appraise the improvement for the robber, and his hand is at the bottom: if the improvement is greater than the expenditure, he takes only the expenditure from the victim of the robbery, and if the expenditure is greater than the improvement, he has nothing from the expenditures except the amount of the improvement, according to the law of one who descends into another's field without permission, which will be explained in siman 375.