The Torah commands in Parashat Vayikra (5:23) that a thief who stole an object must return it to the victim (“Ve’heshib Et Ha’gezela Asher Gazal”). This obligation applies only when the item still exists in its original form; if it has undergone a permanent change (“Shinui She’eno Hozer Li’briyato”), which cannot be reversed, then the thief pays the victim the value of the stolen item, instead. One example given by the Gemara is a thief who stole wood which he used as firewood. Since, quite obviously, the ashes cannot be turned back into wood, the thief pays the victim the value of the wood he stole. Another example is a thief who stole wool which he proceeded to dye a different color, or make into a sweater. In such cases, too, the thief pays the victim money, since he cannot return the stolen object. The Sefer Ha’hinuch writes that if a person stole something which is valued at less than a “Shaveh Peruta” (the value of the smallest unit of currency), then although he has transgressed the prohibition against theft, he is not required to return the object. The reason, the Sefer Ha’hinuch explains, is because Am Yisrael “are the children of Abraham, Yishak and Yaakob, generous people, children of generous people,” and even an indigent member of our nation will forgive the theft of something so insignificant. Since it can be assumed that the victim foregoes on this small item, the thief is not obligated to return it, even though he has committed a forbidden act of theft. The obligation to return a stolen item applies as long as it is in the possession of the thief or his inheritors. It applies even if the victim had already despaired of ever receiving the item back; if it remains in the thief’s possession, he must return it to the victim. The Gemara says that this obligation requires the thief to travel even across the world to find the victim so he can return what he stole. Even if he stole a very inexpensive item, worth just a “Peruta,” he must go through whatever trouble is necessary to return it to the victim. However, the Sages enacted that if the victim lives far away, the thief can bring the object to Bet Din and leave it with them. This provision was enacted out of concern that thieves would not bother repenting for their crimes if this required going through the trouble and incurring the expense of traveling great distances to return what they stole. In the interest of encouraging thieves to repent, the Sages allowed them to leave the stolen goods with Bet Din rather than have to travel to the victim. If the stolen item’s market value rose in the interim, while it was in the thief’s possession, the thief must nevertheless return the item, and cannot demand the appreciation value. If, however, the item intrinsically appreciated, such as if one stole an animal and it grew wool or gave birth to more animals, then the thief can keep the value which the animal appreciated. This provision, too, was enacted by the Sages in the interest of encouraging thieves to repent. The Gemara states that if a person owned an empty apartment, and a squatter came and lived there without permission, the owner cannot demand payment from the squatter unless the apartment is normally leased. Assuming the squatter did not cause any damage to the property, he owes nothing to the owner, because this situation falls under the category of “Zeh Neheneh Ve’zeh Lo Haser” – literally, “this one benefits, and this one does not lose.” Since the owner did not lose anything as a result of the squatter’s presence in the apartment, he cannot demand payment. To the contrary, the Gemara says, in a certain sense, having somebody living in a residence is beneficial for the property, as it protects it from being overrun by Mazikin (harmful spirits) which occupy empty homes. It is only if the owner normally leases the apartment, and was prevented from doing so because of the squatter, that he may then demand payment, since the squatter caused him a financial loss. (