Page 247 - EFI-RAV ZILBERSTIN_VOL 8.EFI-RAV ZILBERSTIN_VOL 8.1A

Pg: 247 - 8-Back 21-10-31

and brothers can be referred to as his owners when the term “owner”
is applicable only to clothing and utensils but not to relatives. The
reason why abducting a person is referred to by the Torah as geneivah,
he says, is because the victims are usually minors as the Ramban and
the Ibn Ezra write (in their commentaries to Shemos 21,16, quoting
“the Gaon”) and abducting a minor [whose mind is undeveloped] is
considered to be stealing without the owner’s awareness.

The Rambam writes (Hilchos Geneivah, 5,1),“It is forbidden to buy
from a thief any item that he stole and this is a great sin because it
encourages criminals and leads the thief to carry out further robber-
ies because if he wouldn’t find a buyer, he wouldn’t steal.” The Ram-
bam writes further (Hilchos Melachim, 9,9), “A Noahide is liable for
stealing whether he stole from a gentile or from a Jew, irrespective of
whether he robbed [openly] or stole [surreptitiously] money or if he
abducted a person.” Thus, anyone who is involved in the conversion
[to Judaism] of a stolen child is classed among those who buy stolen
goods from a robber. It arrears that the conversion is invalid since
it is a mitzvah to return an item stolen from a gentile to its owner
according to the Aruch Hashulchan (Choshen Mishpat, 348,2) who
writes, “Some authorities are of the opinion that there is no mitzvah
of making restitution to a gentile (Nesivos Hamishpat ibid.,1) but this
does not seem to be the view taken by the poskim.” So too writes the
Divrei Chaim (Auerbach, Laws of Stealing, 2). Therefore, beis din has
no right to convert such a child, even if the family that has acquired
him observes Torah and mitzvos [this is besides the other problems
of halachah,] and the child must be returned to his parents. Anyone
assisting the “customers” violates, “Do not place a stumbling block
before a blind man” because he is abetting the thieves in committing a
crime for which they incur the death penalty.

People must be aware that even when beis din decides that it is best
for a child to be separated from his parents, this still doesn’t justify
his being put up for the type of adoption that is practiced nowadays,
which involves severing the child completely from his parents perma-
nently. This type of adoption involves stealing a person in some de-
gree [and if there are middlemen involved who receive payment they

Removing a Child from the Parents’ Custody 2 231