Is a thief an owner? or just a posessor? perhaps someone taking an owner's control?
If someone finds an object with a siman, is he rightly called a thief until he returns it?
Why does the gemara, at least Artscroll's translation, say that the thief is the current owner of the object which was stolen?
And furthermore, does it matter whether the item stolen is money, or an object with monetary value?
For example, consider a lump of gold stamped out into a coin who's face value is equivalent to or somewhat higher than the market value of the gold by weight at time of stamping...
This object has both intrinsic value and currency value.
If we say that thief of item from one of multiple claimants must pay N-times over, once to each claimant, for claims of money being stolen, but for the object itself, just like the case of the 2 vessels, only has to divide the item up among the claimants?
If the coin has both intrinsic and monetary value, which value is the operative one for purposes of resolving multiple claimants with equal force?
Robert
That is quite a complicated question. However, I will try to lay down some general rules. A thief does not become an owner, even if there is "Yiush" (original owner has given up on ever getting back the object, see Bava Kama 66a). However, if a "Shinuy" -- "change" occurs in the item, it is possible that the thief can own the item (see SHULCHAN ARUCH C.M. 353). Some of the various kinds of Shinuyim are "Shinuy Maseh" (the thief either effects a change in the animal) and "Shinuy ha'Shem" (the animal changes by itself i.e. turns from a calf into a bull). There is much discussion about which Shinuy causes the thief to own the item, and whether this is only together with Yiush.
Someone who finds an object with a Siman is obligated to return it. When he does this, he is definitely not called a thief, but a Shomer (guard). If he decides to keep it, he is a thief (see Bava Metzia 25b). I do not own an Artscroll Gemara, and therefore cannot judge the context of the word thief you are describing.
The laws I have decribed until now apply regarding both money and things of intrinsic value. The value of the item is the standard value that one would assess the item, as we clearly would not give a 1921 silver dollar (if one exists, I don't profess to be a coin expert) the value of a dollar merely because it says that this is the value on the coin.
Take Care,
Yaakov Montrose