Sixth: he must have no semblance of a claim to it.

Seventh: it must be taken covertly.

“No hand amputation is prescribed for one who plunders, one who snatches, one who usurps, or one who breaches a trust with respect to a deposit or a loaned item….”

His statement, “No hand amputation is prescribed for one who plunders”: the plunderer is one who takes property openly, relying on his strength—for example, he sees that you are wearing a watch, takes it, and does not return it.

His statement, “nor for one who snatches”: this is one who seizes property suddenly while running. He has taken it openly, but relies on his flight and speed. We say: such a person too is not subject to hand amputation, because this is not theft. The very name of theft indicates that a person takes property covertly.

Likewise, if he stands by a shop and says to its owner, “Do you have such-and-such?” Then he says, “Give me such-and-such, which is inside.” When the man goes inside, he takes from what is before him whatever he wants and then flees. We call such a person a snatcher.

His statement, “nor for one who usurps”: this is one who takes property wrongfully by force. He is not subject to hand amputation because he is not a thief. Usurpation is broader than plundering, for it includes both movable property and real estate.

For example, a man usurps a piece of land, plants it, and builds upon it. We do not amputate his hand, because it was not taken covertly.

His statement, “nor for one who breaches a trust”: this is one who betrays you in a situation of trustworthiness, and betrayal is in every case a blameworthy trait.