In the weekly Bible paragraph, the Torah warns us against stealing our neighbor's property: "Do not withhold what belongs to your neighbor and do not steal.".
This sin is of such magnitude that Maimonides decrees that "whoever steals from his fellow man for the value of 'a pruta' (the Talmudic coin of least value) is as if he had robbed him of his soul.".
This severity is specifically determined by robbery and not by theft, even though in both cases there is an unlawful appropriation of a person's property. In the latter case, the thief is aware of the person's ownership of their property and therefore lacks the audacity to confront the owner, appropriating their property through theft. In contrast, someone who steals openly appropriates another's property and thereby attacks a fundamental aspect of the human soul, the right to ownership of one's own goods, and thus "strips them of their soul."
The amendment of this sin is a precept of the Torah: "He shall return what he stole." The thief is obligated to return the stolen property to its owner, and through this it is considered as if he had "restored the soul" of the one deprived, fixing the sin of "depriving the soul" implicit in the act of stealing.
But what is the law when the stolen object no longer exists? Maimonides rules: "If the stolen item no longer exists and the thief wishes to repent and came of his own accord and returned the value of what was stolen, the Sages decreed that it should not be accepted, but rather he should be helped and forgiven, in order to bring the straight path closer to those who return.""
(Not so for those who stole, that is, robbed secretly, who must always pay)
SINCERE REPENTANCE
The explanation for this is as follows: while there is the possibility of returning the stolen item, it is a mitzvah to do so, since through this the most serious aspect of the act of stealing is amended—"the deprivation of the soul.""
But when the property is gone, this aspect of the theft cannot be rectified, and the most that can be done is to compensate the victim for the damage suffered. In this case, the Sages decreed the "provision for the repentant," to make the path of return easier.
But this provision was established only if "the thief wished to repent and came of his own accord and returned the stolen goods." With this act, the thief demonstrated the sincerity of his repentance and acknowledged the owner's right to the stolen item. Thus, the thief rectified his sin, and for this reason, our Sages deemed it appropriate to make the path of repentance accessible and decreed that no money should be accepted for stolen goods.
NO INTENTION OF WINNING
From this law we learn the extent to which one must strive to help a Jew return to the right path and do Teshuvah (repentance). If the Sages decreed that a person should relinquish their money to "bring the straight path closer to the repentant," how much more should we strive to help a Jew draw closer to their Heavenly Father?.
The effort to bring Jews closer to the Torah must be undertaken without any intention of personal gain—neither material nor spiritual (such as rewards in the World to Come). The sole interest should be simply to bring Jews closer to God, even at the cost of personal loss. And when Jews return to God, they are immediately redeemed in the true and complete redemption at the hands of the Messiah.
Likutei Sichot Volume 32, Page 112