Responsa for Bava Kamma 237:16
וכ"ת הני מילי היכא דלא יהיב דמי אבל היכא דיהיב דמי לא ת"ש מחמס בני יהודה אשר שפכו דם נקי (בארצכם) [בארצם]
come and hear: 'For hamas<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Implying a purchase by threats and violence as supra p. 361. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> [the violence] against the children of Judah because they have shed innocent blood in their land.' Again, should you say that these statements refer only to a case where a robbery was directly committed by hand whereas where it was merely caused indirectly this would not be so, come and hear: 'It is for Saul and for his bloody house because he slew the Gibeonites'; for indeed where do we find that Saul slew the Gibeonites? It must therefore be because he slew Nob,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., its inhabitants; v. I Sam. XXII, 11-19. ');"><sup>28</sup></span>
Maharach Or Zarua Responsa
Maharach Or Zarua Responsa
A - There is a difference of opinion regarding property of an apostate. I maintain, however, that A should continue to safeguard it, awaiting the time that C might repent and return to the fold. It is not directly permissible for B to spend the money or seize it for his personal use. However, if B had already done so, it can no longer be exacted by judicial process.
If C had never returned to Judaism, but died, the money should be returned to his Jewish heirs, since it is the unanimous opinion of the Rabbis, that an apostate retains the power to transmit his property to his Jewish heirs. If B wants to act with equity, he should return the money to C's Jewish heirs, after C's death, even if B had spent the money or seized it for his personal use.