Responsa for Bava Kamma 237:7
מ"ד מותר לאבדו ביד לא יהא ממונו חמור מגופו ומ"ד אסור לאבדו דלמא הוה ליה זרעא מעליא וכתיב (איוב כז, יז) יכין רשע וצדיק ילבש:
whereas the other one said that it is forbidden to destroy it directly. The one who stated that it is permitted to destroy it directly [maintains that an offence against] the property of an informer could surely not be worse than [one against] his body,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which may be incapacitated to any extent for the sake of public safety; v. A.Z. 26b, also Sanh. 74a and supra p. 703. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> whereas the one who held that it is forbidden to destroy it maintains that the informer might perhaps have good children, as written, He, the wicked, may prepare it but the just shall put it on.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Job XXVII, 17. [The words 'the wicked' do not occur in the Massoretic texts. It is more than probable that it is an explanatory gloss inserted by the Talmud; v. marginal glosses and cf. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 698, n. 8.] ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
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.