LEV54 If not demanding restitution makes it more likely that the perpetrator will repent, then it is a worthy act, but not obligatory, to do so. The Talmud offers a related instance in which a victim may not insist on strict justice. According to Jewish law, [this] verse in Leviticus mandating that a robber "shall restore what he took by robbery" obligates a thief to return, as it is, the object he stole. But what if, for example, the robber stole a beam, and then used it as part of a building? Is the thief required to tear down the building so that he can return it? The School of Shammai ruled that this is exactly what he should do: "he must demolish the whole [building] and restore the beam to its owner." The House of Hillel, however, whose judgment prevails, says that the victim can claim only the monetary value of the beam, so as not to place obstacles in the way of penitents (Gittin 55a). This ruling is consistent with Judaism's general commitment to fairness and a realistic assessment of human nature. As Rashi explains in his commentary on this passage, "For if you force him to destroy his dwelling and return the beam to its owner, he will avoid the act of repentance."