Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 2, 2016 | 讻状讟 讘讗讘 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Kamma 94

Abaye brings halachot of 5 different tannaim and claims that all of them agree that changing an item doesn’t change ownership over it. 聽Rava disagrees and explains why each case is unique and can’t teach a general principle. 聽Rabbi Yochanan holds that one has to return the stolen item as is and not the value of it as discussed previously. 聽The gemara questions his opinion from another source but then explains that when Rabbi Yochanan made his statement, it was a case where the change was reversible. 聽But if it was an irreversible change, he would only be required to pay the value at the time of the theft. 聽Robbers and usurers who want to return from their bad ways should return the items they stole/collected but the ones they stole/collected from should not accept it from them in order to encourage them to repent. 聽The gemara brings various sources that seem to contradict this halacha and reconciles them.

讚诪讗住驻讜专拽 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜住专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讙诐 砖谞讬讛诐 诇专讘讜转 砖讬谞讜讬讬讛诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗诪专 拽专讗 讛诐 讜诇讗 砖讬谞讜讬讬讛诐

of Asporak: Beit Shammai prohibit sacrificing these items and Beit Hillel permit doing so. The Gemara clarifies: What is the reason of Beit Shammai? The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog into the House of the Lord your God for any vow; for even both of these are an abomination unto the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:19). The word 鈥渆ven鈥 is an amplification, which serves to include in the prohibition these items in their changed form. And what is the reason of Beit Hillel? The verse states 鈥渢hese鈥 to emphasize that the prohibition applies only to these items in their initial form, but not in their changed form.

讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讛诐 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讛诐 讜诇讗 讜诇讚讜转讬讛诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 转专转讬 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讛诐 讜诇讗 砖讬谞讜讬讬讛诐 讛诐 讜诇讗 讜诇讚讜转讬讛诐

The Gemara asks: And according to Beit Shammai, isn鈥檛 the word 鈥渢hese鈥 written in the verse, indicating an exclusion? The Gemara responds: Beit Shammai requires that word to indicate that 鈥渢hese鈥 items are forbidden, but not the offspring of animals given as payment to the prostitute. The Gemara asks: And according to Beit Hillel, what is the source of that halakha? The Gemara answers: According to Beit Hillel, you learn two halakhot from this word, as follows: 鈥淭hese鈥 items are forbidden in their initial form but not in their changed form, and 鈥渢hese鈥 items are forbidden but not their offspring.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 讙诐 讙诐 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara asks: And according to Beit Hillel as well, isn鈥檛 the word 鈥渆ven鈥 written in the verse, indicating an amplification? The Gemara answers: Indeed, the word 鈥渆ven鈥 is difficult for Beit Hillel. It is not clear how they would interpret that word.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 诪讗讬 讛讬讗

The Gemara continues: What is the source that indicates that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov holds that an item that undergoes a change is still considered to have the same status that it had before the change?

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讛专讬 砖讙讝诇 住讗讛 砖诇 讞讟讬谉 讟讞谞讛 诇砖讛 讜讗驻讗讛 讜讛驻专讬砖 诪诪谞讛 讞诇讛 讻讬爪讚 诪讘专讱 讗讬谉 讝讛 诪讘专讱 讗诇讗 诪谞讗抓 讜注诇 讝讛 谞讗诪专 讘爪注 讘专讱 谞讗抓 讛壮

The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: In the case of one who robbed another of a se鈥檃 of wheat, then ground it, kneaded it, and baked it, and he then separated 岣lla from it, i.e., he separated the portion of the dough that one is required to separate and then give to a priest, how can he recite the blessing over the separation of 岣lla? This individual is not reciting a blessing, but rather he is blaspheming. And with regard to this it is stated: 鈥淭he robber who recites a blessing blasphemes the Lord鈥 (Psalms 10:3), which is referring to a robber who recites a blessing upon performing a mitzva with an item he stole. According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, although this wheat has been significantly changed, it is still considered a stolen item.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讻诇诇 讝讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讻诇 砖讘讞 砖讛砖讘讬讞 讙讝诇谉 讬讚讜 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 专爪讛 谞讜讟诇 砖讘讞讜 专爪讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 砖诇讱 诇驻谞讬讱

The Gemara continues: What is the source that indicates that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar holds that an item that undergoes a change is still considered to have the same status that it had before the change? As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 10:2) that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar stated this principle: With regard to any enhancement to the stolen animal in that it was enhanced by the actions of the robber, he has the advantage when repaying the owner. If he desires, he takes his enhancement, i.e., when he returns the animal, the robbery victim must pay the difference between its value at the time of the robbery and its current value, and if he desires he can return it to the owner and say to him: That which is yours is before you.

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛砖讘讬讞讛 谞讜讟诇 砖讘讞讜 讻讞砖 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 砖诇讱 诇驻谞讬讱 讚砖讬谞讜讬 讘诪拽讜诪讜 注讜诪讚

The Gemara expresses surprise: What is he saying? If the robber has a right to demand compensation for the enhancement to the animal, why would he ever return it without stating this demand? Rav Sheshet said that this is what he is saying: If the robber enhanced it, he takes his enhancement. If the animal was weakened, the robber says to him: That which is yours is before you, and no further compensation is required. This is because despite a change, the changed item remains in its place. Since the robber has not acquired it, he simply returns the item to the robbery victim.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讛砖讘讬讞 谞诪讬 讗诪专讬 诪驻谞讬 转拽谞转 讛砖讘讬诐

The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if the robber has not acquired it, then even if he enhanced it that should be the halakha as well. The item should still belong to the robbery victim and the robber should not be entitled to compensation. The Sages say in response: The fact that the robber has a right to demand compensation for the enhancement is due to an ordinance instituted for the penitent. In order to ease the burden of one who desires to repent, the Sages instituted that the robber be reimbursed for the increase in the value of the animal. Otherwise, a robber might refrain from returning a stolen item.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪爪讜转 驻讗讛 诇讛驻专讬砖 诪谉 讛拽诪讛 诇讗 讛驻专讬砖 诪谉 讛拽诪讛 诪驻专讬砖 诪谉 讛注讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讛驻专讬砖 诪谉 讛注讜诪专讬诐 诪驻专讬砖 诪谉 讛讻专讬 注讚 砖诇讗 诪专讞讜

The Gemara continues: What is the source that indicates that Rabbi Yishmael holds that an item that undergoes a change is still considered to have the same status that it had before the change? The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita: The ideal way to fulfill the mitzva of produce in the corner of the field, which is given to the poor [pe鈥檃], is to separate it from the standing grain, i.e., grain that has not been harvested. If one did not separate it from the standing grain, he separates it from the sheaves of grain that have already been harvested. If he did not separate it from the sheaves, he separates it from the pile of grain, as long as he has not yet smoothed the pile.

诪专讞讜 诪注砖专 讜谞讜转谉 诇讜 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专讜 讗祝 诪驻专讬砖 诪谉 讛注讬住讛 讜谞讜转谉 诇讜

If he smoothed the pile of grain, activating the obligation to tithe the produce, he first tithes the grain and then gives a portion of the tithed produce to the poor as pe鈥檃, so that the poor will not have to tithe what they receive. Additionally, they said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: If he did not separate pe鈥檃 during any of the aforementioned stages and he made a dough from the grain, he separates pe鈥檃 even from the dough and gives it to the poor. This indicates that even if the grain was changed, one is not exempt from the obligation of pe鈥檃.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讗讬讻驻诇 讻诇 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘讚讘专 讝讛

The Gemara has now clarified the sources Abaye alluded to when he listed all the tanna鈥檌m who hold that despite a change, the changed item remains in its place. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Did all these tanna鈥檌m go to so much trouble in an effort [ikhpal] to teach us a halakha in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, which is presumably not accepted as normative? Abaye said to Rav Pappa: This is what they are saying: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not engage in a dispute with regard to this matter. All of the aforementioned tanna鈥檌m hold that even Beit Hillel agree that a change in the form of an item does not impact its status.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讘爪讘注 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬讻讜诇 诇讛注讘讬专讜 注诇 讬讚讬 爪驻讜谉

Rava said: From where can it be proven that all of the aforementioned tanna鈥檌m hold that an item that undergoes a change is still considered to have the same status that it had before the change? One can say that the reasons for their statements are due to other factors. Perhaps Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda states his opinion, that it is not a significant change, there, in the case of the first of the sheared wool, only with regard to dye, which is a reversible change, since one is able to remove it with soap.

讜注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛转诐 讗诇讗 诇讙讘讜讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬诪讗讬住

And perhaps Beit Shammai state their opinion there, in the case of a harlot, only with regard to an offering to the Most High, because of the fact that the item has become repugnant, in being used as payment for the services of a prostitute, and therefore it cannot be used for an offering even if its form has changed.

讜注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛转诐 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讘专讻讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪爪讜讛 讛讘讗讛 讘注讘讬专讛

And perhaps Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov states his opinion there, where one robbed another of wheat, only with regard to a blessing, because this is a mitzva that is performed through commission of a transgression, but this does not indicate that a change is insignificant with regard to other matters.

讜注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讘讛讻讞砖讛 讚讛讚专

And perhaps Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar states his opinion there, where the condition of the animal changed, only with regard to weakening of the animal that is reversible. Since the animal鈥檚 value can be restored by fattening it, the weakening is not deemed a significant change.

讜注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛转诐 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 驻讗讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 转注讝讘 讬转讬专讗 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇讬讙诪专 诪讬谞讬讛 诪转谞讜转 注谞讬讬诐 砖讗谞讬

And perhaps Rabbi Yishmael states his opinion there, where one separated pe鈥檃 at a late stage, only with regard to pe鈥檃, because it is written: 鈥淵ou shall leave them for the poor鈥 an additional time. It is mentioned twice, in Leviticus 19:10 and Leviticus 23:22. One of these terms is superfluous, indicating that pe鈥檃 must be given to the poor under all circumstances, even if the grain was changed and made into dough. And if you would say: Let us derive from pe鈥檃 that in other halakhic domains the status of an item is not affected by its undergoing a change, pe鈥檃 cannot function as a source because gifts to the poor are different from other halakhot.

讻讚讘注讬 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讚讘注讬 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 砖讬谞讜讬 讗讬谞讜 拽讜谞讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘注诇诪讗 拽住讘专 砖讬谞讜讬 拽讜谞讛 讜讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 转注讝讘 讬转讬专讗

The Gemara notes: Rava鈥檚 claim that no definitive conclusion with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael concerning a changed item is supported by the statement of another amora is like the dilemma raised by Rabbi Yonatan, as Rabbi Yonatan raises a dilemma: What is the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Yishmael? Is it because he holds that change does not cause one to acquire an item? Or perhaps he generally holds that change does cause one to acquire an item, but here, in the case of pe鈥檃, it is different because the term 鈥淵ou shall leave鈥 is written an additional time.

讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 砖讬谞讜讬 讗讬谞讜 拽讜谞讛 转注讝讘 讬转讬专讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讜转讜 诇专讘谞谉 转注讝讘 讬转讬专讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬

Having quoted Rabbi Yonatan鈥檚 dilemma, the Gemara asks: And if you say that the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Yishmael is that he holds that change does not cause one to acquire an item, why do I need the additional term 鈥淵ou shall leave,鈥 which the Merciful One writes in the Torah? And furthermore, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that pe鈥檃 may not be taken from dough, why do I need the additional term 鈥淵ou shall leave鈥 that the Merciful One writes?

诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讛诪驻拽讬专 讻专诪讜 讜讛砖讻讬诐 诇讘拽专 讜讘爪专讜 讞讬讬讘 讘驻专讟 讜讘注讜诇诇讜转 讜讘砖讻讞讛 讜讘驻讗讛 讜驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪注砖专

The Gemara responds: This additional term is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: One who renounced ownership of his vineyard and arose early in the morning before anyone else took possession of it and harvested it is obligated in the mitzva of individual fallen grapes left for the poor [peret], and in the mitzva of incompletely formed clusters of grapes left for the poor [olelot], and in the mitzva of forgotten clusters of grapes left for the poor and in the mitzva of pe鈥檃. These are the four gifts to the poor that the Torah requires one to give from a vineyard. But he is exempt from the mitzva to tithe his produce, because this requirement does not apply to an ownerless field. The obligation to give gifts to the poor in this case is derived from the additional mention of the term 鈥淵ou shall leave.鈥

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专

搂 The Gemara returns to the discussion of a stolen item that underwent a change. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who says that even if the stolen animal deteriorated, it is returned to the owner in its current state.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 砖诪讬谉 诇讗 诇讙谞讘 讜诇讗 诇讙讝诇谉 讗诇讗 诇谞讝拽讬谉

The Gemara expresses surprise: But did Shmuel actually say this? But doesn鈥檛 Shmuel say: One does not appraise the change in value, neither for a thief nor for a robber. Rather, they keep the stolen animal and pay back the victim with their own money; one appraises the change only for one obligated to pay for damage?

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讗 讚讗诪专 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讛转诐 讘讛讻讞砖讛 讚讛讚专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讚砖讬谞讜讬 讘诪拽讜诪讜 注讜诪讚 讘讛讻讞砖讛 讚讛讚专 讜讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛转诐 讗讬谉 砖诪讬谉 诇讗 诇讙谞讘 讜诇讗 诇讙讝诇谉 讗诇讗 诇谞讝拽讬谉 讘讛讻讞砖讛 讚诇讗 讛讚专

Granted, according to the opinion of Rava, who said earlier in response to Abaye: When Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar states his opinion there, he stated it only with regard to weakening of the animal that is reversible, this is not difficult: When Shmuel says that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who holds that despite a change, the changed item remains in its place, he stated this with regard to weakening of the animal which is reversible, in which case the change is insignificant. And when Shmuel says there: One does not appraise the change in value, neither for a thief nor for a robber, but rather one appraises the change only for one obligated to pay for damage, he stated this with regard to weakening of the animal that is irreversible.

讗诇讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讘讛讻讞砖讛 讚诇讗 讛讚专 拽讗诪专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

But according to Abaye, who said that when Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar states his opinion, he states it even with regard to weakening of the animal which is irreversible, what can be said?

讗讘讬讬 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇

The Gemara responds: Abaye taught the statement of Shmuel like this: Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says:

讗诪专讜 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讜诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

Some said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, but Shmuel himself does not hold accordingly.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讙讝讬诇讛 讛谞砖转谞讬转 讞讜讝专转 讘注讬谞讬讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛砖讬讘 讗转 讛讙讝诇讛 讗砖专 讙讝诇 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讜讗诐 转讗诪专 诪砖谞转谞讜 诪砖讜诐 转拽谞转 讛砖讘讬诐

The Gemara continues the discussion of acquisition of a stolen item due to a change it underwent. Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: By Torah law, a stolen item that has changed is returned as is, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he shall restore that which he took by robbery鈥 (Leviticus 5:23). This indicates that he shall return it in any case, even if it has been changed. And if you say: In our mishna it is stated that if the stolen item is changed the robber gives monetary compensation rather than returning the item, that policy was instituted by the Sages due to the ordinance instituted for the penitent.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 诪砖谞讛 讜转谞谉 诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇讬转谞讜 诇讜 注讚 砖爪讘注讜 驻讟讜专

The Gemara asks: But did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say that? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say: The halakha is in accordance with an unattributed mishna, and we learned in a mishna with regard to first of the sheared wool (岣llin 135a): If the owner of the sheep did not manage to give the sheared wool to the priest before he dyed it, he is exempt from giving it to the priest. This indicates that dyeing the wool is a significant change.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讛讜讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬注拽讘 砖诪讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬 诪驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讙讝诇 注爪讬诐 诪砖讜驻讬谉 讜注砖讗谉 讻诇讬诐 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖讬谞讜讬 讛讞讜讝专 诇讘专讬讬转讜

One of the Rabbis, whose name was Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, said to them: It was explained to me directly by Rabbi Yo岣nan that he was referring to a case where he robbed another of sanded wood and fashioned it into vessels, which is a change in which the item can revert to its original state. Consequently, the robber does not acquire the item by Torah law, but rather due to the ordinance instituted for the penitent.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讙讝诇谞讬谉 讜诪诇讜讬 讘专讘讬转 砖讛讞讝讬专讜 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 诪讛谉 讜讛诪拽讘诇 诪讛谉 讗讬谉 专讜讞 讞讻诪讬诐 谞讜讞讛 讛讬诪谞讜

搂 Having mentioned the ordinance instituted for the penitent, the Gemara discusses other details of this ordinance. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Shevi鈥檌t 8:11): With regard to robbers or usurers that returned either the stolen item or the interest to the one from whom they took it, one should not accept it from them. And with regard to one who does accept it from them, the Sages are displeased with him, since by doing so he discourages those who wish to repent.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讬诪讬 专讘讬 谞砖谞讬转 诪砖谞讛 讝讜 讚转谞讬讗 诪注砖讛 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 砖讘拽砖 诇注砖讜转 转砖讜讘讛 讗诪专讛 诇讜 讗砖转讜 专讬拽讛 讗诐 讗转讛 注讜砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讘谞讟 讗讬谞讜 砖诇讱 讜谞诪谞注 讜诇讗 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讗诪专讜 讛讙讝诇谞讬谉 讜诪诇讜讬 专讘讬讜转 砖讛讞讝讬专讜 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 诪讛诐 讜讛诪拽讘诇 诪讛诐 讗讬谉 专讜讞 讞讻诪讬诐 谞讜讞讛 讛讬诪谞讜

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: This mishna, i.e., the statement of the Tosefta, was taught in the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita: There was an incident with regard to one man who desired to repent after having been a thief for many years. His wife said to him: Empty one [reika], if you repent you will have to return all the stolen items to their rightful owners, and even the belt that you are wearing is not yours, and he refrained and did not repent. At that time, the Sages said: With regard to robbers or usurers that returned either the stolen item or the interest to the one from whom they took it, one should not accept it from them. And concerning one who does accept it from them, the Sages are displeased with him.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛谞讬讞 诇讛诐 讗讘讬讛诐 诪注讜转 砖诇 专讘讬转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛谉 讬讜讚注讬谉 砖讛谉 专讘讬转 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讛讞讝讬专 讗讬谞讛讜 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讗 讗讘讬讛诐 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讞讝讬专

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to children whose deceased father left them money paid as interest, although they know that it is interest, they are not obligated to return it. The Gemara infers: They, the children, are the ones that are not obligated to return it, but their father would have been obligated to return it, and his victims may accept his money.

讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗讘讬讛诐 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讞讝讬专 讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛讜 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讛谞讬讞 诇讛诐 讗讘讬讛诐 驻专讛 讜讟诇讬转 讜讻诇 讚讘专 讛诪住讜讬讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讛讞讝讬专 诪驻谞讬 讻讘讜讚 讗讘讬讛诐 转谞讗 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 讘讚讬讚讛讜

The Gemara responds: By right, the baraita should have taught that their father also would not have been obligated to return it. And the fact that the baraita teaches this halakha with regard to the children is because of the fact that the baraita wants to teach a halakha in the latter clause: If their deceased father left them a cow, or a garment, or any other specific item he had stolen or taken as interest, they are obligated to return it due to the honor of their father, so that the item not serve as a reminder to all that their father transgressed. Since this halakha needs to be stated specifically with regard to the children, the first clause of the baraita is also taught with regard to them.

讜诪驻谞讬 讻讘讜讚 讗讘讬讛诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讛讞讝讬专 讗拽专讬 讻讗谉 讜谞砖讬讗 讘注诪讱 诇讗 转讗专 讘注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 注诪讱

The Gemara asks: But is it true that due to the honor of their father they are obligated to return the item or money? I will read here the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people鈥 (Exodus 22:27), from which the Sages inferred that the prohibition against cursing a ruler is in effect only with regard to a ruler that acts as a member of your people, i.e., in accordance with Torah law. One who curses a wicked ruler does not violate this prohibition. Similarly, if one鈥檚 father is wicked, the mitzva to honor him should not apply. Why would his children have to return items that he stole due to his honor?

讻讚讗诪专 专讘 驻谞讞住 讘砖注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘砖注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讗讬 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 诪讗讬 讘注讬 讙讘讬讛 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讛讚讜专讬 砖诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇讛讞讝讬专 注讚 砖诪转

The Gemara responds: It is like that which Rav Pine岣s said concerning a different case: This is a case where he repented. Here too, it is a case where the father repented, and since he is no longer wicked, his children are obligated to honor him. The Gemara asks: If he repented, what was the stolen item or interest doing with him? He should have returned it while he was still alive. The Gemara responds: It is a case where he did not manage to return it before he died. Consequently, the children must return the items in order to uphold their father鈥檚 honor.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讙讝诇谞讬诐 讜诪诇讜讬 讘专讘讬转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讙讘讜 诪讞讝讬专讬谉

The Gemara raises another contradiction: Come and hear the statement of another baraita: With regard to robbers and usurers, although they collected the stolen item or interest, they return it.

讙讝诇谞讬谉 诪讗讬 砖讙讘讜 讗讬讻讗 讗讬 讙讝讜诇 讙讝讜诇 讜讗讬 诇讗 讙讝讜诇 诇讗 讙讝讜诇 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讛讙讝诇谞讬谉 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诪诇讜讬 专讘讬讜转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讙讘讜 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗诪专讬 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 诪讛诐

The Gemara first clarifies the meaning of the baraita: In the case of robbers, what collection is there, i.e., why did the baraita use the term: Collected, in this context? If they robbed, they robbed and did not collect anything; and if they did not rob, they did not rob and cannot be called robbers at all. Rather, emend the text of the baraita to say: With regard to robbers, and who are they, i.e., what is meant by the term: Robbers? It is referring to usurers. The Gemara resumes its citation of the baraita: Although they collected the interest, they must return it. This is contrary to the ruling of the Tosefta that if robbers and usurers return what they have taken, it is not accepted. The Gemara explains: Say that this baraita means that they return it, but one does not accept it from them.

讗诇讗 诇诪讛 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 诇爪讗转 讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐

The Gemara asks: But why do they return it if it will not be accepted? The Gemara responds: In order to fulfill their obligation to Heaven. In order to fully repent, they must at least offer to return to the debtors the interest they took unlawfully.

转讗 砖诪注 讛专讜注讬诐 讜讛讙讘讗讬谉 讜讛诪讜讻住讬谉 转砖讜讘转谉 拽砖讛 讜诪讞讝讬专讬谉 诇诪讻讬专讬谉

The Gemara raises a contradiction from another source. Come and hear the statement of another baraita: With regard to shepherds who allow their animals to graze in other people鈥檚 fields, thereby stealing from the owners; or tax collectors who are hired to collect taxes on behalf of the government and collect excessive sums; or tax collectors who purchase the right to collect taxes themselves and collect unlawfully, their repentance is difficult, since they steal from the public. It is difficult for them to find every one of their victims in order to pay them restitution, and they must return what they have stolen to whomever they recognize as victims of their theft. This baraita indicates that thieves do return what they have stolen.

讗诪专讬 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 诪讛诐 讜讗诇讗 诇诪讛 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 诇爪讗转 讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗诪讗讬 转砖讜讘转谉 拽砖讛

The Gemara answers: Say that they return it, but one does not accept it from them. The Gemara asks: But why do they return it if it will not be accepted? The Gemara responds: In order to fulfill their obligation to Heaven. The Gemara asks: If so, if they are not actually obligated to return what they have stolen, why is their repentance difficult?

讜注讜讚 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜砖讗讬谉 诪讻讬专讬谉 讬注砖讛 讘讛谉 爪专讻讬 爪讬讘讜专 讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 讗诇讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 拽讜讚诐 转拽谞讛 讻讗谉 诇讗讞专 转拽谞讛

And furthermore, say the latter clause of the baraita: And as for the money belonging to those that they do not recognize as their victims, they should use that money for community needs. And Rav 岣sda says: This means providing pits, ditches, and caves, which benefit the general public. This indicates that a thief actually does pay back what he has stolen. Rather, this contradiction must be resolved differently. It is not difficult: Here, where the baraita states that he must actually return what he has stolen, it is referring to a time before the ordinance for the penitent was instituted. There, where the baraita states that one does not accept the repayment from a robber, it is referring to a time after the ordinance was instituted.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘砖讗讬谉 讙讝讬诇讛 拽讬讬诪转 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诇讗讞专 转拽谞讛 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara adds: And now that Rav Na岣an says that when the Sages say that he does not return what he has stolen, they refer only to a case where the stolen item does not exist in its initial form, and you can even say that this and that, both baraitot, are referring to a time after the ordinance was instituted, and it is not difficult.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Kamma 94

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 94

讚诪讗住驻讜专拽 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜住专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讙诐 砖谞讬讛诐 诇专讘讜转 砖讬谞讜讬讬讛诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗诪专 拽专讗 讛诐 讜诇讗 砖讬谞讜讬讬讛诐

of Asporak: Beit Shammai prohibit sacrificing these items and Beit Hillel permit doing so. The Gemara clarifies: What is the reason of Beit Shammai? The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog into the House of the Lord your God for any vow; for even both of these are an abomination unto the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:19). The word 鈥渆ven鈥 is an amplification, which serves to include in the prohibition these items in their changed form. And what is the reason of Beit Hillel? The verse states 鈥渢hese鈥 to emphasize that the prohibition applies only to these items in their initial form, but not in their changed form.

讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讛诐 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讛诐 讜诇讗 讜诇讚讜转讬讛诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 转专转讬 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讛诐 讜诇讗 砖讬谞讜讬讬讛诐 讛诐 讜诇讗 讜诇讚讜转讬讛诐

The Gemara asks: And according to Beit Shammai, isn鈥檛 the word 鈥渢hese鈥 written in the verse, indicating an exclusion? The Gemara responds: Beit Shammai requires that word to indicate that 鈥渢hese鈥 items are forbidden, but not the offspring of animals given as payment to the prostitute. The Gemara asks: And according to Beit Hillel, what is the source of that halakha? The Gemara answers: According to Beit Hillel, you learn two halakhot from this word, as follows: 鈥淭hese鈥 items are forbidden in their initial form but not in their changed form, and 鈥渢hese鈥 items are forbidden but not their offspring.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 讙诐 讙诐 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara asks: And according to Beit Hillel as well, isn鈥檛 the word 鈥渆ven鈥 written in the verse, indicating an amplification? The Gemara answers: Indeed, the word 鈥渆ven鈥 is difficult for Beit Hillel. It is not clear how they would interpret that word.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 诪讗讬 讛讬讗

The Gemara continues: What is the source that indicates that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov holds that an item that undergoes a change is still considered to have the same status that it had before the change?

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讛专讬 砖讙讝诇 住讗讛 砖诇 讞讟讬谉 讟讞谞讛 诇砖讛 讜讗驻讗讛 讜讛驻专讬砖 诪诪谞讛 讞诇讛 讻讬爪讚 诪讘专讱 讗讬谉 讝讛 诪讘专讱 讗诇讗 诪谞讗抓 讜注诇 讝讛 谞讗诪专 讘爪注 讘专讱 谞讗抓 讛壮

The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: In the case of one who robbed another of a se鈥檃 of wheat, then ground it, kneaded it, and baked it, and he then separated 岣lla from it, i.e., he separated the portion of the dough that one is required to separate and then give to a priest, how can he recite the blessing over the separation of 岣lla? This individual is not reciting a blessing, but rather he is blaspheming. And with regard to this it is stated: 鈥淭he robber who recites a blessing blasphemes the Lord鈥 (Psalms 10:3), which is referring to a robber who recites a blessing upon performing a mitzva with an item he stole. According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, although this wheat has been significantly changed, it is still considered a stolen item.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讻诇诇 讝讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讻诇 砖讘讞 砖讛砖讘讬讞 讙讝诇谉 讬讚讜 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 专爪讛 谞讜讟诇 砖讘讞讜 专爪讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 砖诇讱 诇驻谞讬讱

The Gemara continues: What is the source that indicates that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar holds that an item that undergoes a change is still considered to have the same status that it had before the change? As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 10:2) that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar stated this principle: With regard to any enhancement to the stolen animal in that it was enhanced by the actions of the robber, he has the advantage when repaying the owner. If he desires, he takes his enhancement, i.e., when he returns the animal, the robbery victim must pay the difference between its value at the time of the robbery and its current value, and if he desires he can return it to the owner and say to him: That which is yours is before you.

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛砖讘讬讞讛 谞讜讟诇 砖讘讞讜 讻讞砖 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 砖诇讱 诇驻谞讬讱 讚砖讬谞讜讬 讘诪拽讜诪讜 注讜诪讚

The Gemara expresses surprise: What is he saying? If the robber has a right to demand compensation for the enhancement to the animal, why would he ever return it without stating this demand? Rav Sheshet said that this is what he is saying: If the robber enhanced it, he takes his enhancement. If the animal was weakened, the robber says to him: That which is yours is before you, and no further compensation is required. This is because despite a change, the changed item remains in its place. Since the robber has not acquired it, he simply returns the item to the robbery victim.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讛砖讘讬讞 谞诪讬 讗诪专讬 诪驻谞讬 转拽谞转 讛砖讘讬诐

The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if the robber has not acquired it, then even if he enhanced it that should be the halakha as well. The item should still belong to the robbery victim and the robber should not be entitled to compensation. The Sages say in response: The fact that the robber has a right to demand compensation for the enhancement is due to an ordinance instituted for the penitent. In order to ease the burden of one who desires to repent, the Sages instituted that the robber be reimbursed for the increase in the value of the animal. Otherwise, a robber might refrain from returning a stolen item.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪爪讜转 驻讗讛 诇讛驻专讬砖 诪谉 讛拽诪讛 诇讗 讛驻专讬砖 诪谉 讛拽诪讛 诪驻专讬砖 诪谉 讛注讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讛驻专讬砖 诪谉 讛注讜诪专讬诐 诪驻专讬砖 诪谉 讛讻专讬 注讚 砖诇讗 诪专讞讜

The Gemara continues: What is the source that indicates that Rabbi Yishmael holds that an item that undergoes a change is still considered to have the same status that it had before the change? The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita: The ideal way to fulfill the mitzva of produce in the corner of the field, which is given to the poor [pe鈥檃], is to separate it from the standing grain, i.e., grain that has not been harvested. If one did not separate it from the standing grain, he separates it from the sheaves of grain that have already been harvested. If he did not separate it from the sheaves, he separates it from the pile of grain, as long as he has not yet smoothed the pile.

诪专讞讜 诪注砖专 讜谞讜转谉 诇讜 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专讜 讗祝 诪驻专讬砖 诪谉 讛注讬住讛 讜谞讜转谉 诇讜

If he smoothed the pile of grain, activating the obligation to tithe the produce, he first tithes the grain and then gives a portion of the tithed produce to the poor as pe鈥檃, so that the poor will not have to tithe what they receive. Additionally, they said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: If he did not separate pe鈥檃 during any of the aforementioned stages and he made a dough from the grain, he separates pe鈥檃 even from the dough and gives it to the poor. This indicates that even if the grain was changed, one is not exempt from the obligation of pe鈥檃.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讗讬讻驻诇 讻诇 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘讚讘专 讝讛

The Gemara has now clarified the sources Abaye alluded to when he listed all the tanna鈥檌m who hold that despite a change, the changed item remains in its place. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Did all these tanna鈥檌m go to so much trouble in an effort [ikhpal] to teach us a halakha in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, which is presumably not accepted as normative? Abaye said to Rav Pappa: This is what they are saying: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not engage in a dispute with regard to this matter. All of the aforementioned tanna鈥檌m hold that even Beit Hillel agree that a change in the form of an item does not impact its status.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讘爪讘注 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬讻讜诇 诇讛注讘讬专讜 注诇 讬讚讬 爪驻讜谉

Rava said: From where can it be proven that all of the aforementioned tanna鈥檌m hold that an item that undergoes a change is still considered to have the same status that it had before the change? One can say that the reasons for their statements are due to other factors. Perhaps Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda states his opinion, that it is not a significant change, there, in the case of the first of the sheared wool, only with regard to dye, which is a reversible change, since one is able to remove it with soap.

讜注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛转诐 讗诇讗 诇讙讘讜讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬诪讗讬住

And perhaps Beit Shammai state their opinion there, in the case of a harlot, only with regard to an offering to the Most High, because of the fact that the item has become repugnant, in being used as payment for the services of a prostitute, and therefore it cannot be used for an offering even if its form has changed.

讜注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛转诐 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讘专讻讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪爪讜讛 讛讘讗讛 讘注讘讬专讛

And perhaps Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov states his opinion there, where one robbed another of wheat, only with regard to a blessing, because this is a mitzva that is performed through commission of a transgression, but this does not indicate that a change is insignificant with regard to other matters.

讜注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讘讛讻讞砖讛 讚讛讚专

And perhaps Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar states his opinion there, where the condition of the animal changed, only with regard to weakening of the animal that is reversible. Since the animal鈥檚 value can be restored by fattening it, the weakening is not deemed a significant change.

讜注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛转诐 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 驻讗讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 转注讝讘 讬转讬专讗 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇讬讙诪专 诪讬谞讬讛 诪转谞讜转 注谞讬讬诐 砖讗谞讬

And perhaps Rabbi Yishmael states his opinion there, where one separated pe鈥檃 at a late stage, only with regard to pe鈥檃, because it is written: 鈥淵ou shall leave them for the poor鈥 an additional time. It is mentioned twice, in Leviticus 19:10 and Leviticus 23:22. One of these terms is superfluous, indicating that pe鈥檃 must be given to the poor under all circumstances, even if the grain was changed and made into dough. And if you would say: Let us derive from pe鈥檃 that in other halakhic domains the status of an item is not affected by its undergoing a change, pe鈥檃 cannot function as a source because gifts to the poor are different from other halakhot.

讻讚讘注讬 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讚讘注讬 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 砖讬谞讜讬 讗讬谞讜 拽讜谞讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘注诇诪讗 拽住讘专 砖讬谞讜讬 拽讜谞讛 讜讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 转注讝讘 讬转讬专讗

The Gemara notes: Rava鈥檚 claim that no definitive conclusion with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael concerning a changed item is supported by the statement of another amora is like the dilemma raised by Rabbi Yonatan, as Rabbi Yonatan raises a dilemma: What is the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Yishmael? Is it because he holds that change does not cause one to acquire an item? Or perhaps he generally holds that change does cause one to acquire an item, but here, in the case of pe鈥檃, it is different because the term 鈥淵ou shall leave鈥 is written an additional time.

讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 砖讬谞讜讬 讗讬谞讜 拽讜谞讛 转注讝讘 讬转讬专讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讜转讜 诇专讘谞谉 转注讝讘 讬转讬专讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬

Having quoted Rabbi Yonatan鈥檚 dilemma, the Gemara asks: And if you say that the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Yishmael is that he holds that change does not cause one to acquire an item, why do I need the additional term 鈥淵ou shall leave,鈥 which the Merciful One writes in the Torah? And furthermore, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that pe鈥檃 may not be taken from dough, why do I need the additional term 鈥淵ou shall leave鈥 that the Merciful One writes?

诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讛诪驻拽讬专 讻专诪讜 讜讛砖讻讬诐 诇讘拽专 讜讘爪专讜 讞讬讬讘 讘驻专讟 讜讘注讜诇诇讜转 讜讘砖讻讞讛 讜讘驻讗讛 讜驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪注砖专

The Gemara responds: This additional term is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: One who renounced ownership of his vineyard and arose early in the morning before anyone else took possession of it and harvested it is obligated in the mitzva of individual fallen grapes left for the poor [peret], and in the mitzva of incompletely formed clusters of grapes left for the poor [olelot], and in the mitzva of forgotten clusters of grapes left for the poor and in the mitzva of pe鈥檃. These are the four gifts to the poor that the Torah requires one to give from a vineyard. But he is exempt from the mitzva to tithe his produce, because this requirement does not apply to an ownerless field. The obligation to give gifts to the poor in this case is derived from the additional mention of the term 鈥淵ou shall leave.鈥

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专

搂 The Gemara returns to the discussion of a stolen item that underwent a change. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who says that even if the stolen animal deteriorated, it is returned to the owner in its current state.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 砖诪讬谉 诇讗 诇讙谞讘 讜诇讗 诇讙讝诇谉 讗诇讗 诇谞讝拽讬谉

The Gemara expresses surprise: But did Shmuel actually say this? But doesn鈥檛 Shmuel say: One does not appraise the change in value, neither for a thief nor for a robber. Rather, they keep the stolen animal and pay back the victim with their own money; one appraises the change only for one obligated to pay for damage?

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讗 讚讗诪专 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讛转诐 讘讛讻讞砖讛 讚讛讚专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讚砖讬谞讜讬 讘诪拽讜诪讜 注讜诪讚 讘讛讻讞砖讛 讚讛讚专 讜讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛转诐 讗讬谉 砖诪讬谉 诇讗 诇讙谞讘 讜诇讗 诇讙讝诇谉 讗诇讗 诇谞讝拽讬谉 讘讛讻讞砖讛 讚诇讗 讛讚专

Granted, according to the opinion of Rava, who said earlier in response to Abaye: When Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar states his opinion there, he stated it only with regard to weakening of the animal that is reversible, this is not difficult: When Shmuel says that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who holds that despite a change, the changed item remains in its place, he stated this with regard to weakening of the animal which is reversible, in which case the change is insignificant. And when Shmuel says there: One does not appraise the change in value, neither for a thief nor for a robber, but rather one appraises the change only for one obligated to pay for damage, he stated this with regard to weakening of the animal that is irreversible.

讗诇讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讘讛讻讞砖讛 讚诇讗 讛讚专 拽讗诪专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

But according to Abaye, who said that when Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar states his opinion, he states it even with regard to weakening of the animal which is irreversible, what can be said?

讗讘讬讬 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇

The Gemara responds: Abaye taught the statement of Shmuel like this: Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says:

讗诪专讜 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讜诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

Some said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, but Shmuel himself does not hold accordingly.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讙讝讬诇讛 讛谞砖转谞讬转 讞讜讝专转 讘注讬谞讬讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛砖讬讘 讗转 讛讙讝诇讛 讗砖专 讙讝诇 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讜讗诐 转讗诪专 诪砖谞转谞讜 诪砖讜诐 转拽谞转 讛砖讘讬诐

The Gemara continues the discussion of acquisition of a stolen item due to a change it underwent. Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: By Torah law, a stolen item that has changed is returned as is, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he shall restore that which he took by robbery鈥 (Leviticus 5:23). This indicates that he shall return it in any case, even if it has been changed. And if you say: In our mishna it is stated that if the stolen item is changed the robber gives monetary compensation rather than returning the item, that policy was instituted by the Sages due to the ordinance instituted for the penitent.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 诪砖谞讛 讜转谞谉 诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇讬转谞讜 诇讜 注讚 砖爪讘注讜 驻讟讜专

The Gemara asks: But did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say that? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say: The halakha is in accordance with an unattributed mishna, and we learned in a mishna with regard to first of the sheared wool (岣llin 135a): If the owner of the sheep did not manage to give the sheared wool to the priest before he dyed it, he is exempt from giving it to the priest. This indicates that dyeing the wool is a significant change.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讛讜讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬注拽讘 砖诪讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬 诪驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讙讝诇 注爪讬诐 诪砖讜驻讬谉 讜注砖讗谉 讻诇讬诐 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖讬谞讜讬 讛讞讜讝专 诇讘专讬讬转讜

One of the Rabbis, whose name was Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, said to them: It was explained to me directly by Rabbi Yo岣nan that he was referring to a case where he robbed another of sanded wood and fashioned it into vessels, which is a change in which the item can revert to its original state. Consequently, the robber does not acquire the item by Torah law, but rather due to the ordinance instituted for the penitent.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讙讝诇谞讬谉 讜诪诇讜讬 讘专讘讬转 砖讛讞讝讬专讜 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 诪讛谉 讜讛诪拽讘诇 诪讛谉 讗讬谉 专讜讞 讞讻诪讬诐 谞讜讞讛 讛讬诪谞讜

搂 Having mentioned the ordinance instituted for the penitent, the Gemara discusses other details of this ordinance. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Shevi鈥檌t 8:11): With regard to robbers or usurers that returned either the stolen item or the interest to the one from whom they took it, one should not accept it from them. And with regard to one who does accept it from them, the Sages are displeased with him, since by doing so he discourages those who wish to repent.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讬诪讬 专讘讬 谞砖谞讬转 诪砖谞讛 讝讜 讚转谞讬讗 诪注砖讛 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 砖讘拽砖 诇注砖讜转 转砖讜讘讛 讗诪专讛 诇讜 讗砖转讜 专讬拽讛 讗诐 讗转讛 注讜砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讘谞讟 讗讬谞讜 砖诇讱 讜谞诪谞注 讜诇讗 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讗诪专讜 讛讙讝诇谞讬谉 讜诪诇讜讬 专讘讬讜转 砖讛讞讝讬专讜 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 诪讛诐 讜讛诪拽讘诇 诪讛诐 讗讬谉 专讜讞 讞讻诪讬诐 谞讜讞讛 讛讬诪谞讜

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: This mishna, i.e., the statement of the Tosefta, was taught in the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita: There was an incident with regard to one man who desired to repent after having been a thief for many years. His wife said to him: Empty one [reika], if you repent you will have to return all the stolen items to their rightful owners, and even the belt that you are wearing is not yours, and he refrained and did not repent. At that time, the Sages said: With regard to robbers or usurers that returned either the stolen item or the interest to the one from whom they took it, one should not accept it from them. And concerning one who does accept it from them, the Sages are displeased with him.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛谞讬讞 诇讛诐 讗讘讬讛诐 诪注讜转 砖诇 专讘讬转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛谉 讬讜讚注讬谉 砖讛谉 专讘讬转 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讛讞讝讬专 讗讬谞讛讜 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讗 讗讘讬讛诐 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讞讝讬专

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to children whose deceased father left them money paid as interest, although they know that it is interest, they are not obligated to return it. The Gemara infers: They, the children, are the ones that are not obligated to return it, but their father would have been obligated to return it, and his victims may accept his money.

讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗讘讬讛诐 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讞讝讬专 讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛讜 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讛谞讬讞 诇讛诐 讗讘讬讛诐 驻专讛 讜讟诇讬转 讜讻诇 讚讘专 讛诪住讜讬讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讛讞讝讬专 诪驻谞讬 讻讘讜讚 讗讘讬讛诐 转谞讗 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 讘讚讬讚讛讜

The Gemara responds: By right, the baraita should have taught that their father also would not have been obligated to return it. And the fact that the baraita teaches this halakha with regard to the children is because of the fact that the baraita wants to teach a halakha in the latter clause: If their deceased father left them a cow, or a garment, or any other specific item he had stolen or taken as interest, they are obligated to return it due to the honor of their father, so that the item not serve as a reminder to all that their father transgressed. Since this halakha needs to be stated specifically with regard to the children, the first clause of the baraita is also taught with regard to them.

讜诪驻谞讬 讻讘讜讚 讗讘讬讛诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讛讞讝讬专 讗拽专讬 讻讗谉 讜谞砖讬讗 讘注诪讱 诇讗 转讗专 讘注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 注诪讱

The Gemara asks: But is it true that due to the honor of their father they are obligated to return the item or money? I will read here the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people鈥 (Exodus 22:27), from which the Sages inferred that the prohibition against cursing a ruler is in effect only with regard to a ruler that acts as a member of your people, i.e., in accordance with Torah law. One who curses a wicked ruler does not violate this prohibition. Similarly, if one鈥檚 father is wicked, the mitzva to honor him should not apply. Why would his children have to return items that he stole due to his honor?

讻讚讗诪专 专讘 驻谞讞住 讘砖注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘砖注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讗讬 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 诪讗讬 讘注讬 讙讘讬讛 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讛讚讜专讬 砖诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇讛讞讝讬专 注讚 砖诪转

The Gemara responds: It is like that which Rav Pine岣s said concerning a different case: This is a case where he repented. Here too, it is a case where the father repented, and since he is no longer wicked, his children are obligated to honor him. The Gemara asks: If he repented, what was the stolen item or interest doing with him? He should have returned it while he was still alive. The Gemara responds: It is a case where he did not manage to return it before he died. Consequently, the children must return the items in order to uphold their father鈥檚 honor.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讙讝诇谞讬诐 讜诪诇讜讬 讘专讘讬转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讙讘讜 诪讞讝讬专讬谉

The Gemara raises another contradiction: Come and hear the statement of another baraita: With regard to robbers and usurers, although they collected the stolen item or interest, they return it.

讙讝诇谞讬谉 诪讗讬 砖讙讘讜 讗讬讻讗 讗讬 讙讝讜诇 讙讝讜诇 讜讗讬 诇讗 讙讝讜诇 诇讗 讙讝讜诇 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讛讙讝诇谞讬谉 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诪诇讜讬 专讘讬讜转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讙讘讜 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗诪专讬 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 诪讛诐

The Gemara first clarifies the meaning of the baraita: In the case of robbers, what collection is there, i.e., why did the baraita use the term: Collected, in this context? If they robbed, they robbed and did not collect anything; and if they did not rob, they did not rob and cannot be called robbers at all. Rather, emend the text of the baraita to say: With regard to robbers, and who are they, i.e., what is meant by the term: Robbers? It is referring to usurers. The Gemara resumes its citation of the baraita: Although they collected the interest, they must return it. This is contrary to the ruling of the Tosefta that if robbers and usurers return what they have taken, it is not accepted. The Gemara explains: Say that this baraita means that they return it, but one does not accept it from them.

讗诇讗 诇诪讛 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 诇爪讗转 讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐

The Gemara asks: But why do they return it if it will not be accepted? The Gemara responds: In order to fulfill their obligation to Heaven. In order to fully repent, they must at least offer to return to the debtors the interest they took unlawfully.

转讗 砖诪注 讛专讜注讬诐 讜讛讙讘讗讬谉 讜讛诪讜讻住讬谉 转砖讜讘转谉 拽砖讛 讜诪讞讝讬专讬谉 诇诪讻讬专讬谉

The Gemara raises a contradiction from another source. Come and hear the statement of another baraita: With regard to shepherds who allow their animals to graze in other people鈥檚 fields, thereby stealing from the owners; or tax collectors who are hired to collect taxes on behalf of the government and collect excessive sums; or tax collectors who purchase the right to collect taxes themselves and collect unlawfully, their repentance is difficult, since they steal from the public. It is difficult for them to find every one of their victims in order to pay them restitution, and they must return what they have stolen to whomever they recognize as victims of their theft. This baraita indicates that thieves do return what they have stolen.

讗诪专讬 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 诪讛诐 讜讗诇讗 诇诪讛 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 诇爪讗转 讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗诪讗讬 转砖讜讘转谉 拽砖讛

The Gemara answers: Say that they return it, but one does not accept it from them. The Gemara asks: But why do they return it if it will not be accepted? The Gemara responds: In order to fulfill their obligation to Heaven. The Gemara asks: If so, if they are not actually obligated to return what they have stolen, why is their repentance difficult?

讜注讜讚 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜砖讗讬谉 诪讻讬专讬谉 讬注砖讛 讘讛谉 爪专讻讬 爪讬讘讜专 讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 讗诇讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 拽讜讚诐 转拽谞讛 讻讗谉 诇讗讞专 转拽谞讛

And furthermore, say the latter clause of the baraita: And as for the money belonging to those that they do not recognize as their victims, they should use that money for community needs. And Rav 岣sda says: This means providing pits, ditches, and caves, which benefit the general public. This indicates that a thief actually does pay back what he has stolen. Rather, this contradiction must be resolved differently. It is not difficult: Here, where the baraita states that he must actually return what he has stolen, it is referring to a time before the ordinance for the penitent was instituted. There, where the baraita states that one does not accept the repayment from a robber, it is referring to a time after the ordinance was instituted.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘砖讗讬谉 讙讝讬诇讛 拽讬讬诪转 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诇讗讞专 转拽谞讛 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara adds: And now that Rav Na岣an says that when the Sages say that he does not return what he has stolen, they refer only to a case where the stolen item does not exist in its initial form, and you can even say that this and that, both baraitot, are referring to a time after the ordinance was instituted, and it is not difficult.

Scroll To Top