Bava Kamma 94

דמאספורק בית שמאי אוסרין ובית הלל מתירין מאי טעמיה דבית שמאי אמר קרא גם שניהם לרבות שינוייהם ובית הלל אמר קרא הם ולא שינוייהם

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: “You 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” (Deuteronomy 23:19). The word “even” 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 “these” to emphasize that the prohibition applies only to these items in their initial form, but not in their changed form.

ובית שמאי הא כתיב הם ההוא מיבעי ליה הם ולא ולדותיהם ובית הלל תרתי שמעת מינה הם ולא שינוייהם הם ולא ולדותיהם

The Gemara asks: And according to Beit Shammai, isn’t the word “these” written in the verse, indicating an exclusion? The Gemara responds: Beit Shammai requires that word to indicate that “these” 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: “These” items are forbidden in their initial form but not in their changed form, and “these” items are forbidden but not their offspring.

ובית הלל נמי הכתיב גם גם לבית הלל קשיא

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

רבי אליעזר בן יעקב מאי היא

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

דתניא רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר הרי שגזל סאה של חטין טחנה לשה ואפאה והפריש ממנה חלה כיצד מברך אין זה מברך אלא מנאץ ועל זה נאמר בצע ברך נאץ ה׳

The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: In the case of one who robbed another of a se’a of wheat, then ground it, kneaded it, and baked it, and he then separated ḥalla 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 ḥalla? This individual is not reciting a blessing, but rather he is blaspheming. And with regard to this it is stated: “The robber who recites a blessing blasphemes the Lord” (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’akov, although this wheat has been significantly changed, it is still considered a stolen item.

רבי שמעון בן אלעזר מאי היא דתניא כלל זה אמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר כל שבח שהשביח גזלן ידו על העליונה רצה נוטל שבחו רצה אומר לו הרי שלך לפניך

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.

מאי קאמר אמר רב ששת הכי קאמר השביחה נוטל שבחו כחש אומר לו הרי שלך לפניך דשינוי במקומו עומד

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.

אי הכי אפילו השביח נמי אמרי מפני תקנת השבים

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.

רבי ישמעאל מאי היא דתניא מצות פאה להפריש מן הקמה לא הפריש מן הקמה מפריש מן העומרים לא הפריש מן העומרים מפריש מן הכרי עד שלא מרחו

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’a], 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.

מרחו מעשר ונותן לו משום רבי ישמעאל אמרו אף מפריש מן העיסה ונותן לו

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’a, 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’a during any of the aforementioned stages and he made a dough from the grain, he separates pe’a 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’a.

אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי איכפל כל הני תנאי לאשמועינן כבית שמאי אמר ליה הכי קאמרי לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל בדבר זה

The Gemara has now clarified the sources Abaye alluded to when he listed all the tanna’im who hold that despite a change, the changed item remains in its place. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Did all these tanna’im 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’im hold that even Beit Hillel agree that a change in the form of an item does not impact its status.

אמר רבא ממאי דלמא עד כאן לא קאמר רבי שמעון בן יהודה התם אלא בצבע הואיל ויכול להעבירו על ידי צפון

Rava said: From where can it be proven that all of the aforementioned tanna’im 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.

ועד כאן לא קאמרי בית שמאי התם אלא לגבוה משום דאימאיס

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.

ועד כאן לא קאמר רבי אליעזר בן יעקב התם אלא לענין ברכה משום דהוה ליה מצוה הבאה בעבירה

And perhaps Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov 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.

ועד כאן לא קאמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר התם אלא בהכחשה דהדר

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’s value can be restored by fattening it, the weakening is not deemed a significant change.

ועד כאן לא קאמר רבי ישמעאל התם אלא לענין פאה משום דכתיב תעזב יתירא וכי תימא ליגמר מיניה מתנות עניים שאני

And perhaps Rabbi Yishmael states his opinion there, where one separated pe’a at a late stage, only with regard to pe’a, because it is written: “You shall leave them for the poor” an additional time. It is mentioned twice, in Leviticus 19:10 and Leviticus 23:22. One of these terms is superfluous, indicating that pe’a 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’a that in other halakhic domains the status of an item is not affected by its undergoing a change, pe’a cannot function as a source because gifts to the poor are different from other halakhot.

כדבעי רבי יונתן דבעי רבי יונתן מאי טעמא דרבי ישמעאל משום דקסבר שינוי אינו קונה או דלמא בעלמא קסבר שינוי קונה והכא משום דכתיב תעזב יתירא

The Gemara notes: Rava’s 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’a, it is different because the term “You shall leave” is written an additional time.

ואם תמצי לומר טעמא דרבי ישמעאל משום דקסבר שינוי אינו קונה תעזב יתירא דכתב רחמנא למה לי ותו לרבנן תעזב יתירא דכתב רחמנא למה לי

Having quoted Rabbi Yonatan’s 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 “You shall leave,” which the Merciful One writes in the Torah? And furthermore, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that pe’a may not be taken from dough, why do I need the additional term “You shall leave” that the Merciful One writes?

מבעי ליה לכדתניא המפקיר כרמו והשכים לבקר ובצרו חייב בפרט ובעוללות ובשכחה ובפאה ופטור מן המעשר

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’a. 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 “You shall leave.”

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי שמעון בן אלעזר

§ 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.

ומי אמר שמואל הכי והאמר שמואל אין שמין לא לגנב ולא לגזלן אלא לנזקין

The Gemara expresses surprise: But did Shmuel actually say this? But doesn’t 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?

בשלמא לרבא דאמר כי קאמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר התם בהכחשה דהדר לא קשיא כי קאמר הלכה כרבי שמעון בן אלעזר דשינוי במקומו עומד בהכחשה דהדר וכי קאמר שמואל התם אין שמין לא לגנב ולא לגזלן אלא לנזקין בהכחשה דלא הדר

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.

אלא לאביי דאמר כי קאמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר בהכחשה דלא הדר קאמר מאי איכא למימר

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?

אביי מתני הכי אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל

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

אמרו הלכה כרבי שמעון בן אלעזר וליה לא סבירא ליה

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

אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן דבר תורה גזילה הנשתנית חוזרת בעיניה שנאמר והשיב את הגזלה אשר גזל מכל מקום ואם תאמר משנתנו משום תקנת השבים

The Gemara continues the discussion of acquisition of a stolen item due to a change it underwent. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: By Torah law, a stolen item that has changed is returned as is, as it is stated: “And he shall restore that which he took by robbery” (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.

ומי אמר רבי יוחנן הכי והאמר רבי יוחנן הלכה כסתם משנה ותנן לא הספיק ליתנו לו עד שצבעו פטור

The Gemara asks: But did Rabbi Yoḥanan actually say that? But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: The halakha is in accordance with an unattributed mishna, and we learned in a mishna with regard to first of the sheared wool (Ḥullin 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.

אמר להו ההוא מדרבנן ורבי יעקב שמיה לדידי מפרשא לי מיניה דרבי יוחנן כגון שגזל עצים משופין ועשאן כלים דהוה ליה שינוי החוזר לברייתו

One of the Rabbis, whose name was Rabbi Ya’akov, said to them: It was explained to me directly by Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

תנו רבנן הגזלנין ומלוי ברבית שהחזירו אין מקבלין מהן והמקבל מהן אין רוח חכמים נוחה הימנו

§ Having mentioned the ordinance instituted for the penitent, the Gemara discusses other details of this ordinance. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Shevi’it 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.

אמר רבי יוחנן בימי רבי נשנית משנה זו דתניא מעשה באדם אחד שבקש לעשות תשובה אמרה לו אשתו ריקה אם אתה עושה תשובה אפילו אבנט אינו שלך ונמנע ולא עשה תשובה באותה שעה אמרו הגזלנין ומלוי רביות שהחזירו אין מקבלין מהם והמקבל מהם אין רוח חכמים נוחה הימנו

Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

מיתיבי הניח להם אביהם מעות של רבית אף על פי שהן יודעין שהן רבית אין חייבין להחזיר אינהו הוא דלא הא אביהם חייב להחזיר

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.

בדין הוא דאביהם נמי אינו חייב להחזיר והא דקתני בדידהו משום דקא בעי למתני סיפא הניח להם אביהם פרה וטלית וכל דבר המסויים חייבין להחזיר מפני כבוד אביהם תנא רישא נמי בדידהו

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.

ומפני כבוד אביהם חייבין להחזיר אקרי כאן ונשיא בעמך לא תאר בעושה מעשה עמך

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: “You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people” (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’s 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?

כדאמר רב פנחס בשעשה תשובה הכא נמי בשעשה תשובה אי עשה תשובה מאי בעי גביה איבעי ליה לאהדורי שלא הספיק להחזיר עד שמת

The Gemara responds: It is like that which Rav Pineḥas 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’s honor.

תא שמע הגזלנים ומלוי ברבית אף על פי שגבו מחזירין

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.

גזלנין מאי שגבו איכא אי גזול גזול ואי לא גזול לא גזול אלא אימא הגזלנין ומאי ניהו מלוי רביות אף על פי שגבו מחזירין אמרי מחזירין ואין מקבלין מהם

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.

אלא למה מחזירין לצאת ידי שמים

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.

תא שמע הרועים והגבאין והמוכסין תשובתן קשה ומחזירין למכירין

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’s 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.

אמרי מחזירין ואין מקבלין מהם ואלא למה מחזירין לצאת ידי שמים אי הכי אמאי תשובתן קשה

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?

ועוד אימא סיפא ושאין מכירין יעשה בהן צרכי ציבור ואמר רב חסדא בורות שיחין ומערות אלא לא קשיא כאן קודם תקנה כאן לאחר תקנה

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 Ḥisda 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.

והשתא דאמר רב נחמן בשאין גזילה קיימת אפילו תימא אידי ואידי לאחר תקנה ולא קשיא

The Gemara adds: And now that Rav Naḥman 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.