Bava Kamma 94b (צד:) — the Talmud in English

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said:

There are those who

said that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar,

however,

as for him,

he himself

does not hold so;

he maintains that a change effects acquisition, as was explained in his statement concerning “we do not appraise [the stolen item] for a thief or a robber.”

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said: By Torah law

according to Torah law —

stolen property that has undergone a change

even though it has changed

is returned as it is

in its present state, even if it increased in value, since a change does not effect acquisition.

As it is stated: [

Leviticus 5:23]

“And he shall restore the stolen item that he stole”;

the meaning of “and he shall restore”

in any event

even if it has changed.

And if you would say: Our Mishna

which teaches that he does not return the vessels he made from stolen wood, but instead returns the value of the wood, indicates that he acquires the stolen wood through the change.

The ruling in our Mishna is not based on Torah law; rather, the Sages established it

due to the ordinance for penitents,

in order to make it easier for those who wish to repent, so that they would not refrain from repenting out of concern that they would have to return the increase in value.

And we raise an objection:

And did Rabbi Yohanan say this,

that according to Torah law a change does not effect acquisition?

But Rabbi Yohanan said: The halakha is in accordance with an unattributed Mishna, and we learned: If he did not manage

the owners of the sheep

to give it to him,

to the kohen, the first shearing,

until he dyed it

all the wool —

he is exempt

from giving the first shearing, because the wool changed and he acquired it through the change. This indicates that Rabbi Yohanan maintains that a change effects acquisition, since there is no ordinance for penitents here; nevertheless, the owner of the wool acquired it through the change.

A certain scholar among the Sages, whose name was Rabbi Yaakov, said to them: For me, it was explained by Rabbi Yohanan himself:

The reason that Rabbi Yohanan maintains in our Mishna that the robber did not acquire the stolen property through the change, but only because of the ordinance for penitents, is that he holds that our Mishna is discussing

a case where, for example, he stole hewn pieces of wood and made vessels from them, which is a change that can return to its original form,

which is not a complete change; therefore, he acquires it only because of the ordinance of the Sages. But with regard to a complete change that cannot return to its original state, Rabbi Yohanan agrees that, even by Torah law, the robber acquires the object, as was explained in the Mishna concerning the first shearing.

The Sages taught

in a beraita:

Robbers and lenders at interest who returned

the stolen property or the interest they had taken

are not accepted, and one who accepts from them —

the spirit of the Sages is not pleased with him

there is no spirit of wisdom and piety within him , because by doing so he discourages those who wish to repent.

Rabbi Yohanan said: This Mishna was taught in the days of Rabbi.

As it was taught

in a beraita:

There was an incident involving a certain man

who was a robber

who sought to repent

and return everything he had stolen.

His wife said to him: Empty one [

fool],

if you repent

and return all the stolen property,

even the belt

that you are wearing

will not be yours!

And he refrained

because of this

and did not repent.

At that time they said

the Sages:

Robbers and lenders at interest who returned —

they are not accepted,

and one who accepts from them —

the spirit of the Sages is not pleased with him,

because he thereby prevents them from repenting.

And we raise an objection:

Meytivi

from another beraita that we learned:

If their father left them

as an inheritance

money of interest

which their father had received unlawfully in exchange for a loan that he had lent at interest,

even though they

the sons

know that they are

money of

interest —

they are not obligated to return it

to the borrowers, because it is written: “And he shall restore the stolen item that he stole,” and the sons did not steal anything; they acquired the money through a change of possession. [This beraita maintains that the heir’s possession is not a continuation of the father’s possession, but is considered a different possession, like the possession of a purchaser; therefore, inheritance constitutes a change of possession. Rashi].

It follows precisely from the words of the beraita that only

they

the sons

are the ones who do not

need to return the money, since they acquired it through a change of possession;

but their father

if the money is still in his possession

is obligated to return it!

And how is this consistent with what the Sages said, that interest taken by lenders at interest is not accepted from them because of the ordinance for penitents?

And we answer:

By rights, their father too is not obligated to return it

because of the ordinance for penitents!

And the reason that it teaches

in the beraita the ruling that they are not obligated to return it

with regard to them

is that it is speaking about the sons who inherited money of interest from their father.

This is

because it wished to teach in the latter clause

that the beraita wished to teach the following ruling in its latter clause:

If their father left them

as an inheritance

a cow, a garment, or any identifiable object

recognizable to the public as stolen —

they are obligated to return

them

out of respect for their father,

so that he will not always be remembered as a robber.

This ruling applies specifically to heirs; therefore,

the tanna also taught the first clause

the ruling

with regard to them

the heirs.

And we raise an objection:

And are they obligated out of respect for their father

the heirs

to return it?

But

here we find [

Exodus 22:27]

“And you shall not curse a prince among your people

[you shall not curse him],”

and the Sages inferred that the verse speaks specifically

of one who acts as a member of your people,

but one who curses a wicked leader does not violate this prohibition. The same applies to honoring one’s father: If the father does not act as a member of your people, there is no need to be concerned for his honor . If so, why must the sons be concerned for their father’s honor and return the stolen property? Their father, the robber, did not act as a member of his people.

And we answer:

As Rav Pinhas said

elsewhere:

When he repented; here too

we can say that the case is one where

he did

their father

repent

before he died, and therefore the sons are obligated to honor him.

And we ask:

If he did

their father

repent, what is it doing in his possession

What is the stolen property doing with him?

He should have returned it

He should have returned the stolen property when he repented! And we answer:

He did not manage to return it

the stolen property

before he died,

and therefore the sons are obligated to honor their father and must return objects that are identifiable as stolen, out of respect for their father.

Ta shma

to raise an objection from another beraita to what was taught above, that the Sages instituted that robbers and lenders at interest who repented need not return what they took:

We learned in a beraita:

Robbers and lenders at interest, even though they collected

the money

return it

to the owners.

And we considered this: If they were

robbers, what is the relevance of “collected”?

With regard to robbers, they do not collect money; they steal it. If so,

if it was stolen

if they stole money

it is stolen

money;

and if it was not stolen

money

it is not stolen

and they are not called robbers. Why, then, are they called robbers?

Rather, say

that the words of the beraita should be interpreted as follows:

The robbers—and who are they?

Who are those robbers? They are

lenders at interest, even though they collected

interest

they return

the interest to the borrowers.

If so, it is stated explicitly in the beraita that lenders at interest are obligated to return the interest in their possession, contrary to the earlier beraita, which says that nothing is accepted from robbers and lenders at interest.

They said

to explain the words of the beraita here: The robbers and lenders at interest, for their part,

return

what they took, but

nothing is accepted from them.

But why

do they

return

it if nothing is accepted from them?

In order

to fulfill their obligation before Heaven,

because in order for their repentance to be complete, they must at least offer the borrowers and robbed parties the opportunity to receive what belongs to them.

Ta shma

to raise an objection from another beraita: We learned in the Tosefta [Bava Metzia 8:26]:

shepherds

who are robbers, as they pasture animals in other people’s fields,

and tax collectors

of the king, who collect the poll tax and arnona and sometimes take more than is proper,

and customs officials

who collect customs duties and sometimes take customs unlawfully —

their repentance is difficult,

because they robbed the public and do not know to whom to return the money.

And they return

at the very least

to those whom they recognize,

to those people whom they recognize and know that they took from them unlawfully.

And this is contrary to the earlier beraita, which says that nothing is accepted from robbers and lenders at interest.

They said,

to explain the words of the Tosefta: Although the shepherds, tax collectors, and customs officials, for their part,

return

what they took unlawfully,

nothing is accepted from them.

But why

do they

return

it if nothing is accepted from them?

In order

to fulfill their obligation before Heaven.

And we ask:

If so,

if this is the law, that they need return the money only in order to fulfill their obligation before Heaven,

why is their repentance difficult?

Furthermore,

the latter clause of the Tosefta is difficult.

Come and hear the latter clause: And if they do not recognize them,

those people from whom they took the money

they shall use them

those monies

for communal needs.

And Rav Hisda said:

What communal needs should he use the money for?

Wells, cisterns, and caves

containing water for drinking, as this is something needed by everyone, and thus there is hope that those who were robbed will benefit from it. This indicates explicitly in the beraita that he must return the stolen property.

Rather,

we must resolve the matter differently:

It is not difficult: Here

the Tosefta is speaking

before the ordinance,

the ordinance that was instituted for robbers, that nothing is accepted from them; this is the ruling taught in the days of Rabbi, which obligates them to return the property. Whereas

here

the earlier beraita, which teaches that nothing is accepted from them, is speaking

after the ordinance.

And now that Rav Nahman has said:

and explained that the ordinance of the Sages that he need not return the stolen property applies only

when the stolen property is no longer extant,

even you may say that both this and that

the Tosefta as well is speaking

after the ordinance,

which the Sages instituted, that he need not return the stolen property,

and it is not difficult

the words of the Tosefta: