Bava Kamma — Daf 94b

אמרו הלכה כרבי שמעון בן אלעזר וליה לא סבירא ליה

א"ר חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן דבר תורה גזילה הנשתנית חוזרת בעיניה שנאמר (ויקרא ה, כג) והשיב את הגזלה אשר גזל מכל מקום ואם תאמר משנתנו משום תקנת השבים

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

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

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

אמר רבי יוחנן בימי רבי נשנית משנה זו דתניא מעשה באדם אחד שבקש לעשות תשובה א"ל 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

מיתיבי הניח להם אביהם מעות של רבית אע"פ שהן יודעין שהן רבית אין חייבין להחזיר אינהו הוא דלא הא אביהם חייב להחזיר

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

ומפני כבוד אביהם חייבין להחזיר אקרי כאן (שמות כב, כז) ונשיא בעמך לא תאור בעושה מעשה עמך

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

תא שמע הגזלנים ומלוי ברבית אע"פ שגבו מחזירין

גזלנין מאי שגבו איכא אי גזול גזול ואי לא גזול לא גזול אלא אימא הגזלנין ומאי ניהו מלוי רביות אע"פ שגבו מחזירין אמרי מחזירין ואין מקבלין מהם

אלא למה מחזירין לצאת ידי שמים

ת"ש הרועים והגבאין והמוכסין תשובתן קשה ומחזירין למכירין

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

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

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

They said that the halachah is in accordance with R. Simeon b. Eleazar though Samuel himself did not agree with this. R. Hiyya b. Abba said that R. Johanan stated that according to the law of the Torah a misappropriated article should even after being changed be returned to the owner in its present condition, as it is said: He shall restore that which he took by robbery  — in all cases. And should you cite against me the Mishnaic ruling,  my answer is that this was merely an enactment for the purpose of making matters easier for repentant robbers.  But did R. Johanan really say this? Did R. Johanan not say  that the halachah should be in accordance with an anonymous Mishnah, and we have learnt: 'If the owner did not manage to give the first of the fleece to the priest until it had already been dyed, he is exempt'?  — But a certain scholar of our Rabbis whose name was R. Jacob said to them: 'This matter was explained to me by R. Johanan personally, [that his statement referred only to a case] where, e.g., there were misappropriated planed pieces of wood out of which utensils were made, as after such a change the material could still revert to its previous condition. Our Rabbis taught: 'If robbers or usurers [repent and of their own free will] are prepared to restore [the misappropriated articles], it is not right to accept [them] from them, and he who does accept [them] from them does not obtain the approval of the Sages.'  R. Johanan said: It was in the days of Rabbi that this teaching was enunciated, as taught: 'It once happened with a certain man who was desirous of making restitution that his wife said to him, Raca, if you are going to make restitution, even the girdle [you are wearing] would not remain yours, and he thus refrained altogether from making repentance. It was at that time that it was declared that if robbers or usurers are prepared to make restitution it is not right to accept [the misappropriated articles] from them, and he who accepts from them does not obtain the approval of the Sages.' An objection was raised [from the following:] 'If a father left [to his children] money accumulated by usury, even if the heirs know that the money was [paid as] interest, they are not liable to restore the money [to the respective borrowers].  Now, does this not imply that it is only the children who have not to restore, whereas the father would be liable to restore?  The law might be that even the father himself would not have had to restore, and the reason why the ruling was stated with reference to the children  was that since it was necessary to state in the following clause 'Where the father left them a cow or a garment or anything which could [easily] be identified, they are liable to restore [it], in order to uphold the honour of the father,' the earlier clause similarly spoke of them. But why should they be liable to restore  in order to uphold the honour of the father? Why not apply to them [the verse] 'nor curse the rule of thy people',  [which is explained to mean.] 'so long as he is acting in the spirit of 'thy people'?  — As however, R. Phinehas [elsewhere]  stated, that the thief might have made repentance, so also here we suppose that the father had made repentance. But if the father made repentance, why was the misappropriated article still left with him? Should he not have restored it?  — But it might be that he had no time to restore it before he [suddenly] died. Come and hear: Robbers and usurers even after they have collected the money must return it.  But what collection could there have been in the case of robbers. for surely if they misappropriated anything they committed robbery, and if they had not misappropriated anything they were not robbers at all? It must therefore read as follows: 'Robbers, that is to say usurers, even after they have already collected the money, must return it.'  — It may, however, be said that though they have to make restitution of the money it would not be accepted from them. If so why have they to make restitution? — [To make it quite evident that out of their own free will] they are prepared to fulfil their duty before Heaven. Come and hear: 'For shepherds, tax collectors and revenue farmers it is difficult to make repentance, yet they must make restitution [of the articles in question] to all those whom they know [they have robbed].  — It may, however, [also here] be said that though they have to make restitution, it would not be accepted from them. If so why have they to make restitution? — [To make it quite evident that out of their free will] they are prepared to fulfil their duty before Heaven. But if so why should it be difficult for them to make repentance?  Again, why was it said in the concluding clause that out of articles of which they do not know the owners they should make public utilities,  and R. Hisda said that these should be wells, ditches and caves?  — There is, however, no difficulty, as this teaching  was enunciated before the days of the enactment,  whereas the other statements were made after the enactment. Moreover, as R. Nahman has now stated that the enactment referred only to a case where the misappropriated article was no more intact, it may even be said that both teachings were enunciated after the days of the enactment, and yet there is no difficulty,