## Bava Kamma Daf 94b

###### Bava Kamma 94b:1
[Bava Kamma 94b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/94b:1)

אָמְרוּ הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר. וְלֵיהּ לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Some **said** that the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, but** Shmuel **himself does not hold accordingly.**


###### Bava Kamma 94b:2
[Bava Kamma 94b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/94b:2)

אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה – גְּזֵילָה הַנִּשְׁתַּנֵּית, חוֹזֶרֶת בְּעֵינֶיהָ. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת הַגְּזֵלָה אֲשֶׁר גָּזָל״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם. וְאִם תֹּאמַר: מִשְׁנָתֵנוּ! מִשּׁוּם תַּקָּנַת הַשָּׁבִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bava Kamma 94b:3
[Bava Kamma 94b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/94b:3)

וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי?! וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כִּסְתַם מִשְׁנָה, וּתְנַן: לֹא הִסְפִּיק לִיתְּנוֹ לוֹ עַד שֶׁצְּבָעוֹ – פָּטוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Kamma 94b:4
[Bava Kamma 94b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/94b:4)

אֲמַר לְהוּ הַהוּא מִדְּרַבָּנַן – וְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב שְׁמֵיהּ: לְדִידִי מִפָּרְשָׁא לִי מִינֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁגָּזַל עֵצִים מְשׁוּפִּין וַעֲשָׂאָן כֵּלִים, דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ שִׁינּוּי הַחוֹזֵר לִבְרִיָּיתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bava Kamma 94b:5
[Bava Kamma 94b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/94b:5)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַגַּזְלָנִין וּמַלְוֵי בְּרִבִּית שֶׁהֶחְזִירוּ – אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מֵהֶן. וְהַמְקַבֵּל מֵהֶן – אֵין רוּחַ חֲכָמִים נוֹחָה הֵימֶנּוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Bava Kamma 94b:6
[Bava Kamma 94b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/94b:6)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בִּימֵי רַבִּי נִשְׁנֵית מִשְׁנָה זוֹ. דְּתַנְיָא: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁבִּקֵּשׁ לַעֲשׂוֹת תְּשׁוּבָה, אָמְרָה לוֹ אִשְׁתּוֹ: רֵיקָה! אִם אַתָּה עוֹשֶׂה תְּשׁוּבָה, אֲפִילּוּ אַבְנֵט אֵינוֹ שֶׁלְּךָ! וְנִמְנַע וְלֹא עָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה. בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה אָמְרוּ: הַגַּזְלָנִין וּמַלְוֵי רִבִּיּוֹת שֶׁהֶחְזִירוּ – אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מֵהֶם, וְהַמְקַבֵּל מֵהֶם – אֵין רוּחַ חֲכָמִים נוֹחָה הֵימֶנּוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Bava Kamma 94b:7
[Bava Kamma 94b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/94b:7)

מֵיתִיבִי: הִנִּיחַ לָהֶם אֲבִיהֶם מָעוֹת שֶׁל רִבִּית, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן יוֹדְעִין שֶׁהֵן רִבִּית – אֵין חַיָּיבִין לְהַחְזִיר. אִינְהוּ הוּא דְּלָא, הָא אֲבִיהֶם חַיָּיב לְהַחְזִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Kamma 94b:8
[Bava Kamma 94b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/94b:8)

בְּדִין הוּא דַּאֲבִיהֶם נָמֵי אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב לְהַחְזִיר; וְהָא דְּקָתָנֵי בְּדִידְהוּ – מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא בָּעֵי לְמִתְנֵי סֵיפָא: ״הִנִּיחַ לָהֶם אֲבִיהֶם פָּרָה וְטַלִּית וְכׇל דָּבָר הַמְסוּיָּים – חַיָּיבִין לְהַחְזִיר מִפְּנֵי כְּבוֹד אֲבִיהֶם״, תְּנָא רֵישָׁא נָמֵי בְּדִידְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bava Kamma 94b:9
[Bava Kamma 94b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/94b:9)

וּמִפְּנֵי כְּבוֹד אֲבִיהֶם – חַיָּיבִין לְהַחְזִיר? אֶקְרֵי כָּאן: ״וְנָשִׂיא בְעַמְּךָ לֹא תָאֹר״ – בְּעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֵׂה עַמְּךָ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Bava Kamma 94b:10
[Bava Kamma 94b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/94b:10)

כִּדְאָמַר רַב פִּנְחָס: בְּשֶׁעָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה; הָכָא נָמֵי, בְּשֶׁעָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה. אִי עָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה, מַאי בָּעֵי גַּבֵּיהּ? אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְאַהְדּוֹרֵי! שֶׁלֹּא הִסְפִּיק לְהַחְזִיר עַד שֶׁמֵּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Kamma 94b:11
[Bava Kamma 94b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/94b:11)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַגַּזְלָנִים וּמַלְוֵי בְּרִבִּית, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁגָּבוּ – מַחֲזִירִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Kamma 94b:12
[Bava Kamma 94b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/94b:12)

גַּזְלָנִין – מַאי ״שֶׁגָּבוּ״ אִיכָּא? אִי גְּזוּל – גְּזוּל, וְאִי לָא גְּזוּל – לָא גְּזוּל! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: הַגַּזְלָנִין, וּמַאי נִיהוּ – מַלְוֵי רִבִּיּוֹת; אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁגָּבוּ – מַחְזִירִין! אָמְרִי: מַחְזִירִין, וְאֵין מְקַבְּלִין מֵהֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bava Kamma 94b:13
[Bava Kamma 94b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/94b:13)

אֶלָּא לָמָּה מַחְזִירִין? לָצֵאת יְדֵי שָׁמַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Kamma 94b:14
[Bava Kamma 94b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/94b:14)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הָרוֹעִים וְהַגַּבָּאִין וְהַמּוֹכְסִין – תְּשׁוּבָתָן קָשָׁה, וּמַחְזִירִין לְמַכִּירִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Kamma 94b:15
[Bava Kamma 94b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/94b:15)

אָמְרִי: מַחְזִירִין, וְאֵין מְקַבְּלִין מֵהֶם. וְאֶלָּא לָמָּה מַחְזִירִין? לָצֵאת יְדֵי שָׁמַיִם. אִי הָכִי, אַמַּאי תְּשׁוּבָתָן קָשָׁה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?**


###### Bava Kamma 94b:16
[Bava Kamma 94b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/94b:16)

וְעוֹד, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: וְשֶׁאֵין מַכִּירִין – יַעֲשֶׂה בָּהֶן צׇרְכֵי צִיבּוּר, וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בּוֹרוֹת, שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת! אֶלָּא לָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן קוֹדֶם תַּקָּנָה, כָּאן לְאַחַר תַּקָּנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bava Kamma 94b:17
[Bava Kamma 94b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/94b:17)

וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: בְּשֶׁאֵין גְּזֵילָה קַיֶּימֶת – אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי לְאַחַר תַּקָּנָה; וְלָא קַשְׁיָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**