Study Bava Kamma folio 95A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
כאן בגזילה קיימת, כאן בשאין גזילה קיימת. והא אבנט – דגזילה קיימת היא! מאי ״אבנט״ – דמי אבנט.
Here, the baraita that rules that one may accept the stolen item is referring to a case where the stolen item still exists. There, the baraita that rules not to accept it even if the robber seeks only to fulfill his obligation to Heaven is referring to a case where the stolen item does not still exist. The Talmud asks: But the incident in which the robber’s wife told him that he would have to return even the belt, which was the impetus for instituting the ordinance for the penitents, was a case where the stolen item still exists, in which case the robber would be obligated to return it even after the ordinance was instituted. The Talmud answers: What is meant by: Even the belt? The value of the belt, but the actual belt was no longer in his possession.
וכל היכא דגזילה קיימת, לא עבוד רבנן תקנתא?! והרי מריש, דגזילה קיימת היא; ותנן: על המריש הגזול שבנאו בבירה, שיטול דמיו – מפני תקנת השבים! שאני התם, דכיון דאיכא פסידא דבירה – שויוה רבנן כדליתה.
The Talmud asks: And is it so that the rabbis did not institute an ordinance for the penitent anywhere that the stolen item still exists? But there is the case of a beam, which is a stolen item that still exists, and we learned in a Mishnah (Gittin 55a): With regard to a stolen beam that the robber built into a building, the rabbis instituted that the robbery victim should take its monetary value and not the actual beam because of the ordinance instituted for the penitent, i.e., so that the penitent not be required to destroy his house. This indicates that the ordinance instituted for the penitent is in effect even when the stolen item still exists. The Talmud answers: There it is different. Since in that case there is the loss of the entire building, the rabbis treat the beam as though it were not in existence.