מִצְוַת הֲשָׁבַת גֶּזֶל – שֶׁנִּצְטַוִּינוּ לְהָשִׁיב אֶת הַגְּזֵלָה בְּעַיִן. (ב"ק סו א). כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁאִם הַדָּבָר מַמָּשׁ שֶׁגָּזַל הוּא אֶצְלוֹ וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּנָּה בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ שֶׁחַיָּב לַהֲשִׁיבוֹ אֶל הַנִּגְזָל כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא, וְלֹא שֶׁיִּקָּחֶנּוּ לְעַצְמוֹ וְיִתֵּן דָּמָיו לַנִּגְזָל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ה כג) וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת הַגְּזֵלָה אֲשֶׁר גָּזָל, וְאָמְרִינַן בְּקַמָּא בְּפֶרֶק הַגּוֹזֵל בָּתְרָא (ב"ק קיב א) תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת הַגְּזֵלָה אֲשֶׁר גָּזָל, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אֲשֶׁר גָּזַל? יַחְזִיר כְּעֵין שֶׁגָּזַל. וְאִם נִשְׁתַּנֵּית הַגְּזֵלָה בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ שֶׁל גּוֹזֵל, חַיָּב לְהָשִׁיב דָּמֶיהָ וּפָטוּר בְּכָךְ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְיָאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים מִמֶּנָּה (ב"ק סו ב). וְאֵי זֶהוּ שִׁנּוּי הַפּוֹטֵר מֵהָשִׁיב אֶת הַגְּזֵלָה, כְּעֵין זֶה הַשִּׁנּוּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחְזֹר אַחַר כָּךְ לִבְרִיָּתוֹ, כְּגוֹן הַגּוֹזֵל עֵצִים וּשְׂרָפָן אוֹ קָצַץ מֵהֶן קְצָתָן אוֹ שֶׁחָפַר בְּתוֹכָן חֲפִירוֹת, וְכֵן הַגּוֹזֵל צֶמֶר וּצְבָעוֹ אוֹ הַגּוֹזֵל מַטְוֶה וְעָשָׂה מִמֶּנּוּ בֶּגֶד וְכָל כַּיֹּצֵא בָּזֶה. אֲבָל הַגּוֹזֵל לוּחוֹת עֵץ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבָּנָה מֵהֶן תֵּבָה, אֵין זֶה שִׁנּוּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר לִבְרִיָּתוֹ, שֶׁהֲרֵי אֶפְשָׁר לְפָרֵק אוֹתָם וְהֵן חוֹזְרִין לוּחוֹת כְּמוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ, וּלְפִיכָךְ חַיָּב לְהַחְזִיר אוֹתָם בְּעַיִן, וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. The commandment of returning theft: That we were commanded to return the theft intact (Bava Kamma 66a). Meaning to say, that if the thing itself that he robbed is with him and it has not changed in his possession, he is obligated to return it to the one robbed; and not take it for himself, and give its value to the one robbed — as it is stated (Leviticus 5:23), “and return the theft that he robbed.” And we say in Bava Kamma 102a in the chapter [known as] HaGozel Batra, “The Rabbis learned, ‘And return the theft that he robbed’ — what do we learn to say [from] ‘that he robbed?’ That he return the intact item that he robbed.” But if the theft changed in the possession of the robber, he is [only] obligated to repay its value, and he is exempted with that — even though the owners did not forsake it (Bava Kamma 66b). And what is a change that exempts from returning the theft? Like the change that he cannot reverse afterwards to its original state — for example, one who robs wood and burns it or cuts some of it up or digs holes in it; and so [too,] one who robs wool and dyes it or robs spun fabric and makes a garment out of it, and all that is similar to it. But one who robs boards of wood, even if he builds a box out of them — this is not a change that cannot revert to its original state. As behold, it is possible to dismantle them and they will go back [to being] boards as they had been. And therefore, he is obligated to return them intact. And so with all that is similar to this.
שֹׁרֶשׁ הַמִּצְוָה יָדוּעַ. The root of the commandment is well-known.
דִּינֶיהָ כְּגוֹן מַה שֶׁאָמְרוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (סנהדרין נז א) כַּמָּה תִּהְיֶה הַגְּזֵלָה שֶׁיִּתְחַיֵּב הַגּוֹזֵל לַהֲשִׁיבָהּ? כָּל גְּזֵלָה שָׁוָה פְּרוּטָה. אֲבָל פָּחוֹת מִכָּאן, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעָבַר עַל אִסּוּר תּוֹרָה, אֵינָהּ בְּתוֹרַת הִשָּׁבוֹן. וּכְמוֹ שֶׁנִּכְתֹּב בַּאֲרֻכָּה עַל לָאו דְּלֹא תִּגְזֹל (מצוה רכט), לְפִי שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל בְּנֵי אַבְרָהָם יִצְחָק וְיַעֲקֹב נְדִיבִים בְּנֵי נְדִיבִים הֵם, וְיָדוּעַ הַדָּבָר שֶׁכָּל שֶׁהוּא פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה אֲפִלּוּ עָנִי שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּגְזַל מִמֶּנּוּ מוֹחֵל אוֹתוֹ וְאֵין חֶפְצוֹ אַחֲרָיו כְּלָל. וּלְפִיכָךְ אָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (בבא קמא קה א) שֶׁהַגּוֹזֵל שָׁלֹשׁ אֲגֻדּוֹת שֶׁשָּׁווֹת בִּשְׁעַת גְּזֵלָה שָׁלֹשׁ פְּרוּטוֹת וְהוּזְלוּ בְּיַד הַגַּזְלָן וְעָמְדוּ עַל שְׁתֵּי פְּרוּטוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֶחְזִיר הַשְּׁתַּיִם, חַיָּב לְהַחְזִיר הַשְּׁלִישִׁית, שֶׁאַחַר שְׁעַת גְּזֵלָה אָנוּ דָּנִין, וּכְבָר הָיְתָה שָׁוָה פְּרוּטָה בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה. גָּזַל שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁשָּׁווֹת פְּרוּטָה וְהֵשִׁיב אַחַת, גְּזֵלָה יֵשׁ כָּאן, הָשֵׁב גְּזֵלָה אֵין כָּאן. Its laws: For example, that which our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Sanhedrin 57a): How much would the theft be that obligates the robber in repayment? Any theft that is worth a small coin (perutah). But less than that is not in the category of repayment, even though he has transgressed a Torah prohibition. And as we shall write at length in the negative commandment of “You shall not rob” (Sefer HaChinukh 229), [it is] because Israelites are the children of Avraham, Yitschak and Yaakov — generous men, the children of generous men. And it is a well-known thing that even a poor Israelite will pardon less than the worth of a perutah that was stolen from him, and he will not want to seek it at all. And therefore, they, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Kamma 105a) that one who robs three bundles, worth three perutah at the time of the theft, and they depreciate in the hand of the robber and became worth two perutah — even though he returned two — he is obligated to return the third; since we judge according to the time of the robbery, and [the] third was already worth a perutah at that time. [If] he stole two that are worth one perutah [together] and he returned one, there is robbery here [but] there is not repayment here.
וְדִינֵי יֵאוּשׁ וְשִׁנּוּי רְשׁוּת רַבִּים. וּכְלָל הַדָּבָר כֵּן לְפִי הַנִּרְאֶה מִן הַגְּמָרָא, שֶׁכָּל זְמַן שֶׁהַגְּזֵלָה בְּיַד הַגַּזְלָן אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ בְּיַד בָּנָיו וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּנֵּית, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיָּדַעְנוּ בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁהַנִּגְזָל נִתְיָאֵשׁ מִמֶּנָּה, וְהוּא כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ בַּגְּמָרָא (בבא מציעא כג א) כְּגוֹן דְּשַׁמְעוּהּ בְּנֵי אָדָם שֶׁהָיָה אוֹמֵר וַי לֵהּ לְחֶסְרוֹנֵהּ. כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁמַּסְכִּים בְּדַעְתּוֹ עַל אוֹתוֹ דָּבָר שֶׁכְּבָר נֶאֱבַד מִמֶּנּוּ וְאֵין דַּעְתּוֹ סוֹמֶכֶת שֶׁיִּרְאֶנּוּ עוֹד, אַף עַל פִּי כֵן דִּין תּוֹרָה (ב"ק קיא ב) שֶׁחַיָּבִין לְהַחְזִירָהּ לַנִּגְזָל כְּמוֹת שֶׁהִיא. אֲפִלּוּ הִשְׁבִּיחָה בְּיַד הַגַּזְלָן הַשֶּׁבַח לַנִּגְזָל, וְזֶהוּ שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת הַגְּזֵלָה אֲשֶׁר גָּזָל. וּבָא הַפֵּרוּשׁ אִם הִיא כְּמוֹ שֶׁגְּזָלָהּ, כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּנֵּית יַחְזִירֶנָּה כְּמוֹת שֶׁהִיא, וַאֲפִילּוּ הִשְׁבִּיחָהּ כַּמָּה. And the laws of despairing (yiush) and the transfer of domain are many. But the principle of the matter is thus according to that which appears from the Gemara: That any time that the [actual] theft is in the robber’s hands — or even his son’s — and it has not changed, they are obligated according to Torah writ to return it like it is to the one robbed. [And this is] even though we knew with certainty that the one robbed has despaired it; and that is like they said in the Gemara (Bava Metzia 23a), “For example, that people heard him saying, ‘Woe to him for his loss’” — meaning to say, that he concedes in his mind about that thing, that it is already lost from him, and his mind does not rely upon seeing it again. Even if [its value] appreciated in the hand of the robber, the appreciation is to the one who was robbed. And this is [the understanding] of that which is written in the Torah, “and return the theft that he robbed.” And the explanation comes — if it is the same as what he robbed, meaning that it has not changed, he must return it as it is, and even if it appreciated much.
אֲבָל חֲכָמִים תִּקְּנוּ (ב"ק צד ב) מִפְּנֵי תַּקָּנַת הַשָּׁבִים שֶׁכָּל מָה שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחָה בְּיַד הַגַּזְלָן אַחַר יֵאוּשׁ הַבְּעָלִים, יִהְיֶה שֶׁלּוֹ, וּכְשֶׁיָּבֹא לְהַחְזִירָהּ יְחַשֵּׁב עִם הַנִּגְזָל כַּמָּה הָיְתָה שָׁוָה בִּשְׁעַת הַגְּזֵלָה וְיָשִׁיב לוֹ הַנִּגְזָל דְּמֵי מָה שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחָה וְיִקָּחֶנָּה. וְדָבָר זֶה יֵשׁ כֹּחַ בְּיַד חֲכָמִים לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ, לְפִי שֶׁבְּכָל דָּבָר שֶׁבְּמָמוֹן הֵם יְכוֹלִין לַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ כְּחֶפְצָם וַאֲפִלּוּ כְּנֶגֶד צִוּוּי הַתּוֹרָה, כְּמוֹ שֶׁיָּדוּעַ (יבמות פט ב, גיטין לו ב) שֶׁהֶפְקֵר בֵּית דִּין הֶפְקֵר, וּלְפִיכָךְ גּוֹי שֶׁגָּזַל וְהִשְׁבִּיחַ בֵּין קֹדֶם יֵאוּשׁ בֵּין לְאַחַר יֵאוּשׁ, אוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל גַּזְלָן שֶׁמָּכַר לְגוֹי וְהִשְׁבִּיחַ הַגּוֹי [הַשֶּׁבַח לַנִּגְזָל. מְכָרָהּ (מנחת יצחק)] לִפְנֵי יֵאוּשׁ, הַדִּין עִם הַשֵּׁנִי כְּמוֹ עִם הָרִאשׁוֹן בְּשָׁוֶה, שֶׁאֵין שִׁנּוּי רְשׁוּת עוֹשֶׂה קִנְיָן אֶלָּא אַחַר יֵאוּשׁ. אֲבָל אַחַר יֵאוּשׁ בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה אוֹתוֹ יֵאוּשׁ אַחַר שֶׁבָּאת הַגְּזֵלָה לְיַד לוֹקֵחַ אוֹ בְּעוֹד שֶׁהָיְתָה בְּיַד גַּזְלָן, כֵּיוָן שֶׁיֵּשׁ בִּגְזֵלָה זוֹ יֵאוּשׁ וְשִׁנּוּי רְשׁוּת, קְנָאָהּ הַלּוֹקֵחַ לְגוּפָהּ שֶׁל גְּזֵלָה. וְאִם אוֹתוֹ גַּזְלָן שֶׁמְּכָרָהּ לוֹ הוּא גַּזְלָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְפֻרְסָם, תִּהְיֶה שֶׁלּוֹ לְגַמְרֵי וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְהָשִׁיב כְּלוּם לַנִּגְזָל, אֶלָּא יֵלֵךְ לוֹ הַנִּגְזָל וְיַעֲשֶׂה דִּין עִם הַגַּזְלָן. וְאִם הוּא גַּזְלָן מְפֻרְסָם חַיָּב לְהָשִׁיב הַלּוֹקֵחַ דְּמֵי הַגְּזֵלָה לַנִּגְזָל, וְהוּא יַעֲשֶׂה דִּין עִם הַגַּזְלָן. But the Sages ordained (Bava Kamma 94b), as a result of the Ordinance of the Penitents, that anything that appreciates in the hand of the robber after the forsaking be his. And [so] when he comes to return it, he calculates with the robbed one how much it was worth at the time of the robbery; and the robbed one pays him the money of that which it appreciated, and takes it. And the Sages have the power to do this thing, since they may do according to their will in a monetary matter — and even against the commands of the Torah. As it is well-known that what the court makes ownerless is ownerless (Yevamot 89b, Gittin 36b). And therefore if a gentile (to which the Ordinance does not apply) robbed and [the item] appreciated, whether before the forsaking or whether after the forsaking; or if an Israelite robbed it and he sold [it] to a gentile, and the gentile makes [it] appreciate — [the appreciation is for the one robbed. If he sold it (Minchat Yitschak)] before the forsaking, the law of the [purchaser] is like the law of the [robber] — as transfer of domain does not create acquisition without forsaking. But after the forsaking — whether that forsaking was after the theft came to the hand of the purchaser, or when it was still in the hand of the robber — since there was forsaking and a transfer of domain with this theft, the purchaser has acquired the body of the theft. And if that robber that sold it to him is a robber that is not famous, it is completely his; and he is not obligated to return anything to the one robbed. Rather the robbed one should go and sue the robber. But if he is a famous robber, the purchaser is obligated to return the value of the theft to the robbed one, and he sues the robber.
וְדִינֵי הַגְּזֵלָה עַד הֵיכָן הוּא חַיָּב לִטְרֹחַ וְלַהֲשִׁיבָהּ אֶל בְּעָלֶיהָ כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (בבא קמא קג א) הַגּוֹזֵל מֵחֲבֵרוֹ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה שֶׁחַיָּב לְהוֹלִיכָהּ אַחֲרָיו אֲפִלּוּ לְמָדַי, כְּלוֹמַר לְמָקוֹם רָחוֹק. וּכְדֵי לְהָקֵל טָרְחוֹ אִם הַהוֹצָאָה מֵרֻבָּה, אָמְרוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה שֶׁיַּנִּיחֶנָּה בְּיַד בֵּית דִּין וְיוֹדִיעֵם שֶׁאוֹתוֹ מָמוֹן הוּא שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי וְהֵם יִתְּנוּהוּ לוֹ לִכְשֶׁיִּזְדַּמֵּן. And the laws of the theft as to how far he is to burden himself to return it to its owners is like that which our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Kamma 103a) that one who robs the worth of a perutah from his fellow is obligated to bring it after him, even to Medea - meaning to say, to a far place. But in order to lighten his burden if the expense [to do this] is great, our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said that he [shall] leave it with the court and they know that this money is for x, and they give it to him when he happens by.
וְדִין גָּזַל קוֹרָה וּבְנָאָהּ בְּבִירָה מַה יְהֵא עָלֶיהָ (גיטין נה א). וְדִין גָּזַל בַּיִּשּׁוּב וְרָצָה לְהַחְזִיר בַּמִּדְבָּר (ב"ק קיח א). וְדִין גָּזַל וְהִקְדִּישׁ, וְגָזַל טָלֶה וְנַעֲשָׂה אַיִל מָה דִּינָן. וְדִין שֶׁבַח הַבָּא מֵחֲמַת יֹקֶר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִן הַתַּקָּנָה, אֶלָּא חוֹזֵר לַנִּגְזָל, שֶׁלֹּא תִּקְּנוּ לַגַּזְלָן אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח אַחַר יֵאוּשׁ אֶלָּא כְּגוֹן שֶׁבַח גִּזּוֹת וּוְלָדוֹת, אֲבָל שֶׁבַח הַיֹּקֶר לֹא. וְדִין תּוֹקֵף עֶבֶד חֲבֵרוֹ וְעָשָׂה בּוֹ מְלָאכָה, וְדִין תּוֹקֵף סְפִינָתוֹ, וְדִין הַדָּר בַּחֲצַר חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ, וְיֶתֶר פְּרָטֶיהָ, מְבֹאָרִין בַּפְּרָקִים הָאַחֲרוֹנִים מִן קַמָּא. And the law of what will be with a beam that he built into a mansion (Gittin 55a); and the law of one who robbed in a settlement and he wants to return it in the wilderness (Bava Kamma 118b); and the law of one who robs and consecrates [it]. And what is the law of one who robs a lamb and it becomes a ram; and the law of the appreciation that comes from inflation — which is not under the Ordinance, but rather goes to the robbed one, as they only ordained that the appreciation be for the robber after the forsaking, in such a case as with shearings or offspring, but not appreciation from inflation; the law of one who overpowers the slave of his fellow and does work with him, or overpowers his ship; the law of one who lives in the courtyard of his fellow without [the latter]’s knowledge; and the rest of its details are elucidated in the final chapters of [Bava] Kamma.
וְנוֹהֶגֶת בְּכָל מָקוֹם וּבְכָל זְמַן בִּזְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת. וְהָעוֹבֵר עָלֶיהָ וְגָזַל וְלֹא הֵשִׁיב, בִּטֵּל עֲשֵׂה זֶה, מִלְּבַד הַלָּאו שֶׁעָבַר בִּשְׁעַת גְּזֵלָה. וְאוֹי לוֹ לְמִי שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ לְתַקֵּן הַמְעֻוָּת וְאֵינוֹ מְתַקְּנוֹ טֶרֶם מוֹתוֹ (יומא פה ב). And [it] is practiced in all places and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it and robs but does not return has violated this positive commandment, besides the negative commandment that he violated at the time of the robbery. And woe to the one who has it in his hand to “fix the twisted,” and does not fix it before his death (Yoma 85b)!