- Tannaim who apparently hold שינוי במקומו עומד
Abaye lists five Tannaim who hold שינוי במקומו עומד – an item which underwent a change stays in place and is not acquired: (1) Rebbe Shimon ben Yehudah said that dyeing wool does not render it exempt from ראשית הגז. (2) Beis Shammai holds that wheat given as an אתנן – harlot’s payment which was ground into flour is still invalid for an offering. (3) Rebbe Elazar ben Yaakov said that if one stole wheat and made bread with it, then separated חלה, he cannot make a berachah: אין זה מברך אלא מנאץ – this is not blessing Hashem but blaspheming Him to make a berachah over stolen goods. (4) Rebbe Shimon ben Elazar said that if a stolen animal deteriorated, he may return it as is. (5) Rebbe Yishmael says one must separate פאה even if the grain was ground into flour and made into dough. Rava rejected every proof: (1) Dyeing is a reversible change, because it can be removed with detergent. (2) Although a changed אתנן is acquired, it is still invalid as an offering, משום דאימאיס – because it is repugnant. (3) A berachah is different because it is a מצוה הבאה בעבירה. (4) The animal’s “deterioration” which does not acquire may be a reversible deterioration. (5) Regarding פאה, an extra word teaches it must be left even after undergoing a שינוי.
- Rebbe’s takanah not to accept payment from גזלנין and מלוי רבית
It was taught in a Baraisa: הגזלנין ומלוי ברבית שהחזירו – Robbers and lenders on interest who attempted to return their illegally obtained money, אין מקבלין מהן – [their victims] should not accept it from them. והמקבל מהן אין רוח חכמים נוחה הימנו – And one who does accept it from them, a spirit of the Chochomim is not pleased with him. Rebbe Yochanan said this was enacted in Rebbe’s time, because of an incident in which someone wished to return his ill-gotten gains, until his wife warned him that if he would repent, he would not even keep his belt (which he stole), and he refrained from repenting. Later, the Gemara says that this takanah only applied בשאין גזילה קיימת – where the stolen item is no longer extant, and the robber would have to pay out of pocket. But if he still has the item, the victim may accept it back from him.
- Children returning רבית collected by the father
The above Baraisa was challenged from another Baraisa which states that if a father died and left money of forbidden interest to his children, אין חייבין להחזיר – they are not obligated to return it. This implies that their father is obligated to return it!? The Gemara answers that the father would also not be required to return it, but the Baraisa discusses the children to contrast with the latter part of the Baraisa, which states that if he left them פרה וטלית וכל דבר המסויים – a cow, a cloak, or any distinct object (which would be recognized by the public as being illegally obtained), they are obligated to return it מפני כבוד אביהם – because of their father’s honor. The Gemara wonders why they must protect their father’s honor, for the passuk says: "ונשיא בעמך לא תאור" – and a prince “among your people” you shall not curse, implying this is only בעושה מעשה עמך – when he acts according to the deeds of your people, but one who sins is not entitled to honor!? The Gemara answers: בשעשה תשובה – the case is where [the father] repented before dying but did not manage to return the illegally obtained item before he died.
