Possession Is 100 Percent Of The Law
‘Stolen Chametz Became Forbidden Due To The Intervening Passover’
(Bava Kamma 96b)
We infer from the mishnah on our daf that if a thief stole a healthy cow valued at, for example, $500 and its value decreased to $400 due to market changes, he fulfills his obligation to make restitution if he returns the actual animal, even though it presently is worth less than it did when he stole it.
The mishnah specifically states that if a cow’s value decreased due to a physical change (e.g., it became old or weak in the hands of the thief), restitution can only be accomplished by giving the owner an animal worth the same amount as the one stolen from him. This is due to the rule of “shinui koneh” – i.e., a physical change creates acquisition.
A Violation Of Pesach
The Gemara (Pesachim 28b-29a) discusses the prohibition of chametz on Pesach and states that not only is benefit from chametz prohibited; the mere possession of chametz places one in violation of “bal yera’eh” – lit., it shall not be seen. The halacha follows Rava (ad loc.) that chametz that remained in a Jew’s possession during Pesach is forbidden for benefit, even after Pesach, due to a rabbinically-imposed penalty.
‘Here Is Yours’
Our mishnah (Bava Kamma 96b) states this if a person steals chametz prior to Pesach and keeps it in his possession until after Pesach (rendering it forbidden for benefit), he may return the chametz to its owner after the festival, declaring, “Here is that which I stole from you.”
Even though the chametz has undergone a change in status after the robbery – it became forbidden for benefit – the change is not considered physical, but rather halachic, which is not discernible.
Forbidden To Whom?
The Ramban (Novella to Pesachim 32b – see also Pri Chadash, Orach Chayim 448:3) proves from our mishnah that the sages forbade chametz she’avar alav haPesach not only to its owner but to all Jews. He points out that in the case of a thief who stole chametz prior to Pesach (and did not destroy it at the prescribed time) the owner did not violate bal yera’eh, yet the mishnah refers to it as chametz she’avar alav haPesach.
Teshuvos HaRif, cited by Rabbenu Manoach (to the Rambam’s Hilchos Chametz U’Matzah 1:5), however, is of the novel opinion that the sages only forbade the owner any use of chametz she’avar alav haPesach. Others, however, may benefit from such chametz because they were not the subject of the penalty.
We might add, by way of explanation, that this position is the only one that appears to make sense. Otherwise, what value does original owner get by receiving the chametz? Should the return of something that is now deemed worthless be considered proper restitution?