Hello! If you are reading this, you have officially made it to the Virtual Open Beit Midrash - great news for you AND for me! Please use the next 30 minutes to go through the sources below with your chevruta.
After reading through the sources in each section, please stop to discuss at least some the questions provided (I don't expect you to finish every single question on the sheet) and just like the SAT, no peaking at the next section before you finish the previous one!!
Please enjoy the memes as well.
Section 1: Torah Law
(כא) נֶ֚פֶשׁ כִּ֣י תֶחֱטָ֔א וּמָעֲלָ֥ה מַ֖עַל בַּה'... (כג) וְהָיָה֮ כִּֽי־יֶחֱטָ֣א וְאָשֵׁם֒ וְהֵשִׁ֨יב אֶת־הַגְּזֵלָ֜ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר גָּזָ֗ל... (כד) ... וַחֲמִשִׁתָ֖יו יֹסֵ֣ף עָלָ֑יו לַאֲשֶׁ֨ר ה֥וּא ל֛וֹ יִתְּנֶ֖נּוּ בְּי֥וֹם אַשְׁמָתֽוֹ׃ (כה) וְאֶת־אֲשָׁמ֥וֹ יָבִ֖יא לַה' אַ֣יִל תָּמִ֧ים מִן־הַצֹּ֛אן בְּעֶרְכְּךָ֥ לְאָשָׁ֖ם אֶל־הַכֹּהֵֽן׃
(21) When a person sins and commits a trespass against the LORD... (23) When one has thus sinned and, realizing his guilt, would return that which he got through robbery...
(24) ...and add a fifth part to it. He shall pay it to its owner when he realizes his guilt. (25) Then he shall bring to the priest, as his penalty to the LORD, a ram without blemish from the flock, or the equivalent, as a guilt offering.
(1) How do you understand Vayikra's approach to the case of a stolen item?
(2) What does the Seforno add to your understanding of the Tanakh's approach?
(3) How would you describe or define the type of justice being advocated for by the Torah?
א"ר יוחנן כל הגוזל את חבירו שוה פרוטה כאילו נוטל נשמתו ממנו שנאמר כן ארחות כל בוצע בצע את נפש בעליו יקח ואומר (ירמיהו ה, יז) ואכל קצירך ולחמך בניך ובנותיך
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Anyone who robs another of an item worth one peruta is considered as though he takes his soul from him, as it is stated: “So are the ways of every one that is greedy for profit; it takes away the life of the owner thereof” (Proverbs 1:19). And it states: “And they shall consume your harvest, and your bread, they shall consume your sons and your daughters” (Jeremiah 5:17). Since they will consume the harvest and bread, it is as though they consume one’s children as well because there will be no food to feed them.
(1) How does the text in Bava Kama conceptualize theft?
(2) If these were the only sources (Vayikra & Bava Kama) we had on the issue, how would you rule in a case of theft if you were the judge? And if you were a judge with an opportunity to speak to the thief before handing down their sentence, how would you speak to them?
(3) GUT CHECK: Do these sources seem to take theft too seriously? Not seriously enough? Appropriately seriously?

Section 2: Formulation of Takanat HaShavim
הָהִיא סָבְתָּא דַּאֲתַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא וְכוּלְּהוּ רַבָּנַן דְּבֵי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא בְּסוּכָּה גְּזוּלָה הֲווֹ יָתְבִי צָוְוחָה וְלָא אַשְׁגַּח בָּהּ רַב נַחְמָן אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ אִיתְּתָא דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לַאֲבוּהָא תְּלָת מְאָה וְתַמְנֵי סְרֵי עַבְדֵי צָוְוחָא קַמַּיְיכוּ וְלָא אַשְׁגְּחִיתוּ בַּהּ אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב נַחְמָן פָּעִיתָא הִיא דָּא וְאֵין לָהּ אֶלָּא דְּמֵי עֵצִים בִּלְבַד
The Gemara relates: There was a certain old woman who came before Rav Naḥman. She said to him: The Exilarch and all the Sages in his house have been sitting in a stolen sukka. She claimed that the Exilarch’s servants stole her wood and used it to build the sukka. She screamed, but Rav Naḥman did not pay attention to her. She said to him: A woman whose father, Abraham, our forefather, had three hundred and eighteen slaves screams before you, and you do not pay attention to her? She claimed that she should be treated with deference due to her lineage as a Jew. Rav Naḥman said to the Sages: This woman is a screamer, and she has rights only to the monetary value of the wood.
For now we will set aside the rather RUDE tone Rav Nahman used with this perfectly nice seeming elderly woman (sorry to editorialize)...
(1) What do YOU think Rav Nachman should have said to the old lady? Should he have ordered the wood be returned?
ועל המריש הגזול שבנאו: תנו רבנן גזל מריש ובנאו בבירה ב"ש אומרים מקעקע כל הבירה כולה ומחזיר מריש לבעליו וב"ה אומרים אין לו אלא דמי מריש בלבד משום תקנת השבין:
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda further testified about a stolen beam that was already built into a building and said that the injured party receives the value of the beam but not the beam itself. With regard to this, the Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Bava Kamma 10:5): If one robbed another of a beam and built it into a building, Beit Shammai say: He must destroy the entire building and return the beam to its owners. And Beit Hillel say: The injured party receives only the value of the beam but not the beam itself, due to an ordinance instituted called Takanat HaShavim. The Sages were lenient and required the robber to return only the value of the beam. The mishna was taught in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.
Using the specific cases provided in Sukkah and Gittin above, please articulate a general principle/rule that one might apply more universally. We will call this principle/rule Takanat HaShavim
This may help you:
"If someone steals an item from another person and then ________, the thief is only obligated to repay the monetary value of the stolen item."
(1) How does this rule compare to what you saw in Section 1?
(2) If Section 2 contained the only sources we had on this issue, how would you rule in a case of theft if you were the judge? And if you were a judge with an opportunity to speak to the thief before handing down their sentence, how would you speak to them?
(3) GUT CHECK: Do these sources seem to take theft too seriously? Not seriously enough? Appropriately seriously?

Section 3: Motivation Behind Takanat HaShavim
(ה) כָּל הַגּוֹזֵל חַיָּב לְהַחְזִיר הַגְּזֵלָה עַצְמָהּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ה כג) "וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת הַגְּזֵלָה אֲשֶׁר גָּזָל". וְאִם אָבְדָה אוֹ נִשְׁתַּנֵּית מְשַׁלֵּם דָּמֶיהָ. בֵּין שֶׁהוֹדָה מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ בֵּין שֶׁבָּאוּ עָלָיו עֵדִים שֶׁגָּזַל הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם הַקֶּרֶן בִּלְבַד. אֲפִלּוּ גָּזַל קוֹרָה וּבְנָאָהּ בַּבִּירָה הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּנֵּית דִּין תּוֹרָה הוּא שֶׁיַּהֲרֹס אֶת כָּל הַבִּנְיָן וְיַחְזִיר קוֹרָה לִבְעָלֶיהָ. אֲבָל תִּקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים מִפְּנֵי תַּקָּנַת הַשָּׁבִים שֶׁיִּהְיֶה נוֹתֵן אֶת דָּמֶיהָ וְלֹא יַפְסִיד הַבִּנְיָן. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. אֲפִלּוּ גָּזַל קוֹרָה וַעֲשָׂאָהּ בְּסֻכַּת הֶחָג וּבָא בַּעַל הַקּוֹרָה לְתָבְעָהּ בְּתוֹךְ הֶחָג נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת דָּמֶיהָ. אֲבָל אַחַר הֶחָג הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּנֵּית וְלֹא בְּנָאָהּ בְּטִיט מַחְזִיר אֶת הַקּוֹרָה עַצְמָהּ:
(5) Anyone who commits robbery must return the very object he robbed, as it is written: "He shall restore what he took by robbery" (Leviticus 5:23). If, however, the object is lost or altered, he must pay its value. Whether he has confessed of his own accord, or witnesses have testified that he committed robbery, he is required to repay the capital value only. Even if he took a rafter by robbery and built it into a structure, inasmuch as it underwent no change, biblical law requires that he shall pull down the whole building and give back the rafter to its owner. The sages, however, have ruled for the benefit of repentant sinners (Takanat HaShavim), that he may repay its value and does not have to demolish the structure. The same is applicable to all similar cases. Even if one took a rafter by robbery and used it for the sukkah, and the owner came to claim it during the Sukkoth festival, he has to repay only its value. But if it is claimed after the festival, he must return the rafter itself, inasmuch as it has not been altered and he has not built it in with mortar.
(1) What is the Rambam's explanation as to why the thief, despite what Biblical law would demand, does not have to demolish his structure in order to restore the beam he has acquired through theft.
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 (dummy)], 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.
(1) Why does this man not do Teshuva and return his objects?
(2) How does the story Rabbi Yohanan tells here relate to the principle of Takanat HaShavim laid out by the Rambam right above.
(3) Do these new explanations make you feel better about the ruling in the case of the grandma in Section 2? Feel worse? Neither?
FINAL BIG PICTURE QUESTIONS:
(1) How would you describe the difference in understanding of justice in Section 1 (Vayikra/Seforno/Bava Kama) and the justice that is developed by the Rabbis in sections 2 and 3
(2) On a gut level, which approach makes more sense to you? Which feels more "right"?
(3) From a public policy perspective, which do you think is preferable?
(4) Why might a rule like Takanat HaShavim work when building a Jewish civil society but not in other circumstances?
(5) Does it seem appropriate to you that the Rabbis would create a decree that is in direct opposition to Torah law (as described by Ramam!)

Section 4: Even More Radical (if you have time)
(יג) כָּל הַגּוֹזֵל אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ שְׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה כְּאִלּוּ נוֹטֵל נִשְׁמָתוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי א יט) "כֵּן אָרְחוֹת כָּל בֹּצֵעַ בָּצַע אֶת נֶפֶשׁ" וְגוֹ'. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן אִם לֹא הָיְתָה הַגְּזֵלָה קַיֶּמֶת וְרָצָה הַגַּזְלָן לַעֲשׂוֹת תְּשׁוּבָה וּבָא מֵאֵלָיו וְהֶחְזִיר דְּמֵי הַגְּזֵלָה. תַּקָּנַת חֲכָמִים הִיא שֶׁאֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִמֶּנּוּ אֶלָּא עוֹזְרִין אוֹתוֹ וּמוֹחֲלִין לוֹ כְּדֵי לְקָרֵב הַדֶּרֶךְ הַיְשָׁרָה עַל הַשָּׁבִים. וְכָל הַמְקַבֵּל מִמֶּנּוּ דְּמֵי הַגְּזֵלָה אֵין רוּחַ חֲכָמִים נוֹחָה הֵימֶנּוּ:
Anyone who robs another of an item worth one peruta is considered as though he takes his soul from him, as it is stated: “So are the ways of every one that is greedy for profit; it takes away the life of the owner thereof” (Proverbs 1:19). Even so, (despite the severity we just described of even a small theft), if the object is no longer available and the thief wants to do teshuvah and comes of his own initiative to return the value of the theft, the sages instituted a regulation that we do not accept this from him. Rather, we should help him and forgive him, all in order to make the straight path accessible to penitents.’