יז והשתא דאמר רב נחמן בשאין גזילה קיימת אפילו תימא אידי ואידי לאחר תקנה ולא קשיא
17 stated, that the thief might have made repentance, so also here we suppose that the father had made repentance. But if the father made repentance, why was the misappropriated article still left with him? Should he not have restored it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [I.e. not to retain it with him, despite the refusal of the owners to accept it (v. Tosaf.).] ');"><sup>15</sup></span> — But it might be that he had no time to restore it before he [suddenly] died. Come and hear: Robbers and usurers even after they have collected the money must return it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.M. 62a. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> But what collection could there have been in the case of robbers. for surely if they misappropriated anything they committed robbery, and if they had not misappropriated anything they were not robbers at all? It must therefore read as follows: 'Robbers, that is to say usurers, even after they have already collected the money, must return it.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Does this not prove that the misappropriated money if restored would be accepted from them? ');"><sup>17</sup></span> — It may, however, be said that though they have to make restitution of the money it would not be accepted from them. If so why have they to make restitution? — [To make it quite evident that out of their own free will] they are prepared to fulfil their duty before Heaven.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it is only in such a case that the restored money will not be accepted. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> Come and hear: 'For shepherds, tax collectors and revenue farmers it is difficult to make repentance, yet they must make restitution [of the articles in question] to all those whom they know [they have robbed].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef B.M. VIII. Does this not prove that misappropriated articles if restored would be accepted? ');"><sup>19</sup></span> — It may, however, [also here] be said that though they have to make restitution, it would not be accepted from them. If so why have they to make restitution? — [To make it quite evident that out of their free will] they are prepared to fulfil their duty before Heaven. But if so why should it be difficult for them to make repentance?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since no actual restitution will have to be made. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> Again, why was it said in the concluding clause that out of articles of which they do not know the owners they should make public utilities,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Az. 29a. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> and R. Hisda said that these should be wells, ditches and caves?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus provide water to the general public among whom the aggrieved persons are to be found. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> — There is, however, no difficulty, as this teaching<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where actual restitution is implied. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> was enunciated before the days of the enactment,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was ordained in the days of Rabbi. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> whereas the other statements were made after the enactment. Moreover, as R. Nahman has now stated that the enactment referred only to a case where the misappropriated article was no more intact, it may even be said that both teachings were enunciated after the days of the enactment, and yet there is no difficulty,