אף בראשונה הלכה כמותו או אין הלכה כמותו אמר ליה חלוק היה רבי יוסי אף בראשונה והלכה כמותו אף בראשונה

even in the first mishna in this chapter, and Rabbi Yosei holds that even when a bailee pays for the deposit and chooses not to take an oath, the thief pays the double payment to the owner. Is the halakha in accordance with his opinion even in that case, or is the halakha not in accordance with his opinion? Rav Yehuda said to him: Rabbi Yosei was in disagreement even in the first mishna in this chapter, and the halakha is in accordance with his opinion even in the first mishna.

אתמר נמי אמר רבי אלעזר חלוק היה רבי יוסי אף בראשונה והלכה כמותו אף בראשונה ורבי יוחנן אמר מודה היה רבי יוסי בראשונה שכבר שילם

It was also stated that the amora’im in Eretz Yisrael disagreed about this matter. Rabbi Elazar says: Rabbi Yosei was in disagreement even in the first mishna and the halakha is in accordance with his opinion even in the first mishna. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Yosei conceded in the first mishna because the bailee already paid and acquired the animal.

שילם אין לא שילם לא והאמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן לא שילם שילם ממש אלא כיון שאמר הריני משלם אף על פי שלא שילם אימא מודה היה רבי יוסי בראשונה שכבר אמר הריני משלם

The Gemara questions the formulation of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement: If he paid, yes, the thief pays the double payment to him; if he did not pay, no? But doesn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba say that Rabbi Yoḥanan himself says: When the mishna says: If the bailee paid, it does not mean that he actually paid; rather, once the bailee said: I hereby choose to pay, even if he did not yet actually pay, he acquired the double payment? The Gemara answers: Emend the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan and say: Rabbi Yosei conceded in the first mishna because the bailee already said: I hereby choose to pay.

מתני׳ אמר לשנים גזלתי לאחד מכם מנה ואיני יודע איזה מכם או אביו של אחד מכם הפקיד לי מנה ואיני יודע איזה הוא נותן לזה מנה ולזה מנה שהודה מפי עצמו

MISHNA: If one said to two people: I robbed one of you of one hundred dinars, but I do not know from which of you I took the money, or if one said to two people: The father of one of you deposited one hundred dinars with me, but I do not know the father of which of you he is, then he gives one hundred dinars to this person and one hundred dinars to that person. This is because there is no way to determine which of them is entitled to the money, and he admitted his obligation at his own initiative.

שנים שהפקידו אצל אחד זה מנה וזה מאתים זה אומר שלי מאתים וזה אומר שלי מאתים נותן לזה מנה ולזה מנה והשאר יהא מונח עד שיבא אליהו

In the case of two people who deposited money with one person, and this one deposited one hundred dinars and that one deposited two hundred dinars, and when they come to collect their deposit, this one says: My deposit was two hundred dinars, and that one says: My deposit was two hundred dinars, the bailee gives one hundred dinars to this one and one hundred dinars to that one. And the rest of the money, i. e., the contested one hundred dinars, will be placed in a safe place until Elijah comes and prophetically determines the truth.

אמר רבי יוסי אם כן מה הפסיד הרמאי אלא הכל יהא מונח עד שיבא אליהו

Rabbi Yosei said: If so, what did the swindler lose? He lost nothing by claiming the one hundred dinars that belongs to another, and he has no incentive to admit the truth. Rather, the entire deposit will be placed in a safe place until Elijah comes. As his fraud will cause him to lose even the one hundred dinars that he deposited, perhaps he will be discouraged from making a fraudulent claim.

וכן שני כלים אחד יפה מנה ואחד יפה אלף זוז זה אומר יפה שלי וזה אומר יפה שלי נותן את הקטן לאחד מהן ומתוך הגדול נותן דמי קטן לשני והשאר יהא מונח עד שיבא אליהו אמר רבי יוסי אם כן מה הפסיד הרמאי אלא הכל יהא מונח עד שיבא אליהו

And likewise, if two people deposited two vessels, one worth one hundred dinars and one worth one thousand dinars, and this one says: The expensive vessel is mine, and that one says: The expensive vessel is mine, the bailee gives the small vessel to one of them, and from the proceeds of the sale of the large vessel he gives the value of the small vessel to the other, and the rest of the money is placed in a safe place until Elijah comes. Rabbi Yosei said: If so, what did the swindler lose? Rather, the entire deposit, i. e., both vessels, are placed in a safe place until Elijah comes or one of them admits his deceit.

גמ׳ אלמא מספיקא מפקינן ממונא ולא אמרינן אוקי ממונא בחזקת מריה

GEMARA: From the fact that the mishna teaches that if the bailee does not know whom he robbed, he gives one hundred dinars to this one and one hundred dinars to that one, apparently, in cases of uncertainty, we expropriate property and return it to those claiming it. And we do not say: Establish the money in the possession of its owner. In this case, the bailee is currently the owner of the money, but the money is not left in his possession.

ורמינהי שנים שהפקידו אצל אחד זה מנה וזה מאתים זה אומר שלי מאתים וזה אומר שלי מאתים נותן לזה מנה ולזה מנה והשאר יהא מונח עד שיבא אליהו

And raise a contradiction from the continuation of the mishna: In the case of two people who deposited money with one person, and this one deposited one hundred dinars and that one deposited two hundred dinars, and when they come to collect their deposit, this one says: My deposit was two hundred dinars, and that one says: My deposit was two hundred dinars, the bailee gives one hundred dinars to this one and one hundred dinars to that one. And the rest of the money will be placed in a safe place until Elijah comes and prophetically determines the truth.

אמר ליה פקדון אגזל קא רמית גזל דעבד איסורא קנסוהו רבנן פקדון דלא עבד איסורא לא קנסוהו רבנן

The Sages said to the one who raised the contradiction: Are you raising a contradiction between the halakha stated in the case of a deposit and the halakha stated in the case of a robbery? In the case of robbery, where one transgressed a prohibition, the Sages penalized him and ruled that he must pay both possible robbery victims. In the case of a deposit, where he did not transgress a prohibition, the Sages did not penalize him.

ורמי פקדון אפקדון ורמי גזל אגזל פקדון אפקדון דקתני רישא או אביו של אחד מכם הפקיד אצלי מנה ואיני יודע איזה הוא נותן לזה מנה ולזה מנה ורמינהי שנים שהפקידו וכו׳

And they raised a contradiction between the halakha stated in the case of a deposit and the halakha stated in the case of a deposit, and they raised a contradiction between the halakha stated in the case of a robbery and the halakha stated in the case of a robbery. There is a contradiction between the halakha stated in the case of a deposit and the halakha stated in the case of a deposit, as is it taught in the first clause of the mishna: Or, if one said to two people: The father of one of you deposited one hundred dinars with me, but I do not know the father of which of you he is, he gives one hundred dinars to this person and one hundred dinars to that person. The Gemara raises a contradiction from the continuation of the mishna cited above: In the case of two people who deposited money with one person, the contested sum is placed in a safe place until Elijah comes.

אמר רבא רישא נעשה כמי שהפקידו לו בשני כריכות דהוה ליה למידק סיפא נעשה כמי שהפקידו לו בכרך אחד דלא הוה ליה למידק כגון דאפקידו תרוייהו בהדי הדדי בחד זימנא דאמר להו אנת גופייכו לא קפדיתו אהדדי אנא קפידנא

Rava said: In the first clause of the mishna, in the case where the bailee receives money from the father of one person, he becomes like one with whom they deposited sums of money in two separate bundles, as the bailee should have been discerning with regard to who gave him the money. His failure to do so constitutes negligence, and therefore he pays the sum to both claimants. In the latter clause of the mishna, in the case where he receives money from two people, he becomes like one with whom they deposited sums of money in one bundle, as there is no expectation that he should have been discerning. It is a case where they both deposited their money together at one time, as the bailee says to them: If you yourselves were not suspicious of each other, should I be suspicious? Therefore, he is required to pay them only the sum that they can prove is theirs.

ורמי גזל אגזל קתני הכא אמר לשנים גזלתי לאחד מכם מנה ואיני יודע איזה מכם או אביו של אחד מכם הפקיד לי מנה ואיני יודע איזה הוא נותן לזה מנה ולזה מנה

And they raised a contradiction between the halakha stated in the case of a robbery and the halakha stated in the case of a robbery. It is taught here: If one said to two people: I robbed one of you of one hundred dinars, but I do not know from which of you I took the money, or if one said to two people: The father of one of you deposited one hundred dinars with me, but I do not know the father of which of you he is, then he gives one hundred dinars to this person and one hundred dinars to that person.

ורמינהי גזל אחד מחמשה ואינו יודע איזה מהן גזל זה אומר אותי גזל וזה אומר אותי גזל מניח גזילה ביניהם ומסתלק דברי רבי טרפון אלמא מספקא לא מפקינן ממונא ואמרינן אוקים ממונא בחזקת מריה

The Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna ( Yevamot 118b): If one robbed one of five people and he does not know which of them he robbed, and this one says: He robbed me, and that one says: He robbed me, the robber places the stolen item between them and withdraws from them; this is the statement of Rabbi Tarfon. Apparently, contrary to the mishna, we do not expropriate property due to an uncertainty and return it to those claiming it, and instead we say: Establish the money in the possession of its owner.

וממאי דמתניתין דהכא רבי טרפון היא דקתני עלה דההיא מודה רבי טרפון באומר לשנים גזלתי לאחד מכם מנה ואיני יודע איזה מכם שנותן לזה מנה ולזה מנה

The Gemara asks: And from where is it known that the mishna here is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon? Perhaps the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who holds the robber must pay each of the five possible victims, and there is no contradiction at all. The Gemara answers: It is known that the mishna here is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, as it is taught in a baraita concerning the halakha taught in that mishna, in tractate Yevamot : Rabbi Tarfon concedes that in a case where a robber says to two people: I robbed one of you of one hundred dinars, but I do not know which of you it was, he gives one hundred dinars to this person and one hundred dinars to that person, as he has already admitted his obligation on his own. There is an apparent contradiction between the two statements of Rabbi Tarfon.

התם דקא תבעי ליה הכא בבא לצאת ידי שמים דיקא נמי דקתני שהודה מפי עצמו שמע מינה

The Gemara answers: There, in the mishna where one robbed one of five people of money, it is referring to a case where the claimants demand payment from him. He is required to pay them only one hundred dinars, as the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. By contrast, here, i. e., in this mishna and the statement of Rabbi Tarfon in the baraita, it is referring to a case where the robber comes to fulfill his obligation to Heaven. Only by returning the money to the person he robbed can he atone for his transgression. Therefore, he goes beyond the halakhic requirement and pays both claimants. The Gemara notes: The language of this mishna is also precise, as the tanna teaches: Because he admitted his obligation at his own initiative. The Gemara affirms: Learn from the wording of the mishna that this is the explanation of the mishna.

אמר מר התם דקא תבעי ליה והלה מה טוען רב יהודה אמר רב הלה שותק רב מתנה אמר רב הלה

With regard to returning stolen money, the Master said: There, it is referring to a case where the claimants demand payment from him. The Gemara asks: And the other person, the thief, what does he claim in response? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The other person is silent, as he does not know to whom he owes the money. Rav Mattana says that Rav says: The other person