דף קד
רבא answers the question from the previous עמוד who authored the משנה
Both רבי עקיבא and רבי טרפון agree in the case of the משנה that if the thief swore falsely he has to return the money directly to the victim wherever he is. Although the thief knows the identity of the victim and can hold the money for him until he returns, he cannot atone for the false oath by bringing a קרבן until he returns the theft. Therefore if he did not swear falsely he can hold the money for him until he returns. This explains according to both opinions the law of the משנה that requires the thief to travel only if he swears falsely.
In the case where the thief does not know the victim they argue
רבי עקיבא – The thief either has to pay or hold the money until he returns. Since he does not know who the victim is of the five he cannot hold it as a deposit. He has to pay each questionable victim even if he did not swear falsely.
רבי טרפון – He holds the thief can hold the money even if he swore falsely until the actual victim establishes his claim. If he wants to לצאת ידי שמים fulfill his requirement even according to the standard of heaven he must pay each claim.
One who appoints an agent to collect a debt in front of witnesses without instructing the debtor to pay him
רב חסדא – He is the creditor's legal agent. If anything happens to the money in his possession the debtor is not responsible since he appointed him in front of witnesses. He is different than a worker or friend that works with the creditor. Even though he may generally act as his agent, since he did not appoint him in front of witnesses, the creditor needs to notify the debtor to send the money with him.
רבה – He is not the legal agent. He appointed him in front of witnesses to indicate his credibility.
A thief returns the theft to a court appointed agent
Our משנה holds an agent appointed by witnesses suffices to be his legal representative. The משנה mentions only an agent of the court because even the robber is permitted to request him to return the stolen item. However an agent appointed by the thief in front of witnesses cannot represent the victim only one appointed by the victim. רבי שמעון בן אלעזר holds even an agent of the court must be appointed by the victim to represent him. רבי יוחנן ורבי אלעזר explain the disqualified agent in our משנה even appointed by witnesses is disqualified because the victim simply made him available to be the robbers agent not his.
The creditor did not appoint the agent in the presence of witnesses but sent him with a letter containing his signature or seal signed by witnesses
שמואל – The agent is the legal agent of the creditor. He would subscribe to a קנין אגב as the way for the agent to collect on behalf of the creditor. The creditor transfers the money to him wherever it is by way of a small portion of land. A קנין חליפין, an exchange of a kerchief for the movable item does not work for money.
– He holds the signature of witnesses on the letter with his signature or seal suffices to make him his legal representative. רבי יוחנן
