as he has already admitted his obligation on his own. Rabbi Tarfon concedes that a robber who wishes to repent must go to any length to return the stolen item to its owner. If the mishna here is in accordance with his opinion, it should not have stated its ruling specifically in a case where the robber took a false oath.

Rather, Rava said: The case of the mishna is different, and the halakha stated here could be in accordance with the opinions of both Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva. For as the robber knows whom he robbed and admitted to him that he robbed him, since it is possible to return the money to its owner, the robbery victim is as the one who says to the robber: The money you owe me will be kept in your possession as a deposit for me. Therefore, in a case where the robber took a false oath, even though the owner is considered to have said to him: The money you owe me will be kept in your possession as a deposit for me, since the robber requires atonement for his false oath, it is not possible for him to achieve atonement until the money reaches the possession of the robbery victim. But in a case where the robber did not take a false oath, the money is considered as a deposit given to the robber until the owner comes and takes it.

§ The mishna teaches that if the robber wishes to return the stolen item, he may not give the payment to the robbery victim’s son to return it to the robbery victim, nor to his agent. The Gemara comments: It was stated with regard to an agent who was appointed in the presence of witnesses to collect a debt from another: Rav Ḥisda said: Such an agent is a legally recognized agent, so that the debtor is considered to have repaid his debt as soon as he transfers the money to the agent, and the debtor will not be held responsible if an accident occurs causing the loss of the money before the agent gives it to the creditor. Rabba said: Such an agent is not a legally recognized agent, and the debtor remains responsible until the money reaches the creditor’s possession.

The Gemara explains their respective opinions: Rav Ḥisda said that he is an agent because it was for this reason that the creditor took the trouble and appointed the agent in the presence of witnesses, in order to place the matter under the agent’s domain. Rabba said that he is not an agent because this is what the creditor is assumed to be saying to the debtor: This individual is a trustworthy person. If you are willing to rely on him, then rely on him to convey the payment to me. Similarly: If you wish to send the debt in his possession, then send it in his possession.

The Gemara cites a mishna that poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda. We learned in a mishna (Bava Metzia 98b): With regard to one who enters into an agreement to borrow a cow from another, and the owner sent it to the borrower in the possession of his own son, or in the possession of his own slave, or in the possession of his own agent, or if he sent it in the possession of the borrower’s son, or in the possession of the borrower’s slave, or in the possession of the borrower’s agent, and the cow died, the borrower is exempt from paying for the cow, as it never entered his possession.

The Gemara explains the case of the mishna: With regard to this agent of the borrower, what are the circumstances surrounding his appointment? If the mishna is discussing a case where he did not appoint him as his agent in the presence of witnesses, how do we know that he was appointed as an agent? Rather, it must be that it is a case where he appointed him as his agent in the presence of witnesses, and yet the mishna teaches that the borrower is exempt. This poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, who holds that one acquires property through his agent. According to his reasoning, the borrower should be held responsible for the cow once it reaches the possession of the agent.

The Gemara answers: It is as that which Rav Ḥisda said concerning a different mishna: This is stated with regard to his hired hand or his regular harvester; here also the mishna in Bava Metzia is with regard to his hired hand or his regular harvester. The mishna discusses a case where there were no witnesses to the appointment of the agent, and therefore it does not pose a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda. Yet, since it is well known that this person is constantly in the owner’s service, he is assumed to be acting as his agent.

The Gemara poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda from the mishna here. We learned in the mishna: If the robber wishes to return the stolen item, he may not give the payment to the robbery victim’s son to return it to the robbery victim, nor to his agent. With regard to this agent of the robbery victim, what are the circumstances surrounding his appointment? If the mishna is discussing a case where the robbery victim did not appoint him as his agent in the presence of witnesses, how do we know that he was appointed as an agent? Rather, is it not discussing a case where the robbery victim appointed him as his agent in the presence of witnesses, and the robber nevertheless does not fulfill his obligation to return the stolen item by giving it to this agent? The Gemara answers: Rav Ḥisda interpreted the ruling of the mishna with regard to his hired hand or his regular harvester, who do not require witnesses to validate their appointment as his agent.

The Gemara asks: But with regard to an agent who the robbery victim appointed in the presence of witnesses, what is the halakha? Would one say that indeed, one appointed before witnesses is a legally recognized agent? If that is the case, instead of teaching in the latter clause: But he may give the payment to an agent of the court, which indicates that this is the only agent to whom he may give it, let the mishna make a distinction within the case of an agent appointed by the robbery victim itself and teach: An agent who the robbery victim appointed in the presence of witnesses is indeed a legally recognized agent. If an agent appointed in the presence of witnesses is a legally recognized agent, why does the mishna shift to discuss an agent of the court?

The Sages say in response: Although the tanna of the mishna could have stated the case of an agent appointed by the robbery victim in the presence of witnesses, he could not have stated this halakha definitively, as with regard to an agent of the court, there is no difference whether the robbery victim appointed him as an agent, i.e., the court appointed him at the behest of the robbery victim, and there is no difference whether the robber appointed him as an agent, i.e., the court appointed him at the behest of the robber. In both cases he is a legally recognized agent. Therefore, he could state the halakha concerning an agent of the court definitively. By contrast, with regard to an agent who was appointed in the presence of witnesses, that only when the robbery victim appointed him as an agent he is an agent, but when the robber appointed him as an agent, he is not an agent, as the robber cannot appoint an agent to receive payment on behalf of the robbery victim, he could not have stated this halakha definitively.

The Gemara comments: And this mishna, which rules that an agent of the court is an agent even if appointed only by the robber, serves to exclude the opinion of this following tanna, as it is taught in the Tosefta (10:11) that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If there was an agent of the court who was appointed by the robbery victim but not appointed by the robber, or an agent who was appointed by the robber, and subsequently the other, i.e., the robbery victim, sent for and took his payment from the agent’s possession, the robber is exempt from paying for any accidental damage to the payment during the delivery. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar states that the robber is exempt from paying for any accidental damage when he gave the payment to a court agent he appointed only if the robbery victim sent for and took possession of the payment. This is in opposition to the ruling of the mishna that the robber is exempt whenever he gives the payment to an agent of the court.

The Gemara cites the opinion of two other amora’im with regard to the status of an agent appointed in the presence of witnesses. Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar both say: An agent who was appointed in the presence of witnesses is a legally recognized agent. And if you say: Our mishna contradicts this assertion, as it rules that the stolen item is not considered returned if given to an agent of the robbery victim, this is of no concern.

The Gemara explains: The mishna does not mean to disqualify an agent appointed by the robbery victim in the presence of witnesses, but rather is referring to a case where the robbery victim provides the robber with an agent without appointing him in the presence of witnesses, in that he says to someone: I have money owed to me that is currently with so-and-so, and he is not sending it. Present yourself to him, as perhaps he wishes to return it but cannot find a person with whom to send it.

The Gemara offers a second explanation: Alternatively, it is in accordance with the statement of Rav Ḥisda, that the mishna is not discussing a case where he appointed the agent in the presence of witnesses, but it is still known that the agent acts on behalf of the robbery victim, as the ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to the victim’s hired hand or his regular harvester. That is why the robber is still liable after having given the payment to the agent.

§ The Gemara discusses another matter relating to the appointment of an agent. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: