Quoting%20commentary for Bava Kamma 207:15

א"ר יהודה אמר שמואל

— R. Hisda however interpreted it as referring to a hireling or a lodger.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not a duly accredited agent by law; cf. Shebu. 46b. ');">¹⁰</span> But what would be the law where the agent was appointed in the presence of witnesses? Would he indeed have to be considered a [properly accredited] agent?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even to the extent of having handed over to him by the robber the misappropriated article. ');">¹³</span> Why then state in the concluding clause, HE MAY GIVE IT TO THE SHERIFF OF THE COURT OF LAW, and not make the distinction in the same case by saying that these statements refer only to an agent who was not appointed in the presence of witnesses, whereas if the agent was appointed in the presence of witnesses he would indeed be considered a [properly accredited] agent?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. previous note. ');">¹⁴</span> — It may, however, be said that on this point [the Tanna] could not state it absolutely. Regarding the sheriff of the Court, no matter whether the plaintiff authorised him or whether the robber authorised him, he could state it absolutely that he is considered a [properly accredited] agent, whereas regarding an agent appointed in the presence of witnesses who if he were appointed by the plaintiff would be considered an agent, but if appointed by the robber would certainly not be a valid agent, he could not State it so absolutely.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it was not decided with him.' ');">¹⁵</span> This would indeed be contrary to the view of the following Tanna, as taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: If the sheriff of the Court of Law was authorised by the plaintiff [to receive payment] though not appointed by the robber [to act on his behalf], or if he was appointed by the robber [to act on his behalf] and the plaintiff sent and received the payment out of his hands, there would be no liability in the case of accident.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Tosef. X, 5. Proving that where it was the robber who appointed the sheriff, so long as the payment did not reach the plaintiff, the robber is not yet released from responsibility, as against the interpretation of the Mishnah releasing the robber in such a case. ');">¹⁶</span> R. Johanan and R. Eleazar both said that an agent appointed in the presence of witnesses would be a [properly accredited] agent;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. previous note. ');">¹⁴</span> for if you raise an objection from the ruling in our Mishnah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 603. n. 7. ');">¹⁷</span> [it might be answered] that the agent there was [not appointed but] placed at his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the robber's. ');">¹⁸</span> disposal, as where he said to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to the agent. ');">¹⁹</span> 'There is some money owing to me from a certain person who does not forward it to me. It may therefore be advisable for you to be seen by him, since perhaps he has found no one with whom to forward it,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such a request is by no means sufficient to render him an agent. ');">²⁰</span> or as explained by R. Hisda, that he was a hireling or a lodger of his.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra ibid. ');">²¹</span> Rab Judah said that Samuel stated that

Explore quoting%20commentary for Bava Kamma 207:15. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.