Reference for Bava Kamma 205:8

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הגוזל את חבירו שוה פרוטה ונשבע לו יוליכנו אחריו למדי לא יתן לא לבנו ולא לשלוחו אבל נותן לשליח בית דין ואם מת יחזיר ליורשיו

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. This is so [apparently] only where the robber had taken an oath against him, but if he had not yet taken an oath this would not be so. But would this be not in agreement either with R. Tarfon or with R. Akiba? For we have learnt: If a man robbed one out of five persons without knowing which one he robbed, and each one claims that he was robbed, he may set down the misappropriated article between them and depart. This is the view of R. Tarfon. R. Akiba, however, said that this is not the way to liberate him from sin; for this purpose he must restore the misappropriated article to each of them.<a rel="footnote" href="#103b_3">³</a> Now, in accordance with whose view is the ruling of our Mishnah? If in accordance with R. Tarfon, did he not say that even after he had sworn he may set down the misappropriated article among them and depart?<a rel="footnote" href="#103b_4">⁴</a> If again in accordance with R. Akiba, did he not say that even where no oath was taken he would have to restore the [value of the] misappropriated article to each of them? — It might still be in accordance with R. Akiba; for the statement of R. Akiba that he would have to pay for the misappropriated article to each of them was made only where an oath was taken, the reason being that Scripture stated: And give it unto him to whom it appertaineth in the day of his being guilty.<a rel="footnote" href="#103b_5">⁵</a> R. Tarfon, however, held that though an oath was taken, our Rabbis have still made an enactment to facilitate repentance, as indeed taught: R. Eleazar b. Zadok says: A general<a rel="footnote" href="#103b_6">⁶</a>

Explore reference for Bava Kamma 205:8. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.