Reference for Bava Kamma 217:11
רבא אמר הא והא רבי עקיבא כי אמר רבי עקיבא דלא מצי מחיל לנפשיה אבל לאחרים מצי מחיל
how could there be a man in Israel who had no kinsmen?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf.Kid. 21a and Sanh. 68b; for if he has no issue the inheritance will revert to ancestors and their descendants; v. B.B. VIII, 2. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> Scripture must therefore be speaking of restitution to a proselyte.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who has no kinsman in law except the children born to him after he became a proselyte; cf. Sheb. X, 9 and Kid. 17b. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> Suppose a man robbed a proselyte and when charged denied it on oath and as he then heard that the proselyte had died he accordingly took the amount of money [due] and the trespass offering to Jerusalem, but there [as it happened] came across that proselyte who then converted the sum [due to him] into a loan, if the proselyte were subsequently to die the robber would acquire title to the amount in his possession; these are the words of R. Jose the Galilean. R. Akiba, however, said: There is no remedy for him [to obtain atonement] unless he should divest himself of the amount stolen.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. B.K. X. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> Thus according to R. Jose the Galilean, whether to himself or to others, the plaintiff may<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In all cases. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> remit the liability,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah on 103a will accordingly agree with R. Jose. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> whereas according to R. Akiba no matter whether to others or to himself, he cannot remit it. Again, according to R. Jose the Galilean, the same law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Stated by him in the case of the proselyte. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> would apply even where the proselyte did not convert the amount due into a loan, and the reason why it says, 'who then converted the sum [due to him] into a loan' is to let you know how far R. Akiba is prepared to go, since he maintains that even if the proselyte converted the sum due into a loan there is no remedy for the robber [to obtain atonement] unless he divests himself of the proceeds of the robbery. R. Shesheth demurred to this: If so [he said] why did not R. Jose the Galilean tell us his view in a case where the claimant [remits it] to himself, the rule then applying <i>a fortiori</i> to where he remits it to others? And again why did not R. Akiba tell his view that it is impossible to remit, to others, then arguing <i>a fortiori</i> that he cannot remit it to himself? R. Shesheth therefore said that the one ruling as well as the other is in accordance with R. Jose the Galilean, for the statement made by R. Jose the Galilean that it is possible to remit such a liability applies only where others get the benefit,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 636. n. 2. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> whereas where he himself would benefit it would not be possible to remit it. Raba, however, said: The one ruling as well as the other [here,] is in accordance with R. Akiba, for when R. Akiba says that it is impossible to remit the liability, he means to himself, whereas to others<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 636. n. 2. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> it is possible for him to remit it.