Bava Kamma 104A

שכבר הודה מפי עצמו!

as he has already admitted his obligation on his own. R' Tarfon concedes that a robber who wishes to repent must go to any length to return the stolen item to its owner. If the Mishnah 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.

אלא אמר רבא: שאני מתניתין, דכיון דידע למאן גזליה, ואודי ליה; כיון דאפשר לאהדורי ממונא למריה ⁠– הוה ליה כמאן דאמר ליה: ״יהיו לי בידך״. הלכך, נשבע ⁠– אף על גב דקאמר ליה: ״יהיו לי בידך״, כיון דבעי כפרה, לא סגי עד דמטי לידיה; הא לא אישתבע ⁠– הוי גביה פקדון, עד דאתי ושקיל ליה.

Rather, Rava said: The case of the Mishnah is different, and the halakha stated here could be in accordance with the opinions of both R' Tarfon and R' 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.

לא יתן לא לבנו ולא לשלוחו. איתמר: שליח שעשאו בעדים ⁠– רב חסדא אמר: הוי שליח, רבה אמר: לא הוי שליח.

§ The Mishnah 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 Talmud 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.