Study Bava Kamma folio 104A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
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 robb
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 r
§ 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 colle
The Talmud 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
The Talmud cites a Mishnah that poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda. We learned in a Mishnah (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 hi