## Bava Kamma Daf 104a

###### Bava Kamma 104a:1
[Bava Kamma 104a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/104a:1)

שֶׁכְּבָר הוֹדָה מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**as he has already admitted** his obligation **on his own.** Rabbi Tarfon concedes that a robber who wishes to repent must go to any length to return the stolen item to its owner. If the mishna 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.


###### Bava Kamma 104a:2
[Bava Kamma 104a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/104a:2)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: שָׁאנֵי מַתְנִיתִין, דְּכֵיוָן דְּיָדַע לְמַאן גַּזְלֵיהּ, וְאוֹדִי לֵיהּ; כֵּיוָן דְּאֶפְשָׁר לְאַהְדּוֹרֵי מָמוֹנָא לְמָרֵיהּ – הָוֵה לֵיהּ כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: ״יִהְיוּ לִי בְּיָדְךָ״. הִלְכָּךְ, נִשְׁבַּע – אַף עַל גַּב דְּקָאָמַר לֵיהּ: ״יִהְיוּ לִי בְּיָדְךָ״, כֵּיוָן דְּבָעֵי כַּפָּרָה, לָא סַגִּי עַד דְּמָטֵי לִידֵיהּ; הָא לָא אִישְׁתְּבַע – הָוֵי גַּבֵּיהּ פִּקָּדוֹן, עַד דְּאָתֵי וְשָׁקֵיל לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said:** The case of **the mishna is different,** and the *halakha* stated here could be in accordance with the opinions of both Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi 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.**


###### Bava Kamma 104a:3
[Bava Kamma 104a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/104a:3)

לֹא יִתֵּן לֹא לִבְנוֹ וְלֹא לִשְׁלוּחוֹ. אִיתְּמַר: שָׁלִיחַ שֶׁעֲשָׂאוֹ בְּעֵדִים – רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: הָוֵי שָׁלִיחַ, רַבָּה אָמַר: לָא הָוֵי שָׁלִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna 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 Gemara 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.


###### Bava Kamma 104a:4
[Bava Kamma 104a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/104a:4)

רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר הָוֵי שָׁלִיחַ – לְהָכִי טְרַחִי וְאוֹקְמֵיהּ בְּעֵדִים, דְּלֵיקוּ בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ. רַבָּה אָמַר לָא הָוֵי שָׁלִיחַ – הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִינִישׁ מְהֵימְנָא הוּא; אִי סָמְכַתְּ – סְמוֹךְ, אִי בָּעֵית לְשַׁדּוֹרֵיה בִּידֵיהּ – שַׁדַּר בִּידֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara 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 **this is** what the creditor **is** assumed to be **saying** to the debtor: This individual **is a trustworthy person. If you** are willing to **rely** on him, then **rely** on him to convey the payment to me. Similarly: **If you wish to send** the debt **in his possession,** then **send** it **in his possession.**


###### Bava Kamma 104a:5
[Bava Kamma 104a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/104a:5)

תְּנַן: הַשּׁוֹאֵל אֶת הַפָּרָה, וְשִׁילְּחָהּ בְּיַד בְּנוֹ, בְּיַד עַבְדּוֹ, בְּיַד שְׁלוּחוֹ; אוֹ בְּיַד בְּנוֹ, בְּיַד עַבְדּוֹ, בְּיַד שְׁלוּחוֹ שֶׁל שׁוֹאֵל; וּמֵתָה – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites a mishna that poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda. **We learned** in a mishna (*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 his** own **slave,** or **in the possession of his** own **agent, or** if he sent it **in the possession of the borrower’s son,** or **in the possession of** the borrower’s **slave,** or **in the possession of** the borrower’s **agent, and** the cow **died,** the borrower is **exempt** from paying for the cow, as it never entered his possession.


###### Bava Kamma 104a:6
[Bava Kamma 104a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/104a:6)

הַאי שְׁלוּחוֹ הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּלֹא (עָשָׂה) [עֲשָׂאוֹ] בְּעֵדִים, מְנָא יָדְעִינַן? אֶלָּא (דְּעָשָׂה) [דַּעֲשָׂאוֹ] בְּעֵדִים – וְקָתָנֵי דְּפָטוּר? קַשְׁיָא לְרַב חִסְדָּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the case of the mishna: With regard to **this agent of** the borrower, **what are the circumstances** surrounding his appointment? **If** the mishna is discussing a case **where he did not appoint** him as his agent **in** the presence of **witnesses, how do we know** that he was appointed as an agent? **Rather,** it must be that it is a case **where he appointed** him as his agent **in** the presence of **witnesses, and** yet the mishna **teaches that** the borrower is **exempt.** This poses **a difficulty to** the opinion of **Rav Ḥisda,** who holds that one acquires property through his agent. According to his reasoning, the borrower should be held responsible for the cow once it reaches the possession of the agent.


###### Bava Kamma 104a:7
[Bava Kamma 104a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/104a:7)

כִּדְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בִּשְׂכִירוֹ וּלְקִיטוֹ, הָכָא נָמֵי בִּשְׂכִירוֹ וּלְקִיטוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is **as that** which **Rav Ḥisda said** concerning a different mishna: This is stated **with regard to his hired** hand **or his** regular **harvester; here also** the mishna in *Bava Metzia* is **with regard to his hired** hand **or his** regular **harvester.** The mishna discusses a case where there were no witnesses to the appointment of the agent, and therefore it does not pose a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda. Yet, since it is well known that this person is constantly in the owner’s service, he is assumed to be acting as his agent.


###### Bava Kamma 104a:8
[Bava Kamma 104a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/104a:8)

תְּנַן: לֹא יִתֵּן לֹא לִבְנוֹ וְלֹא לִשְׁלוּחוֹ. הַאי שְׁלוּחוֹ הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּלָא עֲשָׂאוֹ בְּעֵדִים, מְנָא יָדְעִינַן? אֶלָּא לָאו דַּעֲשָׂאוֹ בְּעֵדִים? תַּרְגְּמַהּ רַב חִסְדָּא: בִּשְׂכִירוֹ וּלְקִיטוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda from the mishna here. **We learned** in the mishna: 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.** With regard to **this agent of** the robbery victim, **what are the circumstances** surrounding his appointment? **If** the mishna is discussing a case **where** the robbery victim **did not appoint him** as his agent **in** the presence of **witnesses, how do we know** that he was appointed as an agent? **Rather, is it not** discussing a case **where** the robbery victim **appointed him** as his agent **in** the presence of **witnesses,** and the robber nevertheless does not fulfill his obligation to return the stolen item by giving it to this agent? The Gemara answers: **Rav Ḥisda interpreted** the ruling of the mishna **with regard to his hired** hand **or his** regular **harvester,** who do not require witnesses to validate their appointment as his agent.


###### Bava Kamma 104a:9
[Bava Kamma 104a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/104a:9)

אֲבָל שָׁלִיחַ שֶׁעֲשָׂאוֹ בְּעֵדִים – מַאי, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּהָוֵי שָׁלִיחַ? אַדְּתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אֲבָל נוֹתֵן הוּא לִשְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין; לִפְלוֹג וְלִיתְנֵי בְּדִידֵיהּ – שָׁלִיחַ שֶׁעֲשָׂאוֹ בְּעֵדִים, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּהָוֵי שָׁלִיחַ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** with regard to **an agent who** the robbery victim **appointed in** the presence of **witnesses, what** is the *halakha*? Would one say that **indeed,** one appointed before witnesses **is** a legally recognized **agent?** If that is the case, **instead of teaching** in **the latter clause: But he may give** the payment **to an agent of the court,** which indicates that this is the only agent to whom he may give it, **let** the mishna **make a distinction within** the case of an agent appointed by the robbery victim **itself and teach: An agent who** the robbery victim **appointed in** the presence of **witnesses is indeed** a legally recognized **agent.** If an agent appointed in the presence of witnesses is a legally recognized agent, why does the mishna shift to discuss an agent of the court?


###### Bava Kamma 104a:10
[Bava Kamma 104a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/104a:10)

אָמְרִי: לָא פְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ; שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין, לָא שְׁנָא עֲשָׂאוֹ נִגְזָל וְלָא שְׁנָא עֲשָׂאוֹ גַּזְלָן, הָוֵי שָׁלִיחַ – פְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ. שְׁלִיחַ שֶׁעֲשָׂאוֹ בְּעֵדִים, דְּכִי עֲשָׂאוֹ נִגְזָל הוּא דְּהָוֵי שָׁלִיחַ, עֲשָׂאוֹ גַּזְלָן לָא הָוֵי שָׁלִיחַ – לָא פְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **say** in response: Although the *tanna* of the mishna could have stated the case of an agent appointed by the robbery victim in the presence of witnesses, **he** could **not** have stated this *halakha* **definitively,** as with regard to **an agent of the court,** there **is no difference** whether the **robbery victim appointed him** as an agent, i.e., the court appointed him at the behest of the robbery victim, **and** there **is no difference** whether the **robber appointed him** as an agent, i.e., the court appointed him at the behest of the robber. In both cases **he is** a legally recognized **agent.** Therefore, **he** could state the *halakha* concerning an agent of the court **definitively.** By contrast, with regard to **an agent who was appointed in** the presence of **witnesses, that** only **when** the **robbery victim appointed him** as an agent **he is an agent,** but when the **robber appointed him** as an agent, **he is not an agent,** as the robber cannot appoint an agent to receive payment on behalf of the robbery victim, **he** could **not** have stated this *halakha* **definitively.**


###### Bava Kamma 104a:11
[Bava Kamma 104a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/104a:11)

וּלְאַפּוֹקֵי מֵהַאי תַּנָּא – דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁעֲשָׂאוֹ נִגְזָל וְלֹא עֲשָׂאוֹ גַּזְלָן, אוֹ עֲשָׂאוֹ גַּזְלָן וְשָׁלַח הַלָּה וְנָטַל אֶת שֶׁלּוֹ מִיָּדוֹ – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And** this mishna, which rules that an agent of the court is an agent even if appointed only by the robber, serves **to exclude** the opinion of **this** following ***tanna*, as it is taught** in the *Tosefta* (10:11) that **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:** If there was **an agent of the court who was appointed by** the **robbery victim but not appointed by** the **robber, or** an agent who **was appointed by** the **robber, and** subsequently **the other,** i.e., the robbery victim, **sent** for **and took his** payment **from** the agent’s **possession,** the robber is **exempt** from paying for any accidental damage to the payment during the delivery. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar states that the robber is exempt from paying for any accidental damage when he gave the payment to a court agent he appointed only if the robbery victim sent for and took possession of the payment. This is in opposition to the ruling of the mishna that the robber is exempt whenever he gives the payment to an agent of the court.


###### Bava Kamma 104a:12
[Bava Kamma 104a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/104a:12)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דְאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: שָׁלִיחַ שֶׁעֲשָׂאוֹ בְּעֵדִים, הָוֵי שָׁלִיחַ. וְאִם תֹּאמַר מִשְׁנָתֵנוּ;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites the opinion of two other *amora’im* with regard to the status of an agent appointed in the presence of witnesses. **Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar both say: An agent who was appointed in** the presence of **witnesses is** a legally recognized **agent. And if you say: Our mishna** contradicts this assertion, as it rules that the stolen item is not considered returned if given to an agent of the robbery victim, this is of no concern.


###### Bava Kamma 104a:13
[Bava Kamma 104a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/104a:13)

בְּמַמְצִיא לוֹ שָׁלִיחַ, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״אִית לִי זוּזֵי גַּבֵּי פְלָנְיָא, וְלָא קָא מְשַׁדַּר לְהוּ. אִיתְחֲזִי לֵיהּ, דִּלְמָא אִינִישׁ הוּא דְּלָא מַשְׁכַּח לְשַׁדּוֹרֵי לֵיהּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: The mishna does not mean to disqualify an agent appointed by the robbery victim in the presence of witnesses, but rather is referring to a case **where** the robbery victim **provides** the robber **with an agent** without appointing him in the presence of witnesses, in **that he says to** someone: **I have money** owed to me that is currently **with so-and-so, and he is not sending it. Present yourself to him,** as **perhaps** he wishes to return it but **cannot find a person with whom to send it.**


###### Bava Kamma 104a:14
[Bava Kamma 104a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/104a:14)

אִי נָמֵי, כִּדְרַב חִסְדָּא – בִּשְׂכִירוֹ וּלְקִיטוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara offers a second explanation: **Alternatively,** it is **in accordance with** the statement **of Rav Ḥisda,** that the mishna is not discussing a case where he appointed the agent in the presence of witnesses, but it is still known that the agent acts on behalf of the robbery victim, as the ruling of the mishna is stated **with regard to the victim’s hired** hand **or his** regular **harvester.** That is why the robber is still liable after having given the payment to the agent.


###### Bava Kamma 104a:15
[Bava Kamma 104a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/104a:15)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara discusses another matter relating to the appointment of an agent. **Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says:**