Bava Kamma

since he made a voluntary admission'?  — Raba therefore said: The case of our Mishnah is different altogether, for since he knows whom he robbed and in fact has admitted it, so that it is possible to restore the misappropriated value to the owner, it is considered as if the plaintiff had said to him: Let it [for time being] be in your possession. It is therefore only in the case where an oath was taken that though [it is considered as if] he said to him: Let it [for time being] be in your possession, yet since the robber is in need of atonement,  this is not sufficient until it actually comes into the plaintiff's hands, whereas where no oath was taken, the misappropriated article is considered as a deposit with him until the owner comes and takes it. HE MAY GIVE IT NEITHER TO HIS SON NOR TO HIS AGENT. It was taught: Where an agent was appointed in the presence of witnesses [to receive some payment of money] R. Hisda said that he would be a [properly accredited] agent,  but Rabbah said that he is still not an agent [to release the payer of responsibility]. R. Hisda said that he would be a [properly accredited] agent, for it was for this purpose that he took the trouble to appoint him in the presence of witnesses, so that he should stand in his place.  But Rabbah said that he is still not an agent [to release the payer of responsibility], for he meant merely to state that this man is honest and if you are prepared to rely upon him you may rely, and if you are prepared to send the payment through him you may send it through him. We have learnt: If one [agreed to] borrow a cow and the lender sent it by the hand of his son or by the hand of his slave or by the hand of his agent, or even by the hand of the son or by the hand of the slave or by the hand of the agent of the borrower, and it so happened that it died on the way, he would be exempt.  Now, how are we to picture this agent?  If he was not appointed  in the presence of witnesses, whence could we know that he was an agent at all? Must it therefore not be that he appointed him in the presence of witnesses and it is nevertheless stated that the [would-be] borrower is exempt, in contradiction to the view of R. Hisda? — It is as R. Hisda [elsewhere]  said, that he was a hireling or a lodger of his;  so also here he was a hireling or a lodger of his. We have learnt: HE MAY GIVE IT NEITHER TO HIS SON NOR TO HIS AGENT.  How are we to picture this agent? If he did not appoint him in the presence of witnesses, whence could we know that he was appointed an agent at all? Does it therefore not mean that he appointed him in the presence of witnesses?  — R. Hisda however interpreted it as referring to a hireling or a lodger.  But what would be the law where the agent was appointed in the presence of witnesses? Would he indeed have to be considered a [properly accredited] agent?  Why then state in the concluding clause, HE MAY GIVE IT TO THE SHERIFF OF THE COURT OF LAW, and not make the distinction in the same case by saying that these statements refer only to an agent who was not appointed in the presence of witnesses, whereas if the agent was appointed in the presence of witnesses he would indeed be considered a [properly accredited] agent?  — It may, however, be said that on this point [the Tanna] could not state it absolutely. Regarding the sheriff of the Court, no matter whether the plaintiff authorised him or whether the robber authorised him, he could state it absolutely that he is considered a [properly accredited] agent, whereas regarding an agent appointed in the presence of witnesses who if he were appointed by the plaintiff would be considered an agent, but if appointed by the robber would certainly not be a valid agent, he could not State it so absolutely.  This would indeed be contrary to the view of the following Tanna, as taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: If the sheriff of the Court of Law was authorised by the plaintiff [to receive payment] though not appointed by the robber [to act on his behalf], or if he was appointed by the robber [to act on his behalf] and the plaintiff sent and received the payment out of his hands, there would be no liability in the case of accident. R. Johanan and R. Eleazar both said that an agent appointed in the presence of witnesses would be a [properly accredited] agent;  for if you raise an objection from the ruling in our Mishnah,  [it might be answered] that the agent there was [not appointed but] placed at his  disposal, as where he said to him,  'There is some money owing to me from a certain person who does not forward it to me. It may therefore be advisable for you to be seen by him, since perhaps he has found no one with whom to forward it,'  or as explained by R. Hisda, that he was a hireling or a lodger of his. Rab Judah said that Samuel stated that