Bava Metzia

in the first [Mishnah]  too: now, is the halachah as his view [there too] or not? — He replied: R. Jose did indeed dispute in the first too, and the halachah agrees with him in the first too. It has been stated likewise: R. Eleazar said: R. Jose differed in the first too, and the halachah agrees with him there also. But R. Johanan maintained: R. Jose agreed in the first [Mishnah], seeing that he [the bailee] had already paid for it.  [What!] only if he actually paid, but not otherwise? Yet did not R. Hiyya b. Abba say in R. Johanan's name: 'HE PAID' is not literally meant, but once he says, 'I will pay', even if he has not done so [the ruling of the Mishnah holds good]? — Say thus: R. Jose agreed in the first [Mishnah], seeing that he had already declared, 'I will pay for it'. MISHNAH. IF A MAN SAYS TO TWO [OTHERS] I ROBBED ONE OF YOU OF A MANEH, BUT DO NOT KNOW WHICH OF YOU, OR THE FATHER OF ONE OF YOU DEPOSITED A MANEH WITH ME, AND I DO NOT KNOW WHOSE: HE MUST GIVE EACH A MANEH, SINCE HE HIMSELF CONFESSED.  IF TWO MADE A DEPOSIT WITH ONE PERSON, ONE A MANEH  AND THE OTHER TWO HUNDRED [ZUZ]: — THIS ONE SAID, THE TWO HUNDRED IS MINE, AND THE OTHER SAID LIKEWISE, THE TWO HUNDRED IS MINE: HE MUST GIVE A MANEH TO EACH, WHILST THE REST LIES UNTIL ELIJAH COMES.  SAID R. JOSE: IF SO, WHAT WILL THE DECEIVER LOSE?  BUT THE WHOLE MUST LIE UNTIL ELIJAH COMES. LIKEWISE, IF TWO UTENSILS [ARE DEPOSITED], ONE WORTH A MANEH AND THE OTHER ONE THOUSAND [ZUZ]: THIS ONE CLAIMS, THE BETTER ONE IS MINE, THE OTHER CLAIMS, THE BETTER ONE IS MINE: THE INFERIOR ONE MUST BE GIVEN TO ONE OF THEM, AND OUT OF THE SUPERIOR THE VALUE OF THE INFERIOR IS GIVEN TO THE SECOND, THE REST REMAINING UNTIL ELIJAH COMES. SAID R. JOSE: IF SO, WHAT WILL THE DECEIVER LOSE? BUT THE WHOLE MUST LIE UNTIL ELIJAH COMES. GEMARA. This proves that money is collected as a result of doubt, and we do not say, Let the money stand in the presumptive ownership of its possessor. But this is contradicted by the following: IF TWO MADE A DEPOSIT WITH ONE PERSON, ONE A MANEH AND THE OTHER TWO HUNDRED [ZUZ], THIS ONE SAID, THE TWO HUNDRED IS MINE, AND THE OTHER SAID LIKEWISE, THE TWO HUNDRED IS MINE: HE MUST GIVE A MANEH TO EACH, WHILST THE REST LIES UNTIL ELIJAH COMES! — Said he to him:  Would you oppose a bailment to robbery! In the case of robbery, since he committed a transgression, the Rabbis penalised him;  whereas in the case of a bailment, where no wrong was committed by him, the Rabbis did not penalise him. But bailment may be opposed to bailment, and robbery to robbery. 'Bailment may be opposed to bailment'. For the first clause teaches, OR, THE FATHER OF ONE OF YOU DEPOSITED A MANEH WITH ME, AND I DO NOT KNOW WHOSE; HE MUST GIVE EACH A MANEH. Now this is contradicted by [the Baraitha just quoted,] 'If two made a deposit, etc.' — Said Raba: In the first clause  it is regarded as though they had entrusted [their money] to him in two separate packages, so that he should have paid particular attention;  but in the second clause it is regarded as though they had made their deposits with him in a single package, so that he was not bound to take particular attention.  [How so?] Both made their deposits with him simultaneously,  so that he [the bailee] can say to them, You yourselves were not particular with each other:  should I then have been particular? 'And robbery may be opposed to robbery'. Here we learn IF A MAN SAYS TO TWO OTHERS, I ROBBED ONE OF YOU OF A MANEH, BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHICH OF YOU, OR, THE FATHER OF ONE OF YOU DEPOSITED A MANEH WITH ME, AND I DO NOT KNOW WHOSE: HE MUST GIVE EACH A MANEH. But the following is opposed thereto: If a man robbed one out of five, and does not know which one he robbed, and each claims, 'It was me he robbed': he may place the stolen article among them and depart: this is R. Tarfon's view.  This proves that money is not collected as a result of doubt, but we say, Let the money stand in the presumptive ownership of its possessor!  And whence [does it follow] that our Mishnah here agrees with R. Tarfon?  Because It was taught thereon:  R. Tarfon admits that if one says to two people, 'I robbed one of you of a maneh, but do not know which of you,' he must give each a maneh!  — There they were claiming from him; here it means that he came to fulfil his duty in the sight of Heaven.  This may be proved too, for it is stated SINCE HE HIMSELF CONFESSED.  This proves It. The Master said: 'There they were claiming from him.' And what does he plead? — Rab Judah said in Rab's name: He is silent. R. Mattena said in Rab's name: He