Bava Metzia

protests.  On the view that he protests — but silence is as admission.  But on the view that he is silent — this silence here  is not an admission, because he can say, 'The reason that I was silent before each is that I thought, Perhaps it was this one.' The Master said: 'He may place the stolen article among them and depart.' And can all of them take it and go! Did not R. Abba b. Zabda say in Rab's name: Whenever he is doubtful if an article was left [in a certain spot], he must not take it in the first instance; but if he took, must not return it?  — Said R. Safra: It is laid by. Abaye said to Raba: Did then R. Akiba Say,  'That is not the way to clear him of his crime, but he must restore the theft to each one;' thus proving 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 the following is opposed thereto: If a house collapsed on a person and his mother:  the son's heirs maintain, 'The mother died first;'  whilst the mother's heirs maintain, 'The son died first:'  both  agree that they must divide. And R. Akiba said thereon: I agree in this case that the property remains in its presumptive ownership!  — There, he replied to him, both [heirs] plead 'perhaps';  but in the case of a person robbing one man of five, there is certainty against doubt.  But our Mishnah here, IF A MAN SAYS TO TWO [OTHERS], 'I ROBBED ONE OF YOU OF A MANEH,' which is a case of 'perhaps' on both sides, nevertheless states HE MUST GIVE EACH A MANEH! (Whence do you know that it agrees with R. Akiba? — Because it is 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,' [he must give each a maneh]. Now, to whom does he admit? [Surely] to R. Akiba, his opponent? And whence do you know that both sides plead 'perhaps?' Firstly, because it is not stated, They demand of him; and secondly, R. Hiyya taught: Each replies, 'I do not know!')  — But we have already interpreted it of one who wishes to fulfil his duty in the sight of heaven! Rabina said to R. Ashi: Did then Raba say that whenever [deposits are made] in two separate packages, he [the bailee] should have paid particular attention?  But Raba — others state, R. Papa — said: All admit in the case of two people who entrusted [their lambs] to a shepherd, that the shepherd places [them] between them and is quit!  — He replied: The circumstances there are that they deposited [the lambs] in the shepherd's fold without his knowledge. LIKEWISE, IF TWO UTENSILS [ARE DEPOSITED], ONE WORTH A MANEH AND THE OTHER ONE THOUSAND [ZUZ] etc. And both [instances] are necessary. For if the first alone were stated, I might argue, Only there [sc. in the case of money] do the Rabbis rule [thus], because no loss is caused; but in the latter case, where great loss is involved [in the breaking of the larger utensil], they agree with R. Jose. And if the latter case [alone] were stated, I might argue, Only here does R. Jose rule [thus], but in the former, he agrees with the Rabbis.  Thus both are necessary.