Bava Kamma - Daf 104
- שליח שעשאו בעדים
The Gemara brings the following discussion: שליח שעשאו בעדים – Concerning a shaliach which [the creditor] appointed with witnesses to collect his debt, Rav Chisda says הוי שליח – he is a legal shaliach, and the debtor is absolved of his debt after giving him the money (even if it never reaches his creditor). Rabbah says he is not a legal shaliach, (since the creditor never instructed the debtor to give him the money). Rav Chisda is challenged from our Mishnah, which taught that a robber (who swore falsely) cannot give payment to the victim’s shaliach. He must have been appointed with witnesses (otherwise, we could not refer to him as “his shaliach”), yet the robber cannot give him payment!? Rav Chisda answers: בשכירו ולקיטו – the Mishnah is dealing with [the victim’s] employee or companion (who usually acts as his shaliach), not a shaliach appointed with witnesses to collect the debt. Rebbe Yochanan and Rebbe Elazar ruled like Rav Chisda, and offered another explanation: בממציא לו שליח – the Mishnah is where [the victim] merely made a shaliach available to [the robber] without appointing him, and told the shaliach, “I have money with Ploni which he is not sending; offer him to bring it to me, for perhaps he has not found anyone with whom to send it.”
- Sending money based on a symbol
Rav Yehudah quoted Shmuel: אין משלחין מעות בדיוקני – A שומר should not send money back for the depositor with someone who only has a symbol proving he is the owner’s shaliach, ואפילו עדים חתומים עליה – even if witnesses are signed on [the symbol] as authentic, because this symbol does not prove he was appointed a shaliach to retrieve it. Rebbe Yochanan said that if witnesses are signed on it, he is established as a shaliach, and one may send the money with him. The Gemara asks how a depositor can retrieve his deposit through a shaliach according to Shmuel, and answers with a story: Rebbe Abba once sent Rev Safra to collect his debt, and Rava said he would give it to him if he had a receipt from Rebbe Abba stating "התקבלתי" – I have received payment through Rav Safra’s collection. Later, Rava said he would not even pay based on this receipt, since Rebbe Abba (an elderly man) may die before the payment, voiding the shelichus (since his assets belong to his heirs). Instead, Rava told him to acquire the money אגב ארעא – alongside land, i.e., the automatic transfer of movable items alongside a transaction of property. Rav Safra could then collect the debt as an owner.
- If חומש is ממונא
The Mishnah taught that if the robber repaid the stolen principal, but not the additional fifth, he does not need to bring it to the victim. The Gemara infers that it is still owed: אלמא חומש ממונא הוא – We see that the additional fifth payment is a monetary obligation to the victim, and not just for atonement, and if the robber would die, his heirs would still owe it. A second proof is brought from the Mishnah, which taught that if the robber falsely swears to deny owing the חומש itself, he must pay an additional fifth of the חומש he denied. This proves the denial is a monetary one. A Baraisa also explicitly teaches that his heirs must pay the חומש. This is contradicted by a Baraisa which states that a son does not pay a חומש for his father’s robbery, although he pays the principal!? Rav Nachman answered, as the Gemara later explains, that the case is where the robber did not confess, and never became liable for a חומש. His son must pay the principal, because he himself confessed.
