There is a general rule that “We do not expropriate property due to an uncertainty and return it to those claiming it, and instead we say: Establish the money in the possession of its owner.” (Sefaria.org translation) Today’s daf TB Baba Metzia solves a seemingly contradiction between the Mishnah found on our daf and a Mishna we studied back on daf TB Yevamot 118b. Both cases deal with a thief returning stolen money but there is an uncertainty who should get the money. Only the Mishna in Yevamot applies this principle.
In our Mishna
found on daf 37a: “And they raised a contradiction between the halakha stated
in the case of a robbery and the halakha stated in the case of a
robbery. It is taught here: If one said to two people: I robbed
one of you of one hundred dinars, but I do not know from which of you
I took the money…
”The Gemara raises
a contradiction from a mishna (Yevamot 118b): If one robbed one
of five people and he does not know which of them he robbed, and this
one says: He robbed me, and that one says: He robbed me, the
robber places the stolen item between them and withdraws from
them; this is the statement of Rabbi Tarfon. Apparently, contrary to the
mishna, we do not expropriate property due to an uncertainty and return
it to those claiming it, and instead we say: Establish the money in
the possession of its owner.” (Sefaria.org Translation)
Ultimately
the Gemara decides that these two situations are not similar at all. In the
case found in Yevamot, although there are five claimants for the stolen money,
only one of them is telling the truth. The thief does not know which one is
telling the truth; consequently, we apply the above principle. “The Gemara
answers: There, in the mishna where one robbed one of five people of
money, it is referring to a case where the claimants demand
payment from him. He is required to pay them only one hundred dinars, as
the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. By contrast,” (Sefaria.org translation)
Our Mishna
teaches that the thief comes forward, wants to do teshuva (repentance), and make amends. The person he robbed isn’t
demanding the money. “it is referring to a case where the robber comes
to fulfill his obligation to Heaven. Only by returning the money to the
person he robbed can he atone for his transgression. Therefore,
he goes beyond the halakhic requirement (my
emphasis) and pays both claimants. The Gemara notes: The language of
this mishna is also precise, as the tanna teaches: Because he
admitted his obligation at his own initiative. The Gemara affirms: Learn
from the wording of the mishna that this is the explanation of the mishna.”
(Sefaria.org translation)
No comments:
Post a Comment