Version #1 (our text, Rashi) Answer #3 (Rava): Our Mishnah (is like both Tana'im. It) is unlike the Beraisa.

Version #2 (Tosfos' text) Answer (to Question 3:m, 103b - Rava): Our Mishnah is like R. Tarfon; (end of Version #2)

Since he knows that he stole from Shimon and admitted to him and could return the money, it is as if Shimon said 'the stolen object is like a deposit with you';

If Reuven swore, he must travel to return the stolen object in order to (bring his Asham and) get atonement;

If he did not swear, since Shimon allows him to guard the stolen object, he need not travel to return it.

(Mishnah): It is not enough to give it to his son or Shali'ach...

(Rav Chisda): If Reuven made Levi a Shali'ach (to take what Shimon owes him), he is considered a Shali'ach (if Shimon gives it to Levi, Shimon is exempt, even if Reuven never gets it);

(Rava): He is not considered a Shali'ach.

Rav Chisda says that he is a Shali'ach. Reuven bothered to appoint him in front of witnesses, so what is given to Levi will be considered to be in Reuven's Reshus!

Rava says that he is not a Shali'ach. Reuven merely informs Shimon that Levi is trustworthy. If Shimon wants to rely on him, he may.

Question (Mishnah): If David borrowed Moshe's cow, and Moshe sent it with his own son, slave or Shali'ach, or with David's son, slave or Shali'ach, and it died on the way, David is exempt.

Question: What is the case of (David's) Shali'ach?

Suggestion: He was not appointed in front of witnesses.

Version #1 (Rashi) Rejection: If so, (why does the Mishnah call him a Shali'ach?) We do not know whether or not he was truly a Shali'ach!

Version #2 (Tosfos) Rejection: If so, how did Moshe know that he was a Shali'ach? (Why did he send the cow with him?)

Answer: Rather, he was appointed in front of witnesses. (Even so, David is exempt. This refutes Rav Chisda!)

Answer: We answer like Rav Chisda said (below), the Shali'ach was his housemate or hired help.

Question (against Rav Chisda - Mishnah): It is not enough to give it to his son or Shali'ach.

Question: What is the case of his Shali'ach?

If he was not appointed in front of witnesses, we do not know if he was a Shali'ach!

Answer: Rather, he was appointed in front of witnesses.

Answer (Rav Chisda): The Shali'ach was his housemate or hired help.

Inference: If he was appointed in front of witnesses, he would be a valid Shali'ach.

Question: If so, why does the Reisha say that it suffices to give it to a Shali'ach of Beis Din? Rather, it should allow giving to a Shali'ach that Shimon (the owner of the stolen object) appointed in front of witnesses (to distinguish the two cases of Shimon's Shali'ach)!

Answer: The Mishnah prefers to discuss a Shali'ach of Beis Din, for this always suffices (whether Reuven (the thief) or Shimon appointed him). A Shali'ach appointed in front of witnesses works only sometimes (if Shimon appointed him).

The Mishnah teaches unlike R. Shimon ben Elazar.

(Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar): The thief is exempt in the following cases:

He gave the stolen object to a Shali'ach of Beis Din who was appointed by the owner;

The thief appointed a Shali'ach of Beis Din, and a Shali'ach of the owner took the stolen object from this Shali'ach.

(R. Yochanan and R. Elazar): A Shali'ach made in front of witnesses is considered a Shali'ach.

Question: The Mishnah does not allow giving it to Levi, the Shali'ach of Shimon (the owner. Presumably, Levi was appointed in front of witnesses!)

Answer #1: Shimon did not appoint Levi to be a Shali'ach. He merely told him to appear in front of Reuven, in case Reuven wants to send it with him.

Answer #2: We answer like Rav Chisda said. Levi (was not appointed, he) is Shimon's housemate or hired help.

(Rav Yehudah citing Shmuel): If Reuven had money deposited with Shimon, and he sent Levi with a letter saying to send it with Levi, and Reuven's stamp (of his signet ring) is underneath, Shimon may not send the money with him. This applies even if witnesses signed on it.

(R. Yochanan): If witnesses signed on it, he may send it.

Question: According to Shmuel, how can Reuven retrieve his money (without going himself)?

Answer: He can do like R. Aba;

R. Aba asked Rav Safra to bring to him money that Rav Yosef bar Chama owed to him.

Rava (Rav Yosef's son): Did R. Aba write 'when you give it to Rav Safra, it is as if I received it'?

Rav Safra: No.

Rava: Return and ask him to write that.

Retraction (Rava): Even if he writes that, we do not rely on it. If R. Aba would die (after writing it and before you take the money), the money would pass to his heirs, and they did not authorize you!

Rav Safra: So how can I bring the money to him?

Rava: He should give (ownership of) the money to you Agav (along with giving you) the corner of his house (i.e. a small piece of land). When we give to you the money, you will write a receipt.

A similar case occurred with Rav Papa. He was owed 12,000 Zuz in Bei Chuzai. He gave the money to Rav Shmuel bar Aba, Agav the corner of his house, who then brought to him the money.

(Mishnah): If he paid the principal (but not the Chomesh, he need not travel to return it).

Inference: Since the Mishnah must teach that he need not travel to return it, it must be that the Chomesh is considered a proper debt, and if Shimon dies, Reuven must pay it to his heirs.

Support #1 (Mishnah): If Reuven paid the principal, and (falsely) swore that he also paid the Chomesh, he must pay (the Chomesh and) an additional fifth of the Chomesh. (This shows that it is like a proper debt.)

Support #2 (Beraisa #1): If Levi stole from Yehudah, swore falsely, and died, Levi's heirs pay the principal and the Chomesh. They do not bring an Asham.

Question: Do heirs really pay the Chomesh?

Contradiction (Beraisa #2): One might have thought that the only exemption (for a son from paying an Chomesh on what his father stole) is when neither the son nor the father swore;

Question: What is the source that even if the father or son swore falsely, the son is exempt?

Answer: "That (he) stole and oppressed" - the son did not steal or oppress.

Answer (Rav Nachman): Beraisa #1 discusses when the father later admitted. Beraisa #2 discusses when he (the father, and also the son) never admitted.

Question: If they never admitted, why does the son pay principal?

Suggestion: Perhaps he does not pay principal!

Rejection #1: The Beraisa needed to teach that he is exempt from the Chomesh. This implies that he pays principal.

Rejection #2 (Seifa of Beraisa #2): One might have thought that a son pays the principal that his father stole only when both of them swore falsely;

Question: What is the source that if only one of them, or even neither swore falsely, the son pays principal?

Answer: "Theft, oppression, Aveidah, deposit"; Yesh Talmud (this will be explained).

Rav Huna taught this Beraisa to his son Rabah.

Question (Rabah): Did you conclude 'Yesh Talmud' (we learn from these words) or 'Yishtalmo' (he will pay it; we know from reasoning, and not from a verse)?

Answer (Rav Huna): I concluded 'Yesh Talmud.' We learn from the verse.

Answer: Rav Nachman said that in Beraisa #2, he never admitted, i.e. the father, but the son admitted.

Question: The son should be liable to pay the Chomesh for his own false oath!

Answer #1: The case is, the stolen object is not around (the son swore about money that he was not liable to pay for).

Question: If so, why does he pay principal?

Version #1 (our text, Tosfos) Answer: The case is, the son inherited land.

Question: Even if he inherited land, the stolen object is like a Milveh Al Peh (loan without a document), which cannot be collected from heirs or buyers!

Answer: The case is, the father was taken to Beis Din (and was obligated to pay through testimony of witnesses. This makes it like a loan with a document.)

Version #2 (Rashi) Answer: The case is, the son inherited land (so he must return the stolen object due to the honor of his father). (end of Version #2)