Suggestion: This argument is like the argument of R. Yochanan and Rav Huna below (97b) of a Bari (a Vadai claim,) and Shema (the defendant is unsure).

Rejection - part 1: Even R. Tarfon, who says that he leaves the stolen object among them [and leaves], this is because he is sure that he did not steal from all of them, only from one of them;

However, regarding Bari v'Shema, he could agree that Bari is better [and the defendant must pay].

Rejection - part 2: And even R. Akiva, who says that he pays each one, this is because he knows Vadai that he owes one of them;

However, regarding Bari v'Shema, he could agree that he is exempt, for he does not know that he owes at all.

Implied question: We could have asked [against our Mishnah] from the Beraisa, why he admits!

Answer: He prefers to ask [a contradiction] between the Mishnah in Yevamos and our Mishnah.

Suggestion: Seemingly, now we do not need the first answers, for there is no difference between one bundle and two bundles;

The Reisha, in which he gives 100 to this one and 100 to this one, is when he wants to fulfill his obligation bi'Ydei Shamayim;

The Seifa, in which they claim from him (he did not come to be Yotzei Yedei Shamayim), it is left (until one admits, or Eliyahu comes);

Rejection: However, since it does not say "Ela" (which always denotes retraction), this connotes that he did not retract from the first answer.

Support: Also below (37b), we ask "did Rava say that when there are two bundles, he should have been meticulous?"! This implies that he did not retract.

Explanation: Our entire Mishnah discusses one who comes to be Yotzei Yedei Shamayim. Therefore, in the Reisha, since he should have been meticulous, he gives 100 to this one and 100 to this one, when he comes to be Yotzei Yedei Shamayim;

In the Seifa, when they are in one bundle, he did not need to be meticulous. Even to be Yotzei Yedei Shamayim, he is not obligated;

According to R. Tarfon, the Reisha discusses "the father of one of you", and did not say "one of you", for a bigger Chidush. Even when both of them are unsure, he gives to each when he comes to be Yotzei Yedei Shamayim;

According to R. Akiva, it mentions his father, which connotes that it is Shema v'Shema, therefore he is obligated only [to be Yotzei] Yedei Shamayim;

This is like it says below (37b), that when it is Shema v'Shema, according to letter of the law, he is not obligated according to R. Akiva.

It [needed to] mention his father, for if they themselves deposited, presumably, they claim from him, and it is Bari v'Shema, and even according to letter of the law they are obligated according to R. Akiva;

Our Mishnah is even like R. Akiva, for it says below "what is the source that our Mishnah is R. Akiva?"

Also, the Halachah follows R. Akiva against his colleague. (Presumably, our Stam Mishnah is like the Halachah.)

Explanation (cont.): The Seifa did not discuss both of your fathers. This was to teach a Chidush;

Even though they claim Vadai, he is exempt even to be Yotzei Yedei Shamayim, and even according to R. Akiva, since he was not negligent, for he did not need to be meticulous;

R. Akiva obligates according to letter of the law only regarding Bari v'Shema, and when he should have been meticulous;

However, regarding Shema v'Shema, even in two bundles he is obligated only if he comes to be Yotzei Yedei Shamayim, and when he did not need to be meticulous, he is exempt even bi'Ydei Shamayim, and even if it is Bari v'Shema.

Question: In Bava Kama (103b), it says a case occurred in which a Chasid came in front of R. Tarfon, and he told him "leave the money of your purchase among them";

Did the Chasid not want to be Yotzei Yedei Shamayim?!

Answer: R. Tarfon told him that this is the Halachah.

Question: There, we challenge our Mishnah, which taught that one who stole Shaveh Perutah from someone and swore [falsely] to him must take it to him, even to Madai (a distant land). We establish this like R. Tarfon...

[We ask] why must we say that he swore? The same applies even if he admitted, for a Beraisa teaches that R. Tarfon admits...

What was difficult? We establish the Beraisa that R. Tarfon admits when he comes to be Yotzei Yedei Shamayim, and our Mishnah there discusses letter of the law!

Answer: Our Mishnah there discusses to be Yotzei Yedei Shamayim, to bring a Korban, and it says that if he wants to bring a Korban, he must bring the theft to Madai, for a Mishnah teaches "if he brought his Korban Asham before bringing the theft, he was not Yotzei";

Therefore, it asks that even without a Shevu'ah, and without a Korban, he must bring the theft to Madai if he wants to be Yotzei Yedei Shamayim.

Observation: Even though he says "I admit", this is not because he was a Talmid of Beis Shamai;

In Yevamos (15a), regarding the Tzarah (cowife) of a daughter (who falls to her father for Yibum), he holds like Beis Hillel, for he said "I crave, when will a case of Tzaras ha'Bas come to me, and I will marry her" (without Chalitzah). This is like Beis Hillel! (Rashash - R. Tarfon said so there! In Tosfos' text, R. Akiva said so. Aruch l'Ner (Yevamos 15a) - Tosfos refers to Yevamos 16a, in which R. Akiva rules like Beis Hillel regarding Tzaras ha'Bas. A Talmid mistakenly added R. Tarfon's words "I crave, when will..." to Tosfos.)

Rather, because it taught above "these and these agree", it taught here "I admit."

Question: [If it is not like R. Akiva], like whom is it?! If it is R. Tarfon, all the more so according to R. Akiva, he gives 100 to this one and 100 to this one!

Answer: It means as follows. How do you know that it is like R. Akiva, and it is according to letter of the law? Perhaps it is to be Yotzei Yedei Shamayim!

We answer that since it says "R. Tarfon agrees", to whom does he agree? Is it not to R. Akiva, who says that according to letter of the law, he pays to each...

R. Tarfon says, letter of the law, he leaves in front of them, and leaves, but to be Yotzei Yedei Shamayim, I agree that he pays to each.

It says that we established it when he comes to be Yotzei Yedei Shamayim, and R. Tarfon says ["I agree"], i.e. just like you said regarding Shema v'Shema that he pays to each, to be Yotzei Yedei Shamayim, here I agree to you.

Question: Our Mishnah discusses to be Yotzei Yedei Shamayim!

Answer: Since we said that our Mishnah is also like R. Akiva, "the father of one of you" connotes that because it is Shema v'Shema, he is obligated only to be Yotzei Yedei Shamayim, like the expression "admits" connotes;

Inference: If they themselves deposited, presumably they claim from him, and this is Bari v'Shema, and he is liable according to letter of the law, even though he did not transgress, since he should have been meticulous.

Source #1: If not for this, why did it discuss his father?!

Suggestion: Perhaps it was to teach that even regarding Shema v'Shema, he must [give to each,] to be Yotzei Yedei Shamayim.

Rejection: There is no Chidush in this according to R. Akiva.

Source #2: In Bava Kama (103b), R. Akiva holds that if one bought from one of five people (and he does not know to which he must pay), he pays to each of them, even though he did not transgress;

He pays based on letter of the law, for even R. Tarfon agree that to be Yotzei Yedei Shamayim, he must pay each of them, even though he did not transgress;

Proof: We establish our Mishnah also like R. Tarfon, and it teaches [that if one said] "the father of one of you deposited 100 with me", he gives to each of them.

Support: This is why we ask "Rava said that all agree [that if two people deposited different numbers of animals with a shepherd...]", even according to R. Akiva, he leaves [the animals] in front of them, even though he should have been meticulous, like I will explain, because he did not transgress.

Implied question: (Ravina asked that this teaching of Rava contradicts Rava's answer above, that when two depositors gave money in two bags, the Shomer must remember who gave which.) Even without [the above answer of] Rava, we could have asked [against his teaching of the shepherd] from R. Akiva, who says regarding a sale "even though he did not transgress, he pays each one"!

In that teaching, Rava said that even according to R. Akiva, the shepherd leaves [the animals] in front of them, and leaves!

Answer: [Ravina] preferred to ask a contradiction in Rava's teachings.

Explanation (Rashi): One deposited one sheep, and the other deposited two sheep. [The Shomer] puts [all three] in front of them and leaves;

There, it is like two bundles, even if they deposited in front of each other, for it is evident who brought one and who brought two.

Distinction: However, regarding coins, it was not incumbent on him to distinguish between a big bundle and a small bundle.

Question #1: Presumably, our Mishnah discusses even if this one deposited 200 in two wallets, and this one deposited 100 in one wallet [and he should have distinguished]!

Question #2: Perhaps Rabah discusses when two deposited two sheep - one was lean and the other was fat. This is like coins, in which case it is not incumbent on [the Shomer] to be meticulous!

Alternatively, two deposited two sheep, and one of them died, and each [depositor] says that the other's sheep died. The Mishnah there in Bechoros (17b) discusses such a case!

Answer: Even if they deposited in front of each other, [the Shomer] should have been meticulous. He cannot say "you were not adamant [to deposit in a way that averts any possible doubt about whose each is. Should I be adamant?!]

This is because they cannot fix [the matter to avoid Safek], even if they deposited not in front of each other! The other will see sheep going to pasture, and ask whose they are.

Distinction: However, regarding coins, he could have deposited not in front of his friend, so the Shomer can say "you were not adamant [to deposit not in front of each other, to avert all possible doubts]. All the more so, I need not be meticulous!

Explanation: "Without his knowledge" is not precise. (The case is, the shepherd knows that he has animals from them!) Rather, it means without the shepherd seeing. Now, he did not need to be meticulous.