Question: The first law is obvious!

Answer: One might have thought that Reuven can say 'you knew that I was buying for myself, and I was just protecting myself. I would not spend money without getting a document in my name!'

the Beraisa teaches that this is not so. The seller can say 'I assumed that you made a deal with him, and he will write a document selling it to you.'

Question: Abaye's second law, that if he told the seller from the beginning, we force him, is obvious!

Answer: The case is, he told the witnesses in front of the seller that he will want another document.

One might have thought that the seller can say 'I thought that you wanted another document from the one in whose name you bought;

The Beraisa teaches that this is not so. He told the witnesses in front of the seller to make clear that the next document will also be from the seller.

Rav Kahana paid Shimon money to buy his flax. The price of flax went up, and Shimon sold the flax to others, stipulating that they will pay Rav Kahana.

Question (Rav Kahana, of Rav): May I take the money?

Answer (Rav): It is permitted only if Shimon told the buyer 'this is Rav Kahana's flax'.

Suggestion: This is like the people of Eretz Yisrael, who said that one who sold to Reuven's Shali'ach did not know to intend that Reuven acquire? (Here, if the buyer was not told, he pays Shimon, and Shimon pays interest to Rav Kahana!)

Rejection: Rav Kahana did not lend the money, so there is no concern lest Shimon pays interest to Rav Kahana!

Rather, Rav Kahana owns the flax. It increased in value by itself. (It was theft for Shimon to sell it to others.)

Question(Mishnah): All thieves pay like the time of the theft. (Since it already increased in value, in any case Rav Kahana is entitled to the money!)

Answer: The case is, Rav Kahana never did Meshichah (he did not take the flax to his premises to acquire it). He bought be'Amana (he paid now to receive in the future, when Shimon will get flax);

Rav permits buying be'Amana to receive Peros later (when it is worth more), but the seller may not give its value in money (for this looks like interest).

(Mishnah): If Reuven stole a Perutah from Shimon and swore that he did not, Reuven must return it, even if Shimon lives overseas;

It is not enough to give it to his son or Shali'ach (messenger), but it suffices to give it to a Shali'ach of Beis Din.

If Shimon died, he returns the stolen object to Shimon's heirs.

In the following cases, Reuven need not travel to return what he owes:

He paid the principal, but did not pay the Chomesh (the added fifth, i.e. a quarter of the principal, that one who swore falsely must pay);

Shimon pardoned from paying the principal, but not from the Chomesh;

Shimon pardoned the entire obligation, except for less than a Perutah of the principal.

Reuven must travel to return what he owes if he paid or was pardoned from the Chomesh, but not from (at least a Perutah of) the principal.

If Reuven paid the principal, and (falsely) swore that he paid also the Chomesh, he must pay (the Chomesh and) a Chomesh of the Chomesh.

Each time he swears falsely about paying a Chomesh (of a Chomesh...) he is obligated to add a Chomesh of what he swore about, unless he denied less than a Perutah.

The same applies to a deposit. For "a deposit or withheld wages or theft or oppression of his fellowman, or he found an Aveidah and denied it or swore falsely", he pays the principal and Chomesh and brings a Korban Asham.

(Gemara) Inference: He must travel to return a stolen object only if he swore falsely about it.

Question: This is not like R. Tarfon or R. Akiva!

( Mishnah - R. Tarfon): If Reuven is unsure from which one of five people he stole, and each of them says 'you stole from me', he may leave the stolen object in front of them and go away;

R. Akiva says, to correct his sin he must pay each of them the value of what he stole.

Our Mishnah is unlike R. Tarfon. He holds that even if Reuven swore falsely, he may leave the stolen object in front of them!

It is unlike R. Akiva. He holds that even if Reuven did not swear, he must pay every one of them!

Answer #1: Really, it is like R. Akiva. He obligates Reuven to pay every one of them only if he swore falsely.

Question: What is his reason?

Answer: It says "la'Asher Hu Lo Yitnenu b'Yom Ashmaso" (the verse discusses one who swore falsely and brings an Asham);

R. Tarfon holds that even though he swore falsely, Chachamim made an enactment for the thief;

(Beraisa - R. Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok): A great enactment was made. If the cost of returning a stolen object exceeds the principal, the thief gives the principal and the Chomesh to Beis Din, and he can bring his Asham and get atonement.

R. Akiva holds that this enactment was only when he knows whom he stole from, for then the victim can get his money back. It does not apply when he stole from one of five people.

Objection #1 (Rav Huna bar Yehudah - Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar): R. Tarfon and R. Akiva did not argue about one who does not know from which one of five people he bought. All agree that he may leave the money he owes in front of them;

They argue about one who does not know from which one of five people he stole, and each of them says 'you stole from me.' R. Tarfon says, it suffices to leave the stolen object in front of them;

R. Akiva says, to correct his sin he must pay each of them the value of what he stole.

Summation of question: If he swore falsely, the law should be the same whether he bought or stole (in either case, he sinned)!

Objection #2 (Rava - Beraisa): A case occurred in which a Chasid was not sure from which of two men he bought. R. Tarfon told him that it suffices to leave the money in front of them;

R. Akiva told him that to clear himself he must pay each of them.

Since he was a Chasid, surely he did not swear falsely!

Suggestion: Perhaps he swore falsely, then repented and became a Chasid!

Rejection: Every case with 'a Chasid' refers to R. Yehudah ben Bava or R. Yehudah b'Rebbi Ila'i. Neither was a repentant sinner!

Answer #2: Really, our Mishnah is like R. Tarfon. He agrees that Reuven must pay every one of them when he swore falsely.

Question: What is his reason?

Answer: He learns from "la'Asher Hu Lo Yitnenu b'Yom Ashmaso."

R. Akiva fines him even though he did not swear falsely.

Question: The verse discusses one who (brings a Korban, which is only if he) admitted his sin. If so, R. Tarfon obligates him even if he did not swear!

(Beraisa): R. Tarfon agrees that if one tells two people who he is not sure from which of them he stole that he must pay both, for he admitted (and wants to clear himself b'Yedei Shamayim).