(Mishnah): If one said to two people, "I stole from one of you 100 zuz, but I do not know which one!'' or "One of your fathers deposited with me 100 zuz, but I do not know which one'' - he should give each of them 100 zuz, since he admitted to it in public.

If two people deposited with one person, one gave 200 zuz and one gave 100 zuz. If each one claims that they gave 200 zuz, he should pay each one 100 zuz and the remaining 100 zuz should be left until Eliyahu HaNavi comes (to rule on it).

It is the same with two vessels, one was worth 100 zuz and one was worth 1000 zuz. If each claims that he gave the 1000 zuz vessel, he should give the smaller one to one of them and give 100 zuz from the 1000 zuz vessel to the other one and the rest should be left until Eliyahu HaNavi comes.

R. Yosi: If so, what would a swindler lose (by making his false claim)? Rather, everything must be left until Eliyahu HaNavi comes. (Note: The Gemara's text that follows (until the end of (g) has been included from the Gemara in Yerushalmi Maseches Yevamos Perek 15, Halachah 9.)

(Gemara - question #1- R. Asi): (The Mishnah in Yevamos teaches that if a person stole from one of five people and he does not know from whom, according to R. Tarfon, he can just put down the item between them and leave. According to R. Akiva, in order to escape from the sin, he must repay each of them.) Our Mishnah follows R. Akiva but not R. Tarfon, as our Mishnah teaches (as above)...

If a person said to two, "I stole from one of you'' or "One of your fathers deposited 100 zuz with me but I do not know from whom'', he must pay both of them since he admitted it himself.

Answer #1 to question #1 (R. Yaakov bar Acha citing R. Yochanan): All agree (both R. Tarfon and R. Akiva) that in our Mishnah (above), in order to fully fulfill one's obligation, he must pay both of them.

Question #2 with answer #1 (R. Abahu citing R. Yochanan): (The Mishnah seems to be unlike R. Akiva, as it refers to a person who admitted and is trying to fulfill his obligation even to Heaven, by paying both of them. However, R. Akiva holds that he is actually obligated to pay both of them. R. Abahu answers that the Mishnah in Yevamos refers to when) they both claim with certainty (that he stole from them. Therefore, R. Akiva rules that he must pay both. However, our Mishnah refers to) when they were quiet, (as they themselves are unsure if he stole from them. In such a case, R. Akiva agrees that he is not obligated to pay both unless he is wishes to fulfill his obligation to Heaven.)

Answer #2 to question #2 (R. Yasa citing R. Yochanan): Here (in Yevamos) there were witnesses (who are not present) who saw the theft (so R. Akiva holds that the money must be paid to each to ensure that the victim was paid); here (in our Mishnah) there were no witnesses (so R. Akiva agrees that he is not legally obligated to pay both of them).

Answer #3 to question #2 (R. Yirmiyah citing Rav): Here (in Yevamos) he made an oath (that he had not stolen at all and he later admitted to it, therefore R. Akiva holds that he must return it in the most thorough way); here (in our Mishnah) he did not make an oath (so he is not legally obligated to pay both of them).

Answer #2 to question #1: In Bavel, they said in the name of Rav - There (in our Mishnah) he first made an oath (that he had not stolen from any of them and later admitted, so R. Tarfon agrees that he must pay both of them); but there (in Yevamos) he did not first make an oath (so R. Tarfon rules that he may put down the item and leave).

Question (R. Yirmiyah against Rav): If he made an oath, he should have been silent (rather than admit. If he admitted, it indicates that he wishes to even fulfill his obligation to Heaven; therefore he must give both of them?!)

R. Yirmiyah holds that he should have been silent rather than admit; R. Yasa holds that he should have been silent rather than make an oath.

R. Yochanan (disagreeing with (i) and (j)): Even if he swore, he has no more of an obligation than if he did not, as he could fully fulfill his obligation by paying the money to a shaliach (representative) of Beis Din, rather than paying both of them.

This is because R. Yochanan holds that even a thief can appoint a shaliach for Beis Din, not only a victim of theft.

Other Tannaim teach: The shaliach must be appointed by the victim, not by the thief.

Question (R. Ila against R. Yirmiyah in (i)): We also teach (in Yevamos, in a Beraisa brought in the Bavli on daf 118b, that according to R. Shimon ben Elazar, as opposed to the tana kama, the dispute between R.Akiva and R. Tarfon, as cited in (e), only exists when the person made a transgression; otherwise, he does not need to pay both of them. This is clear from the fact that the Mishnah used a case of theft, rather than if he married or he borrowed money. But according to R. Yirmiyah, if he swore falsely, why would the Mishnah specifically mention theft if any of the cases therefore involve a transgression), whether it was theft, marriage or a loan?

Answer: All agree there (both R. Shimon ben Elazar and the tana kama) that even in a case of a deposit, the recipient should have been careful to be aware how much any given person had given him. This is clear from the fact that the Mishnah mentioned the cases of theft and deposit together.