Bava Kamma, Chapter 9, Mishnah 5. The Mishnah continues to discuss the details of robbery and how a stolen item is returned. However, the subject of the following Mishnayos, and indeed most of the end of the chapter, is the law regarding a person who is sued by the victim - whether it is the robber himself or anyone else who owes him money - and he swears falsely that he owes nothing and does not need to return anything.
The victim says to the robber: "I know you stole my bicycle, I want it back." The robber replies: "I do not know what you are talking about." The victim tells him: "Swear to me that you do not have my bicycle," and the robber swears. It is worth noting that he does not actually have to utter the words of the oath himself; it is sufficient for him to answer amen and accept upon himself the oath that he does not have what he stole.
Two additional obligations for atonement:
If the robber subsequently wishes to achieve atonement for himself after having sworn falsely, his halachic situation is much more severe. In addition to returning the stolen item, two more obligations are placed upon him:
Adding a fifth - a sort of penalty for the sake of atonement. For every four dollars he stole, he adds a fifth dollar, hence the term "fifth," even though practically speaking it is an addition of twenty-five percent.
Asham offering - after he returns the stolen item, he must bring a special sacrifice. Asham offerings are relatively rare, with a total of six types. This one is called an 'asham gezeilos' - the asham offering brought ostensibly for the robbery, but in truth, it is brought for the false oath regarding a monetary obligation and for the desire to repent.
Our Mishnah, as well as the several Mishnayos that follow it, discuss the details of this new obligation, which applies to someone seeking repentance and atonement for swearing falsely over money he owed.
The language of the Mishnah:
"Hagozel es chaveiro shaveh perutah" - one who robs his fellow of an item worth at least a perutah. The perutah is the smallest coin, and today, based on the value of silver, it is worth approximately six or seven agoros. "Venishba lo" - the robber swore that he does not owe the money, and subsequently seeks to atone for his deed and rectify what he has corrupted.
"Yolichenu acharav va'afilu l'Madai":
The robber is obligated to return the stolen object and search for the victim, even if this means traveling to the ends of the earth, to Madai (similar to Persia and Iran in our days). He must go and hand the object to the victim, and the basis for this is the verse "la'asher hu lo yitnenu" - it must be given to the person to whom the object belongs. The obligation is therefore placed squarely on the shoulders of the robber to ensure that the victim receives back everything that was taken from him, even if this involves a great distance.
In contrast, if he had not sworn falsely, the thief would certainly be obligated to return what is not his, but if the victim relocated to Madai in the meantime, the thief can say: "Your bicycle is in my possession, come and take it whenever you want, I have no intention of traveling to Madai," and that is sufficient. He is not required to make a special trip. However, one seeking atonement after swearing falsely - he is obligated to make this special trip.
Most commentators understand that Madai is merely an example of a distant place. However, this is somewhat puzzling, as this is not the standard expression the Sages use to describe the ends of the earth. Therefore, the Vilna Gaon suggests that Madai is mentioned because it was a place of wealth: even if the stolen item is worth a perutah in the victim's location, whereas in Madai, due to their wealth, it is not worth a perutah - this does not matter, since the victim suffered a loss of a perutah in his location at the time of the incident. Therefore, the robber must go to Madai and return the stolen item to him, even though it is not worth a perutah there.
"Lo yiten lo liveno velo leshlucho" - he may not give it to his son or to his agent:
Since the object must reach the hands of the robbery victim, the Torah creates a situation where the robber, for the sake of his atonement, is required to bear the consequences and face the victim face-to-face. Therefore, it is not enough to hand the object to the victim's son, since this is not the victim himself, nor to his agent. As long as the stolen item has not reached the victim, the robber does not achieve his atonement, and he is not even allowed to bring his guilt-offering until he makes the actual payment.
At first glance, this is difficult to understand, for there is a simple rule that "a person's agent is like himself" - when someone appoints an agent, the agent is a continuation of his halachic entity. If so, when the victim appointed an agent to receive the stolen object on his behalf, why would handing it to the agent not be effective, just as handing over a get and similar things is effective?
Several explanations have been offered for this. One explanation is that we are talking about a delivery person who goes to the victim every Monday and Thursday, and everyone knows this. In such a case, it is not enough for the robber to hand him the object and say, "Leave this at the house of so-and-so". As long as the object has not reached the hands of the victim himself, this is not considered handing it over, and the transgressor who swore falsely does not achieve his atonement.
"Noten leshaliach beis din" - he gives it to an agent of the court:
The robber is allowed to hand the object to an agent authorized by the beis din, and this is a rabbinic law. The Sages wanted to allow sinners to repent, and therefore the beis din can intervene and say, "We understand that Media is too far, and you are unable to transport the bicycle across the entire world, so we will serve as intermediaries". In such a case, if the beis din chooses to act this way, the robber can bring his guilt-offering even without actually handing the stolen item into the victim's hand.
"Ve'im meis yachazir leyorshav" - and if he died, he should return it to his heirs:
If the victim died, the stolen object must be transferred to his heirs along with the added fifth. At first glance, this is obvious, since everywhere heirs step into the shoes of the deceased in monetary matters, and they take upon themselves both the assets and the liabilities in his balance sheet.
Rather, the novel teaching of the Mishnah is this: Since the verse explicitly states, "to whom it belongs, he shall give it," meaning that he must return it to the person from whom it was stolen, there was room to think that when that person is no longer alive, handing it to the heirs is not sufficient, and even though the object was returned, such a partial return would not be effective in permitting the transgressor to bring his guilt-offering. The Mishnah teaches us that this is not the case: Once the victim dies, his heirs step into his shoes, and handing the object into their hands is sufficient to allow the one who robbed and swore falsely to that deceased person to now bring his guilt-offering.
In summary: In this Mishnah, we learned that one who swears falsely regarding money that he robbed and seeks atonement, must add a fifth and bring a guilt-offering for robberies, and it is incumbent upon him to transport the stolen item after the victim even to Media. It is not enough to hand it to his son or to his agent, since the atonement depends on the object reaching the hands of the victim himself, and by rabbinic law, handing it to an agent of the beis din was permitted. And if the victim died, he hands it to his heirs, and the handover is sufficient to permit him to bring his guilt-offering.