Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 3:3

משנה: אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם גָּזַלְתִּי אֶת אֶחָד מִכֶּם מְנָה וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֵי זֶה מִכֶּם. אוֹ אָבִיו שֶׁל אֶחָד מִכֶּם הִפְקִיד אֶצְלִי מְנָה וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֵי זֶה הוּא. נוֹתֵן לָזֶה מְנָה וְלָזֶה מְנָה שֶׁהוֹדָה מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ. שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהִפְקִידוּ אֵצֶל אֶחָד זֶה מְנָה וְזֶה מָאתַיִם. זֶה אוֹמֵר שֶׁלִּי מָאתַיִם וְזֶה אוֹמֵר שֶׁלִּי מָאתַיִם נוֹתֵן לָזֶה מְנָה וְלָזֶה מְנָה וְהַשְּׁאָר יְהֵא מוּנָּח עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ. וְכֵן שְׁנֵי כֵלִים אֶחָד יָפֶה מְנָה וְאֶחָד יָפֶה אֶלֶף זוּז זֶה אוֹמֵר יָפֶה שֶׁלִּי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר יָפֶה שֶׁלִּי נוֹתֵן אֶת הַקָּטָן לְאֶחָד מֵהֶן וּמִתּוֹךְ הַגָּדוֹל נוֹתֵן דְּמֵי הַקָּטָן לַשֵּׁנִי וְהַשְּׁאָר יְהֵא מוּנָּח עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אִם כֵּן מַה הַפְסִיד הָרַמַּאי. אֶלָּא הַכֹּל יְהֵא מוּנָּח עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ. MISHNAH: If one says to two people, I robbed a mina from one of you but I do not know who it was or, the father of one of you deposited a mina with me but I do not know who it is, has to pay a mina to each of them since he himself confessed.
If two people deposited with a third party, one a mina and one 200 [zuz]. Each of them says, the 200 are mine. He shall give each of them a mina and the remainder shall be deposited until Elijah comes³¹In the Babli and all independent Mishnah mss., R. Yose’s objection (Mishnah 6) is also quoted here.
The prophet Elijah, precursor of the Messiah, is supposed to know the answer to all unsolved questions..
Similarly two vessels, one worth a mina, the other worth 1’000 zuz. Each of them says, the valuable one is mine. He shall give the small vessel to one of them, from the value of the large one he shall give the value of the small one to the other and the remainder shall be deposited until Elijah comes. Rebbi Yose said, if that be so, what did the trickster lose? But everything shall be deposited until Elijah comes³²Since Mishnaiot 5 and 6 are not discussed in the Yerushalmi, it is impossible to know its position relative to all modifications made by the Babli in their interpretation..

הלכה: אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם גָּזַלְתִּי כול׳. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כָּאן בְּעוֹרְרִין כָּאן בְּשׁוֹתְקִין. רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כָּאן בְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ עֵדִים יוֹדְעִין וְכָאן בְּשֶׁאֵין עֵדִים יוֹדְעִין. רַב יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רַב. כָּאן בְּנִשְׁבָּע כָּאן בְּשֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁבָּע. תַּמָּן אָֽמְרִין בְּשֵׁם רַב. שָׁם בְּנִשְׁבָּע כָּאן בְּשֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁבָּע. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְּעֵי. אִם בְּשֶׁנִּשְׁבָּע הָיָה לוֹ לִשְׁתּוֹק. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה סָבַר מֵימַר. הָיָה לוֹ לִשְׁתּוֹק וְלֹא לְהוֹדוֹת. רִבִּי יָסָא סָבַר מֵימַר. הָיָה לוֹ לִשְׁתּוֹק וְלֹא לִישָּׁבַע. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. אִם בְּשְׁנִּשְׁבַּע הָיָה לוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת שְׁלוּחַ בֵּית דִּין. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן סָבַר מֵימַר. שְׁלוּחַ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁעָשָׂה גוֹזֵל. תַּנָּיֵי חוֹרָן תַּנֵּי. שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁעָשָׂה נִגְזַל. [וְכֵן תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָֽעְזָר אוֹמֵר. שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁעָשָה הַנִּגְזַל] וְלֹא שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁעָשָׂה גוֹזֵל. אָמַר רִבִּי אִילָא. אוֹף אֲנָן תַּנִּינָא וְאָֽמְרִינָן. הִיא גְזֵילָה הִיא בְעִילָה הִיא מִלְוָה. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בְּפִיקָּדוֹן דְּמַתְנִיתָא מֵהָדָא אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם. גָּזַלְתִּי אֶחָד מִכֶּם מְנָה וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֵי זֶה הוּא. HALAKHAH: “If one says to two people, I robbed,” etc. ³³This Halakhah is a sketch, or a first draft, of the discussion in Yevamot 15:10" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.15.10">Yebamot15:10, Notes 153–178. The problem discussed is the discrepancy between Mishnah 4 and Yevamot 15:9:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.15.9.1">Mishnah Yebamot 15:10 which states that if somebody repents after having robbed one of a group of five people but does not know who it was, and each of them claims to be the victim, R. Tarphon says that he puts the amount of the robbery before them and lets them fight about the distribution. R. Aqiba agrees that this is the legal situation but holds that the robber is not free in the eyes of Heaven unless he pay the amount of the robbery to each of them. Mishnah 4 contains no hint of this controversy; we have to assume that it represents the opinions of both R. Tarphon and R. Aqiba. The question is what is the difference between the two situations? The discussion is explained there in detail. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Here if they complain, there if they are silent. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Here, if witnesses know; there, if no witnesses know. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Here if he swore; there if he did not swear. There, they say in the name of Rav: Here if he swore; there if he did not swear³⁴Cf. Yebamot 15:10, Note 157.. Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, he should have kept silent and not confessed. Rebbi Yasa wanted to say, he should have kept silent and not have sworn. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he swore, he should have appointed an officer of the court. Rebbi Joḥanan seems to say, an officer of the court determined that one was a robber, not a court which determined that one was robbed. Other Tannaїm stated, a court which determined that one was robbed, [as it was stated, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, a court which determined that one was robbed,]³⁵Addition of E; justified by its parallel in Yebamot. not a court which determined that one was a robber. Rebbi Ila said, we also have stated that the rules are identical for robbery, intercourse³⁶Cf. Yevamot 15:9:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.15.9.2">Yebamot 15:9, Note 152. A man became betrothed by intercourse (violating a rabbinic prohibition) to one of two women. He does not remember who it was; they both claim to be his wife. Following R. Aqiba, he has to pay two ketubot., and loan³⁷In the unlikely case that somebody took a loan from one of two people who both claim to be his creditors and he does not remember whose debtor he is.. Everbody agrees about the deposit mentioned in the Mishnah, from the following: “If he said to two people, I robbed a mina from one of you but I do not know which one of you it was.”