Yerushalmi Yevamot 15:9 ירושלמי יבמות ט״ו:ט׳

MISHNAH: If he became betrothed to one of five women but it cannot be ascertained to which of them he became betrothed, and each one says he became betrothed to me, he gives a bill of divorce to each of them, puts up the amount of one ketubah between them and removes himself, the words of Rebbi Tarphon¹⁵⁰Since in order to collect the money, the claimant would have to prove in court that she was betrothed (or, in the case discussed in Mishnah 10, that he was robbed). The circumstances of the case are that the proof is impossible. On the other hand, his admission that he became betrothed to one woman, or that he robbed a person, makes him liable to pay.. Rebbi Aqiba says, in this way one does not remove him from sin unless he gives a bill of divorce and pays the ketubah to each of them¹⁵¹There is a moral obligation even if the court cannot enforce it. The Tosephta, 15:2, quoted in the Babli, 118b, has R. Simeon ben Eleazar state that R. Aqiba agrees with R. Tarphon in the case of betrothal or an acquisition but disagrees in the case of a consummated marriage and robbery..
He robbed one of five people, it is not known which of them he robbed and each one says “I was robbed”, he puts up the amount of the robbery between them and removes himself, the words of Rebbi Tarphon¹⁵⁰Since in order to collect the money, the claimant would have to prove in court that she was betrothed (or, in the case discussed in Mishnah 10, that he was robbed). The circumstances of the case are that the proof is impossible. On the other hand, his admission that he became betrothed to one woman, or that he robbed a person, makes him liable to pay.. Rebbi Aqiba says, in this way one does not remove him from sin unless he pays the amount of the robbery to each of them¹⁵¹There is a moral obligation even if the court cannot enforce it. The Tosephta, 15:2, quoted in the Babli, 118b, has R. Simeon ben Eleazar state that R. Aqiba agrees with R. Tarphon in the case of betrothal or an acquisition but disagrees in the case of a consummated marriage and robbery..

HALAKHAH: [(He robbed one of five people). Rebbi Abun said, the Mishnah deals with the case that she was betrothed by a document. But if he was betrothed by money, everybody agrees that he gives a bill of divorce and pays the ketubah to each of them.]¹⁵²This text is only in ms. A; it is genuine since it is quoted by the twelfth Century author R. Isaac ben Abba Mari in Sefer Ha‘ittur (ed. R. Meїr Jonah, vol. 1, 79b, Notes 121,122). In a parallel (anonymous) discussion, the Babli (118b) states that R. Aqiba insists on multiple ketubah payments only if the betrothal was by copulation (before witnesses, cf. Chapter 5, Note 46), which is a biblically valid betrothal but rabbinically forbidden. According to that opinion, R. Aqiba declares the additional payments to be a fine; this seems to contradict the language of the Mishnah.
In the interpretation of the Sefer Ha‘ittur, the document of betrothal would count as proof of a ketubah. Since each woman claims to have had such a document but lost it, they cannot enforce a claim and the two have to fight about one ketubah. If the betrothal was by money’s worth, in the opinion of the Yerushalmi the divorcee can claim the basic amount of the ketubah even if the marriage was not consummated (Ketubot 5:1). Since in that case there was no negligence on the part of the woman, he has to pay. (The Babli would hold that one does not follow the Mishnah and in practice no ketubah is due until the marriage is consummated.)

“He robbed one of five people.” Rebbi Assi said, there is a Mishnah which follows Rebbi Aqiba against Rebbi Tarphon. As we have stated there¹⁶⁶Mishnah Baba Meṣi‘a 3:3; Tosephta Yebamot 14:2.: “If he said to two people, I robbed a mina from one of you but I do not know who of you it was; I received a deposit of a mina from the father of one of you but I do not know who of you it was; he gives to each of them a mina because he confessed himself.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is everybody’s opinion. One says, to be clean before Heaven¹⁶⁷Since one understands from the Mishnah that the person was not sued but made the statement on his own initiative, one tells him that while the court could not force him to pay more than one mina and let the parties involved fight about the distribution, to assuage his conscience he has to give to each of the parties the amount they might be entitled to. The Babli concurs, Baba Meṣi‘a 37a.. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Here, if witnesses know; there, if no witnesses know¹⁶⁸The expression כאן … כאן makes it difficult to know to which statement one refers. In the interpretation of R. David Fränkel (קרבן העדה), the Mishnah Yebamot refers to a case where there are witnesses to the robbery but they cannot identify the victim, but in Baba Meṣi‘a there are no witnesses at all. In the interpretation of R. Moses Margalit (פני משה), the Mishnah Baba Meṣi‘a refers to a case where there are witnesses to the robbery but they cannot identify the victim, but in Yebamot there are no witnesses at all. In the latter interpretation, the fact that the robber confessed makes him liable to pay every claim as a matter of law, not of ethics. The first interpretation is more acceptable.. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Here if they are silent; there if they are talking¹⁶⁹In Yebamot, there are no claimants (they are silent), in Baba Meṣi‘a there are no claimants (they talk). R. Ṭarphon must agree in the second case that he pays since if he does not want to pay he would have to swear that he owes nothing; since he does not know whether he owes, he cannot swear.. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Here if he swore; there if he did not swear¹⁷⁰If he swore falsely that he did no rob anything. R. Tarphon will agree that he has to satisfy each individual claim against him.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he swore, he should have appointed an officer of the court and hand it over to him¹⁷¹He immediately could have deposited the money claimed with the court and let the claimants go to court to get the money (Mishnah Baba Qama 9:7).. Rebbi Joḥanan seems to say, a court which determined that one was a robber, not a court which determined that one was robbed¹⁷²The remedy of R. Joḥanan works only if the robber can choose the court to which he confesses before he is sued and where he deposits the amount he owes.. Rav said, a court which determined that one was robbed, not a court which determined that one was a robber¹⁷³If the court has to be the one to which the victims apply, the robber cannot forestall suits against himself and cannot free himself of responsibility by delivering restitution to a court convenient to himself.. The strength of Rav is from the following, that Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, a court which determined that one was robbed, not a court which determined that one was a robber¹⁷⁴The opinion of R. Simeon ben Eleazar is not recorded elsewhere. The Babli, 118b, throws out the Mishnah Yebamot in favor of a baraita (found in shortened form in Tosephta Yebamot 14:2) in the name of R. Simeon ben Eleazar, which reduces the disagreement of R. Aqiba with R. Tarphon to the case (a) of a consummated marriage and (b) of a witnessed robbery.. Otherwise he should have kept silent. Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, he should have kept silent and not confessed¹⁷⁵Then he would not have to pay.. Rebbi Yose wanted to say, he should have kept silent and not have sworn¹⁷⁶He would have to pay only once.. Rebbi Yudan said, even following those who say that there is no difference between keeping silent and talking in matters of a robbery, for a deposit they agree that he who keeps silent is rewarded¹⁷⁷The root of מתגר is Aramaic אגר “reward”. and he who talks loses. He who keeps silent is rewarded from the following: “Two people deposited with the same person, one a mina and one 200 [tetradrachmas]. This one says, the 200 belong to me, and that one says, the 200 belong to me. He gives each one a mina and the rest shall lie with him until Elijah comes.” He who talks loses, from this: “If he said to two people, I robbed¹⁷⁸Obviously, the proof is not from this but from the second half of the Mishnah quoted: “I received a deposit of a mina from the father of one of you but I do not know which one of you it was …”. a mina from one of you but I do not know which one of you.”