Commentary for Bava Kamma 138:20

אמר רבינא אי לאו דא"ר יוחנן צנועין ורבי דוסא אמרו דבר אחד הוה אמינא מאן תנא צנועין רבי דוסא היא כי היכי דלא תקשי סתם משנה לרבי יוחנן ורבי יוחנן

and even so the Divine Law placed it in the owner's possession in respect of redemption, as written: <i>And if a man will redeem aught of</i> his tithe, <i>he shall add unto it the fifth part thereof</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 31. ');">³⁵</span> the Divine Law thus designating it 'his tithe' and ordering him to add a fifth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas one redeeming the second tithe of another person does not add a fifth. ');">³⁶</span> The same applies to the vineyard in the fourth year, as can be derived from the occurrence of the term <i>'holy</i>' there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 24. ');">³⁷</span> and in the case of the tithe.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXVII, 30. ');">³⁸</span> For it is written here<i> 'shall be holy to praise'</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 24. ');">³⁷</span> and it is written in the case of tithe, <i>'And all tithe of the land whether of seed of the land or of the fruit of the tree it is holy</i>':<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXVII, 30. ');">³⁸</span> just as the 'holy' mentioned in connection with tithe although it is divine property, has nevertheless been placed by the Divine Law in the possession of the owner for the purpose of redemption, so also the 'holy' mentioned in connection with a vineyard of the fourth year, although the property is not his own, has been placed by the Divine Law in his possession for the purpose of redemption; now seeing that even when it is in his possession it is not his and yet he may redeem it; hence he may be able to redeem it [also when out of his possession]. But in the case of the gleaning [of ears of corn] which is his own property,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of each three ears falling together. ');">³⁹</span> it is only when it is [still] in his [own] possession that he is able to declare it ownerless, whereas when not in his possession he should not be entitled to declare it ownerless.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Thus, had not R. Johanan said that the virtuous and R. Dosa said the same thing, it could rightly be argued that the virtuous would not apply their principle to the gleaning.] ');">⁴⁰</span> Rabina said: Had R. Johanan not stated that the virtuous and R. Dosa said the same thing, I should have said that the Tanna stating the case of the virtuous was R. Dosa, so that this anonymous Mishnah would not refute the view of R. Johanan, for R. Johanan

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 138:20. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.