Bava Batra 158

ואי בשדה ואילן אמאי מחליף אלא אמר רבה מחלוקת בבור ושובך אבל בשדה ואילן דברי הכל מועלין בהן ובמה שבתוכן

Now, if [the dispute has reference] to field and tree,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the first part of the Baraitha speaks of field and tree, the second part obviously speaks of the same objects. ');">¹</span> why does he reverse [his view]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he subjects to Me'ilah contents that were added after the dedication, how much more should he subject to Me'ilah the contents that were already there at the time of the dedication! ');">²</span>

ובבור ושובך בריקנין במאי פליגי ובמלאין במאי פליגי בריקנין פליגי בפלוגתא דרבי מאיר ורבנן

Consequently<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but'. ');">³</span> Rabbah said: The dispute<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between R. Eleazar b. Simeon and the first Tanna. ');">⁴</span>

דתנא קמא סבר לה כרבנן דאמרי אין אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם ור"א ברבי שמעון סבר כר"מ דאמר אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם

[has reference] to cistern and dove-cote, but [in the case of] field and tree both agree that they and their contents are subject to the law of <i>Me'ilah</i>. On what principle do they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar and the first Tanna. ');">⁵</span> differ when the cistern and dove-cote are empty, and on what principle do they differ when the cistern and dove-cote are full? — When [the cistern and dove-cote are] empty, the dispute is analogous to that of R. Meir and the Rabbis. For the first Tanna is of the same opinion as the Rabbis who said no one can hand over possession of a thing that does not exist,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that has not come to the world'. Consequently the doves and the water, being non-existent at the time of the dedication, are not regarded as the property of the sanctuary, and the appropriation of them involves no trespass offering. ');">⁶</span>

אימור דשמעת ליה לרבי מאיר כגון פירות דקל דעבידי דאתו הני מי יימר דאתו אמר רבא משכחת לה במים הבאין דרך חצרו לבור ויונים הבאין דרך שובכו לשובך

while R. Eleazar b. Simeon is of the same opinion as R. Meir who said<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. infra 127b, 131a, 157b; Yeb. 39a; Kid. 62b, 78b; Git. 23b, 42b; B.M., 16b, 33b. ');">⁷</span> that one can hand over possession of a thing that does not exist.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 9. ');">⁸</span>

ובמלאים במאי פליגי אמר רבא כגון שהקדיש בור סתם ור' אלעזר ברבי שמעון סבר לה כאבוה דאמר דנין דין גבוה מדין הדיוט

[But] say! where has R. Meir been heard [to express his view? Only in the case], for example, as that of fruits of a palm-tree, because they generally come up, but [as to] these,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Water and doves. ');">⁹</span> who can assert that they will come?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unless he is himself to bring water to the cistern and doves to the cote. In such a case R. Meir will agree that one cannot hand over possession of a thing that does not exist and affords thus no support to R. Eleazar. ');">¹⁰</span>

מה דין הדיוט מצי אמר בירא זביני לך מיא לא זביני לך אף דין גבוה בירא אקדיש מיא לא אקדיש (ות"ק סבר אין דנין דין גבוה מדין הדיוט)

— Raba said: It is possible<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To make such an assertion. ');">¹¹</span> when water runs through his [own] courtyard into the cistern and when doves come through his dove-cote into the [dedicated] dove-cote. And in what case do they differ when [the cistern and dove-cote are] full? — Raba said: For example. when he dedicated a cistern without mentioning its contents; and R. Eleazar b. Simeon holds the same opinion as his father who said: We may infer the law concerning sacred property from the ordinary law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 72a. ');">¹²</span>

ודין הדיוט לא והתנן מכר בור מכר מימיו אמר רבא מתני' יחידאה היא דתניא מכר בור לא מכר מימיו ר' נתן אומר מכר בור מכר מימיו:

As [in the case of] ordinary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As opposed to sacred or divine. ');">¹³</span> law one can Say: 'I sold you a cistern, I did not sell you water so [in the case of] the law concerning sacred things [one can say]: 'I dedicated the cistern, I did not dedicate the water'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore he holds that where there was water in the cistern the water is not included in the dedication. ');">¹⁴</span> But [can it be said that in] the ordinary law [the water is] not [implicitly sold]? Surely we learnt: He who sold a cistern has also sold its water!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 78b. ');">¹⁵</span> Raba replied: This Mishnah represents an individual opinion;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The opinion of R. Nathan who is in opposition to the accepted opinion expressed in the first clause of the following Baraitha. ');">¹⁶</span> for it has been taught: He who sold a cistern has not sold its water. R. Nathan said: He who sold a cistern has sold its water.