Bava Kamma 137

חייב אתה ליתן לו טבח ומכר משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה מ"ט כיון דלא פסקה מילתא אכתי גנב הוא

but if they merely said to him, 'You are liable to pay him,' and after that he slaughtered or sold the animal, he would be liable to pay four-fold or five-fold payment, the reason being that since they have not pronounced final sentence upon the matter he is still a thief?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Subject to the law of paying four-fold and five-fold payments. ');">¹</span> — No, its application is necessary where they have as yet merely said to him, 'You are liable to pay him'.

לא צריכא דאמרי ליה חייב אתה ליתן לו:

The above text states:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 396. ');">²</span> 'R. Johanan said: If a robber misappropriated an article and the owner has not abandoned hope of recovering it neither of them is able to consecrate it: the one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The robber. ');">³</span>

גופא אמר רבי יוחנן גזל ולא נתייאשו הבעלים שניהם אינן יכולים להקדיש זה לפי שאינו שלו וזה לפי שאינו ברשותו ומי אמר ר' יוחנן הכי והא"ר יוחנן הלכה כסתם משנה

because it is not his, the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The owner. ');">⁴</span> because it is not in his possession.' Could R. Johanan really have said this? Did not R. Johanan say<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shab. 46a. ');">⁵</span>

ותנן כרם רבעי היו מציינין אותו בקזוזות אדמה סימנא כי אדמה מה אדמה איכא הנאה מינה אף האי נמי כי מפרקא שרי לאיתהנויי מינה

that the <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with an anonymous Mishnah; and we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' M.Sh. V, I. ');">⁶</span> 'In the case of a vineyard in its fourth year, the owners used to mark it with clods of earth', the sign implying an analogy to earth: just as in the case of earth a benefit may ensue from it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In time, as after tilling, sowing and reaping. ');">⁷</span>

ושל ערלה בחרסית סימנא כחרסית מה חרסית שאין הנאה מינה אף האי דלית ביה הנאה מיניה

so also the fruit of this vineyard<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev, XIX, 24. ');">⁸</span> will after being redeemed be permitted to be enjoyed. 'That of <i>'orlah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., during the first three years when the fruits are totally forbidden in accordance with Lev. XIX, 23. ');">⁹</span>

ושל קברות בסיד סימנא דחיור כעצמות וממחה ושופך כי היכי דניחוור טפי

used to be marked with potsherds', the sign indicating a similarity with potsherds: just as in the case of potsherds no benefit ensues from them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As nothing could grow in them properly. ');">¹⁰</span> so also the fruit of <i>'orlah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., during the first three years when the fruits are totally forbidden in accordance with Lev. XIX, 23. ');">⁹</span>

אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל בד"א בשביעית דהפקר נינהו

could not be enjoyed for any use whatever. 'A field of graves used to be marked with lime', the sign having the colour of white, like corpses. 'The lime was dissolved in water and then poured out' so as to make its colour more white. 'R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: These practices were recommended only for the Sabbatical year,' when the fruits on the trees were ownerless;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XXV, 6-7. ');">¹¹</span> 'for in the case of the other years of the Septennate,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the fruits were not ownerless. ');">¹²</span>

אבל בשאר שני שבוע הלעיטהו לרשע וימות

you may let the wicked stuff themselves with it till they die.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it was wrong for passers-by to misappropriate the fruits, they need not be warned by all these signs to abstain from using them in the forbidden manner. [This last passage occurs only in the Jerusalem version of the Mishnah, not in the Babylonian.] ');">¹³</span> The virtuous however used to set aside money and to declare that whatever has been gleaned from this [vineyard] shall be redeemed by this money.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 396, n. 8. ');">¹⁴</span>

והצנועין מניחין את המעות ואומרים כל הנלקט מזה מחולל על המעות הללו

Does not this contradict R. Johanan? Nor can you urge in reply that the Tanna who recorded the practice of the virtuous was R. Simeon b. Gamaliel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who made the immediately preceding statement. ');">¹⁵</span> [and R. Johanan might therefore not have concurred with this anonymous view stated by a single Tanna] for did not Rabbah b. Bar Hanah say<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.M. 38b. ');">¹⁶</span>

וכי תימא מאן תנא צנועין רשב"ג (ורבי יוחנן כסתם יחידאה לא אמר)

that R. Johanan stated that whenever R. Simeon expressed a view in a Mishnah the <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with him, with the exception of his view regarding 'Suretyship'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In B.B. 174a. ');">¹⁷</span> 'Sidon'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Git. 77a. ');">¹⁸</span>

והאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן כל מקום ששנה רשב"ג במשנתנו הלכה כמותו חוץ מערב וצידן וראיה אחרונה

and the 'last [case dealing with] evidence'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Sanh. 31a. ');">¹⁹</span> — I may reply that you should not read,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the words of the 'virtuous'. ');">²⁰</span>

אמרי לא תימא כל הנלקט מזה אלא אימא כל המתלקט מזה

'whatever has been gleaned'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the past. ');">²¹</span> but read 'whatever will be gleaned'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the future, so that the redemption will take effect retrospectively from the moment this statement was made, when the gleanings were still in the possession of the owner. ');">²²</span>

ומי א"ר יוחנן הכי והא"ר יוחנן צנועין ורבי דוסא אמרו דבר אחד ורבי דוסא נלקט קאמר

from this [vineyard]. But could R. Johanan have said this: Did not R. Johanan say that the virtuous and R. Dosa said the same thing, and, as we know, R. Dosa definitely stated 'whatever has been gleaned'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the past. ');">²¹</span> For was it not taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Pe'ah II, 4. ');">²³</span>

דתניא רבי יהודה אומר שחרית בעל הבית עומד ואומר כל שילקטו עניים היום יהא הפקר

R. Judah says: In the morning the owner of the field should get up and say 'whatever the poor shall glean during the day should be considered ownerless<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As each two ears falling together may be gleaned by the poor who need not tithe them, but not so is the case regarding three ears falling together. Not all the poor, however, know this distinction. It is therefore meritorious on the part of the owner to abandon those which are gleaned by the poor unlawfully. ');">²⁴</span> [from the present moment]'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., retrospectively. ');">²⁵</span>

רבי דוסא אומר לעיתותי ערב אומר כל שלקטו עניים יהא הפקר

whereas R. Dosa says: It is at eveningtide that he should say, 'Whatever the poor have gleaned shall be ownerless'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [From this it follows that the declaration of the virtuous was likewise related to the past.] ');">²⁶</span> — I must transpose the view of R. Judah to R. Dosa<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that it was R. Dosa who said 'whatever the poor shall glean.' ');">²⁷</span>

איפוך דר' יהודה לר' דוסא ורבי דוסא לרבי יהודה אמאי אפכת מתניתא אפכה לרבי יוחנן ואימא צנועין ורבי יהודה אמרו דבר אחד

and the view of R. Dosa to R. Judah. But why transpose this teaching, and not transpose instead<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of 'the virtuous and R. Dosa.' ');">²⁸</span> the statement of R. Johanan, assigning to 'the virtuous and to R. Judah the same thing'? — It may, however, be said that it was impossible not to transpose this teaching,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where R. Judah and R. Dosa differ. ');">²⁹</span>

אמרי לא סגיא דלא מתהפכת מתניתא דבהא מתניתין קתני דאית ליה לרבי יהודה ברירה ושמעינן ליה לרבי יהודה בעלמא דלית ליה ברירה דתנן

since in this teaching<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where R. Judah and R. Dosa differ. ');">²⁹</span> it is stated that R. Judah upholds <i>bererah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Retrospective designation of that which was abandoned at a time when it was not defined; cf. also supra 51b. ');">³⁰</span> and we find R. Judah holding in other places that there is not <i>bererah</i> as we have learnt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Dem. VIII, 5. ');">³¹</span>