Bava Kamma 138

הלוקח יין מבין הכותים אומר שני לוגין שאני עתיד להפריש הרי הן תרומה עשרה מעשר ראשון ט' מעשר שני ומיחל ושותה מיד דברי ר"מ

: 'If a man buys wine from among the Cutheans<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And has thus to set aside both the priestly portion, called terumah, and the first tithe for the Levite and the second tithe to be redeemed or partaken of in Jerusalem. ');">¹</span> [and it was late on Friday towards sunset and he has no other wine for the Sabbath]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And without having the time to separate the portions to be set aside. ');">²</span>

ר' יהודה ור' יוסי ור"ש אוסרין

may say 'two logs [out of a hundred<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Logs (v. Glos.) which he bought. ');">³</span> ] which I intend to set aside are <i>terumah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the priests, (v. Glos.). ');">⁴</span>

אמרי סוף סוף אמאי קא אפכת לה למתניתין משום דקשיא דר' יהודה אדר' יהודה השתא נמי קשיא דר' יוחנן אדרבי יוחנן

ten are the first tithe<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the Levites, v. Num. XVIII, 21. ');">⁵</span> and nine the second tithe,' and these he may redeem [upon money anywhere in his possession],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Deut. XIV, 22-25. ');">⁶</span>

דאמרת לר' יוחנן לא תימא כל הנלקט אלא אימא כל המתלקט אלמא אית ליה ברירה והא רבי יוחנן לית ליה ברירה

and he may commence drinking at once. So R. Meir.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Maintaining retrospective designation, so that the wine set aside after Sabbath for the respective portions will be considered the very wine which was destined at the outset to be set aside. ');">⁷</span> But R. Judah, R. Jose and R. Simon prohibit this.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As they maintain no retrospective designation which would make the wine drunk the unconsecrated and that which remained the part originally consecrated. [This shows that R. Judah does not uphold Bererah, thus necessitating the transposition of the Baraitha in Pe'ah.] ');">⁸</span>

דאמר רב אסי א"ר יוחנן האחין שחלקו לקוחות הן ומחזירין זה לזה ביובל

To this I may rejoin: When all is said and done, why have you transposed [the views mentioned in the Baraitha]? Because R. Judah would otherwise contradict R. Judah! But would not now R. Johanan contradict R. Johanan? For you stated according to R. Johanan that we should not read 'whatever has been gleaned'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 398, n. 7. ');">⁹</span> but read 'whatever will be gleaned',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 398, n. 8. ');">¹⁰</span>

אלא לעולם כל הנלקט

thus proving that he upholds <i>bererah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 398, n. 16. ');">¹¹</span> whereas in fact R. Johanan does not uphold <i>bererah</i>. For did not R. Assi say<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bez. 37b; Git. 25a and 48a. ');">¹²</span>

ורבי יוחנן סתמא אחרינא אשכח דתנן אין הגונב אחר הגנב משלם תשלומי כפל אמאי בשלמא לגנב ראשון לא משלם (שמות כב, ו) וגונב מבית האיש ולא מבית הגנב אלא לבעלים נשלם

that R. Johanan stated that brothers dividing an inheritance are like purchasers<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the portion chosen by each brother for himself could not be considered as having thus retrospectively become the very inheritance designated for him. ');">¹³</span> [in the eye of the law], so that they will have to restore the portions to one another on the advent of the jubilee year?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Lev. XXV, 13. ');">¹⁴</span>

אלא לאו ש"מ זה לפי שאינו שלו וזה לפי שאינו ברשותו

— We must therefore still read<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the words of the 'virtuous'. ');">¹⁵</span> 'whatever has been gleaned',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 398, n. 7. ');">⁹</span>

ומאי חזית דאזיל בתר ההיא סתמא ליעביד כי האי סתמא דצנועין

and [say that] R. Johanan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [In maintaining that a consecration made by the owner even before renunciation is not valid, in opposition to the principle underlying the declaration of the 'virtuous'.] ');">¹⁶</span> found another anonymous Mishnah, as we have indeed learnt: ONE WHO STEALS [ARTICLES ALREADY STOLEN] IN THE HANDS OF A THIEF NEED NOT MAKE DOUBLE PAYMENT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 363. ');">¹⁷</span>

משום דמסייע ליה קרא (ויקרא כז, יד) ואיש כי יקדיש את ביתו קדש לה' מה ביתו ברשותו אף כל ברשותו

Why should this be? We grant you that he need not pay the first thief, [since Scripture says:] And it be stolen out of the man's house,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 6. ');">¹⁸</span> [implying] 'but not out of the house of the thief'. But why not pay the owner? We must say that this shows that the one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first thief. ');">¹⁹</span>

אמר אביי אי לאו דא"ר יוחנן צנועין ורבי דוסא אמרו דבר אחד הוה אמינא צנועין אית להו דרבי דוסא ורבי דוסא לית ליה דצנועין

is not entitled to payment because the stolen article is not his, and the other one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The owner. ');">²⁰</span> is not entitled to payment as the article is not in his possession.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This proves that the lack of possession is a defect in the very ownership, and if an article out of possession is not subject to double payment it could neither be subject to the law of consecration and alienation which are incidents of ownership. ');">²¹</span>

צנועין אית להו דרבי דוסא ומה בגנב עבדו רבנן תקנתא עניים צריכא למימר ר' דוסא לית ליה דצנועין עניים הוא דעבדו להו רבנן תקנתא אבל גנב לא עבדו ליה רבנן תקנתא

— But what induced him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. I.e., R. Johanan. ');">²²</span> to follow that anonymous Mishnah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 363. ');">¹⁷</span>

אמר רבא אי לאו דא"ר יוחנן צנועין ורבי דוסא אמרו דבר אחד הוה אמינא מאן תנא צנועין ר"מ היא

Why should he not act in accordance with the anonymous Mishnah dealing with the virtuous?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 396, n. 8. ');">²³</span> — Because he was supported by the verse: And when the man shall sanctify his house to be holy unto the Lord,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XXII, 14. ');">²⁴</span>

לאו אמר ר"מ מעשר ממון גבוה הוא ואפילו הכי לענין פדייה אוקמיה רחמנא ברשותיה דכתיב (ויקרא כז, לא) ואם גאל יגאל איש ממעשרו חמשיתו יוסף עליו

just as his house is in his possession,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 395, n. 8. ');">²⁵</span> so anything also which is in his possession can be sanctified.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Excluding thus an owner consecrating movables out of his possession; and because of this Scriptural authority R. Johanan deviated from the view of the 'virtuous'. ');">²⁶</span>

קרייה רחמנא מעשרו ומוסיף חומש

Abaye said: If R. Johanan had not stated that the virtuous<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dealing with the vineyard in the fourth year misappropriated by passers by. ');">²⁷</span> and R. Dosa<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dealing with the gleaning of the poor. ');">²⁸</span>

כרם רבעי נמי גמר קדש קדש ממעשר כתיב הכא (ויקרא יט, כד) קדש הלולים וכתיב גבי מעשר (ויקרא כז, ל) וכל מעשר הארץ מזרע הארץ מפרי העץ לה' הוא קדש

said the same thing,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 398. ');">²⁹</span> I might have said that while the virtuous accepted the view of R. Dosa, R. Dosa did not uphold the practice of the virtuous. The virtuous accepted the view of R. Dosa; for if the Rabbis made things easier for a thief,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To safeguard him from partaking of forbidden fruits. ');">³⁰</span>

מה קדש דכתיב גבי מעשר אע"ג דממון גבוה הוא לענין פדייה אוקמיה רחמנא ברשותיה אף האי קדש נמי דכתיב גבי כרם רבעי אע"ג דלאו ממון דידיה הוא לענין אחולי אוקמיה רחמנא ברשותיה

need we say they did so for the poor?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who are not out to commit theft and should consequently the more so be safeguarded from partaking of produce that has not been tithed. ');">³¹</span> But R. Dosa did not uphold the practice of the virtuous: for it was only for the poor<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who are not out to commit theft and should consequently the more so be safeguarded from partaking of produce that has not been tithed. ');">³¹</span>

דהא כי איתיה ברשותיה נמי הא לאו דידיה הוא והא מצי מחיל משום הכי מצי מחיל

that the Rabbis made things easier, whereas for the thief they did not make things easier.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To safeguard him from partaking of forbidden fruits. ');">³⁰</span> Raba said: Had R. Johanan not stated that the virtuous and R. Dosa said the same thing, I should have said that the Tanna followed by the virtuous was R. Meir. For did not R. Meir say<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kid. 24a. ');">³²</span>

אבל גבי לקט כיון דממונא דידיה כי איתיה ברשותיה הוא דמצי מפקר ליה כי ליתיה ברשותיה לא מצי מפקר ליה

that the [second] tithe<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be partaken of in Jerusalem, cf. Deut. XIV, 22-26. ');">³³</span> is Divine property,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the original owner is but an invitee without possessing any legal ownership. ');">³⁴</span>

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