Bava Batra 79b — the Talmud in English

And if

it is as you say, that

in the field and the tree

the Sages and Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon disagreed when they consecrated them empty, then certainly also in the latter clause, when they consecrated them full, they disagree concerning the field and the tree.

If so,

why does he exchange

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon’s position?

Granted, if they disagreed concerning a cistern and a dovecote, it is possible to explain their disagreement both when they consecrated them empty and they became full, and when they consecrated them full, as will be explained below.

But if they disagreed concerning a field and a tree, it is indeed possible to explain their disagreement when they consecrated them empty and they became full, as you said: the Sages and Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon disagreed in the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei as to whether there is misuse with growths of consecrated property.

But how shall we explain their disagreement when they consecrated them full? Surely everyone agrees that one who sells the tree sells its fruit and what is the reason of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon?

Rather, said Rava,

Rava retracted his position, and said:

The

dispute

between the Sages and Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon was stated specifically

concerning a cistern and a dovecote,

as will be explained shortly.

But concerning a field and a tree,

which he consecrated empty and afterward they became full, according to

everyone,

there is misuse with them and with what is inside them,

in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, who says: There is misuse with growths of consecrated property.

And

the Gemara discusses:

concerning a cistern and a dovecote,

over which the Sages and Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon disagreed,

when they are empty, over what do they disagree?

What is the reason of Rabbi Elazar, who says that there is misuse even with what is inside them, and what is the reason of the Sages, who disagree and say that there is no misuse with what subsequently enters the cistern and dovecote?

And when they are full, over what do they disagree?

What is the reason of Rabbi Elazar, who says that his intention was not to consecrate the water and the pigeons in the dovecote, and what is the reason of the Sages, who say that his intention was also to consecrate the water and the pigeons?

a. With regard to one who transfers ownership of, or consecrates, something that has not yet come into the world, such as the fruit of a date palm that has not yet grown, the tannaim disagree.

Rabbi Meir holds: One who transfers ownership of, or consecrates, something that has not yet come into the world—his transfer of ownership is effective and his consecration is consecration. But according to the Sages, one who transfers ownership of something that has not yet come into the world does not acquire it, and even his consecration is not consecration.

b. And they did not disagree only concerning this matter; rather, they also disagreed concerning something that exists in the world but is not presently his, and he cannot now transfer ownership of it or consecrate it, and he wishes to consecrate it in the future, when it comes into his possession. This too is included in “something that has not yet come into the world,” which, according to the Sages, he cannot sell or consecrate.

Therefore, one who consecrates something that is not his so that the consecration should take effect when it comes into his possession—his consecration is not consecration at all. And it is obvious that the consecration does not take hold of the object before the object comes into his possession, for in this Rabbi Meir too agrees, since a person cannot consecrate something that is not his. Rather, even if he consecrated it now on the condition that the acquisition should take effect when the object is already in his possession, according to the Sages his words accomplish nothing, even after the object comes into his possession.

And we explain:

when they are empty, they disagree in the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis,

whether a person consecrates “something that has not yet come into the world.”

The first tanna,

who says: A cistern and a dovecote that he consecrated empty—there is no misuse with the water and pigeons that subsequently entered them,

holds in accordance with the Rabbis, who say: A person cannot transfer ownership of “something that has not yet come into the world,”

and therefore he is unable to consecrate the water and pigeons that were not in his possession at the time of the consecration.

And Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon,

who says: A cistern and a dovecote that he consecrated empty, and the cistern became filled with water and the dovecote with pigeons—there is misuse with the water and pigeons,

holds in accordance with Rabbi Meir, who says: A person can transfer ownership of “something that has not yet come into the world,”

and therefore he can consecrate the water and pigeons, even though now, at the time of the consecration, they are not his.

And we raise an objection: Even according to Rabbi Meir, a person cannot transfer ownership of something that is certainly not destined to come into the world.

You may say that you heard Rabbi Meir say,

that a person can transfer ownership of something that has not yet come into the world, only

in a case such as

one who transfers ownership of the

fruit

of a

date palm,

which is certain to come,

for it is certainly destined to come into the world.

But

these,

the water that entered the cistern and the pigeons that entered the dovecote,

who says that they will come?

Who says that they are destined to come? For if they do not bring water and pour it into the cistern, and if they do not bring pigeons to the dovecote, the cistern will not become filled with water and the dovecote will not become filled with pigeons.

And when they are not certainly destined to come into the world, even according to Rabbi Meir a person cannot acquire them, nor consecrate them. And the objection arises: What is the reason of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon, who said that if he consecrated them empty and they became full, there is misuse with what is inside them?

He said,

he answered,

Rava:

The beraita is speaking of a case in which the water is indeed destined to come into the cistern, and the pigeons are indeed destined to come into the dovecote.

And

you can find this with water coming by way of

a slope that is in

his courtyard

to

the

cistern,

cistern,

where there is a slope in the consecrator’s courtyard, and the cistern is at the end of the slope, and rainwater comes by itself into the cistern and fills it.

And

so you can find it with

pigeons coming by way of his dovecote

of the consecrator

to

the

the dovecote

that is empty and that he consecrated: when new pigeons are born in the consecrator’s dovecote, they will pass into the empty dovecote that stands nearby.

And

the Gemara discusses:

with regard to

one who consecrates a cistern and dovecote

full, over what do they disagree,

the Sages and Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon?

He said,

he explained,

Rava: For example, he consecrated a cistern

full, but he did not say, “I consecrate this cistern together with its water”; rather, he consecrated it

without qualification,

saying: “Behold, this cistern is consecrated.”

At the end of the chapter, “One who sells the house” [71a], we learned: One who consecrates the field consecrates all of it, even what is not included in the sale of a field, since the consecrator’s intention is to consecrate generously.

Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says: One who consecrates the field did not consecrate within it except those things that a seller sells, except for a grafted carob tree and a sycamore stump, whose law concerning one who consecrates differs from their law concerning one who sells, as the reason is explained in the Gemara there.

And Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon holds like his father,

like his father, Rabbi Shimon,

who says that the law concerning the Most High is derived from the law concerning an ordinary person,

namely, whatever, without qualification, the seller does not intend to sell to an ordinary buyer, he likewise does not intend to consecrate to the Most High.

Therefore, Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon said that the law of one who consecrates a cistern full of water, without qualification, is equal to the law of one who sells without qualification.

Just as

in

the law concerning an ordinary person, he can say,

the seller to the buyer:

“I sold you the cistern; I did not sell you the water,”

so too

in

the law concerning the Most High,

we say:

“I consecrated the cistern,

but

I did not consecrate the water.”

And the first tanna, who says that when he consecrated a cistern and dovecote full, there is misuse with them and with what is inside them, holds that the law concerning the Most High is not derived from the law concerning an ordinary person.

Therefore, although one who sells a cistern full of water does not, without qualification, sell the water, because he sells ungenerously, nevertheless one who consecrates a cistern full of water consecrates, without qualification, also its water, because he consecrates generously.

And we raise an objection:

And

is it really the case that in

the law concerning an ordinary person he did not

sell, without qualification, also its water?

But

did we

not learn

in the Mishna:

“One who sold a cistern”—

“sold its water,”

and if in the law concerning an ordinary person the water is sold, all the more so in the law concerning the Most High. And what is the reason of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon?

He said,

he answered,

Rava:

Indeed, in our Mishna we learned: “One who sold a cistern—sold its water.” But this law is not agreed upon by everyone; on the contrary,

the Mishna

is the view of

an individual,

and the Rabbis disagree with it.

For

it

was taught

in a beraita:

one who sold a cistern did not sell

implicitly its

water.

Rabbi Natan says: one who sold a cistern sold

the

water.

And Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon holds: One who sells a cistern full [of water] to an ordinary person did not sell, implicitly, its water, in accordance with the words of the Sages in the beraita; and likewise, one who dedicates did not dedicate its water, since they adjudicate the law of the Most High according to the law of an ordinary person.