Bava Kamma 69b — the Talmud in English

One who purchases wine from the Samaritans

and must separate terumot and tithes from it, but has no time to separate them, except merely to designate them by name, he

says:

Two log [

from among the hundred log of wine]

that I am destined to separate

at the end,

they are teruma

from now! For this is the measure of teruma of an average eye: one-fiftieth.

And

ten

log [ from among the hundred log] that I am destined to separate, they are

first tithe!

And

nine

log out of the ninety log of untithed produce that remained in the wine, they are

second tithe!

And he may profane [

profane] the second tithe upon coins that he has in his house! For the second tithe itself is forbidden for eating outside Jerusalem; rather, he must profane it upon coins, and the coins enter in its place with the sanctity of second tithe.

And

after he has done this, he

drinks immediately

the wine, even before he has separated the teruma and the tithe, while they are still found within the wine! For it will become clear retroactively that those log which he will ultimately separate had the sanctity of teruma and tithe applied to them from the outset, and all the rest of the wine is considered properly prepared non-sacred produce.

The words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yose, and Rabbi Shimon prohibit,

because they hold: “There is no selection”!

We have therefore learned that according to Rabbi Yehuda “there is no selection,” and it is impossible for him to say with regard to gleanings, “all that they will glean,” for this law depends upon selection; and necessarily we must reverse the matter and say that Rabbi Dosa said, “all that they will glean,” whereas Rabbi Yehuda said, “all that they gleaned.”

They said

the members of the academy to raise an objection:

Ultimately, why are you reversing the beraita [

and why did you reverse the beraita],

because of the difficulty from Rabbi Yehuda against Rabbi Yehuda

regarding selection?

Now too there is a difficulty from Rabbi Yohanan against Rabbi Yohanan

regarding selection!

For

he

said to Rabbi Yohanan:

Do not say—

that the modest ones and Rabbi Dosa—

“all that is gleaned”

said,

but say—

that the modest ones and Rabbi Dosa—“

all that is being gleaned”

is what they said,

thus it follows

that necessarily

he has

Rabbi Yohanan

selection,

for the halakha follows the tanna of the modest ones, as explained above.

But Rabbi Yohanan

himself

does not have selection!?

For Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yohanan said:

Brothers who divided

their father’s inheritance: we do not say that their division clarifies that this was the division of their inheritance from the outset, that this one inherited this portion and that one inherited that portion. Rather, we say that perhaps this one’s portion came to the other one entirely or partially, and it turns out that

“they are purchasers”

from

one another,

and

therefore

they return to one another

their portions

in the Jubilee,

as is the law concerning anyone who purchases a field that returns in the Jubilee.

Rather,

because of this difficulty, the Gemara retracts from everything it has said until now, namely:

A.

In fact, the modest ones said

“

all that is gleaned,”

and not as we sought to correct their words, that they said “all that is being gleaned”; and since according to Rabbi Yohanan the halakha is that there is no selection, while, on the other hand, the halakha follows the modest ones—

it is indeed found that according to the tanna of the modest ones it is possible to profane something that is not in his possession.

B. And in fact, do not reverse Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Dosa in the beraita, and Rabbi Dosa too said “all that is gleaned”; for “the modest ones and Rabbi Dosa said one thing,” and if the modest ones necessarily did not say “all that is being gleaned,” Rabbi Dosa likewise did not say it.

And

if you raise the difficulty:

A. It is found that Rabbi Yohanan, concerning the law of “what is not in his possession,” does not follow the view of the tanna of the modest ones, who hold otherwise—this is not difficult, because

Rabbi Yohanan found another anonymous [Mishna] [

another anonymous Mishna, which says that it is impossible to consecrate something that is not in his possession], and he follows this Mishna, as he explains and proceeds. B. And if you also raise the difficulty: If we do not reverse the beraita, then there is a difficulty from Rabbi Yehuda against Rabbi Yehuda—this is not difficult, because the reason Rabbi Yehuda prohibits in the case of “two log” is not that he holds “there is no selection,” but because he is concerned lest the wineskin burst before he separates them, and it will be found that retroactively the teruma did not take effect, for the teruma takes effect upon the log that he will separate.

The anonymous Mishna that Rabbi Yohanan found, which states that it is impossible to consecrate something that is not in one’s possession, is the following,

And the anonymous Mishna that Rabbi Yohanan found, which says that it is impossible to consecrate something that is not in his possession, is that

which we learned

in our Mishna:

One who steals after a thief does not pay a double payment.

But

why!?

Granted, he does not pay the first thief,

because it is written:

“

And one who steals from the house of the man,”

and we expound: “

but not from the house of the thief.”

Rather, should the second thief pay the owners

a double payment!?

Rather, infer from this:

both with regard to the thief and with regard to the owners, this is not called “and one who steals from the house of the man”; for

this—

the thief—

because it is not his, and this—

the owners—

because it is not in his possession.

And also with regard to consecration, concerning which the Torah said, “When a man consecrates his house,” it is called “his house” only when it is his and in his possession.

And we ask:

And what did you see—

Rabbi Yohanan—

that he follows that anonymous [Mishna]; let him act according to this anonymous [teaching] of the modest ones [

why does Rabbi Yohanan follow the anonymous Mishna of our tractate and not the “anonymous Mishna” of the modest ones]!?

And we answer: Because it is supported for him

—

by the verse—

as it is stated:

“

And when a man consecrates his house as holy to Hashem,”

Abaye said:

just as his house is in his possession, so too everything that is in his possession.

Abaye said:

If it were not that he said [

if it were not that he said]

Rabbi Yohanan: The modest ones and Rabbi Dosa said one thing, I would have said [

then I would have said]:

The modest ones

indeed

have the position of Rabbi Dosa [

the tanna of the modest ones agrees with Rabbi Dosa],

and

if

Rabbi Dosa does not have the position of the modest ones [

Rabbi Dosa does not agree with the tanna of the modest ones]!

And he explains:

The modest ones have the position of Rabbi Dosa,

for

if, concerning a thief, the Rabbis enacted a remedy [

they made an enactment] to save them from prohibition, in that they take unlawfully what they take, and although they intentionally take what is not theirs,

the poor—

who act mistakenly and inadvertently—

is it necessary to say

that they make a remedy for them to save them from prohibition?

But

Rabbi Dosa

may be said not to

have the position of the modest ones, because

for

the poor—

who act inadvertently—

the Rabbis made a remedy for them, but a thief—

who acts intentionally—

the Rabbis did not make a remedy for him.

Rava said:

If

not

for Rabbi Yohanan having said: “The tzenuim and Rabbi Dosa stated one and the same matter,” I would have said

that the tzenuim do not agree with Rabbi Dosa, for he holds that a person can effect a legal status upon something that is not in his possession, since he declares it ownerless after it has been gathered; but concerning the tzenuim, one could say that even according to their position a person cannot effect a legal status upon something that is not in his possession, although according to their view it is possible to effect hillul upon something that is not in his possession; for I would have said:

Who is the tanna of

“the tzenuim”?

It is Rabbi Meir,

and according to his position, hillul of second tithe and of the fourth-year vineyard has a different law: a person can effect hillul upon something that is not in his possession!

For is it not the case that

Rabbi Meir said:

“Second tithe

second

is the property of the Most High,”

and even so, with regard to redemption

and hillul,

the Torah placed it in his possession [the Torah placed the second tithe in his possession]—

For

it

is written:

“And if a man will surely redeem from his tithe,

he shall add its fifth to it,”

the Torah called it [the Torah called the tithe, which is the property of the Most High]

“his tithe”:

“his”

of the owners,

and

therefore

he adds

it

a fifth

when he comes to redeem it; that is to say, the Torah gave him the legal status of an owner with regard to the addition of a fifth, for when the hillul is performed not by an owner, he does not add a fifth, whereas the owners add a fifth. And

the fourth-year vineyard likewise, it derived

by a gezera shava

“holy, holy”

from second tithe

with regard to hillul and the addition of a fifth.

For

it is written here in the fourth-year vineyard [Leviticus 19:24]: “And in the fourth year all its fruit shall be

holy, praises,”

and it is written concerning second tithe [Leviticus 27:30

]:

“And every tithe of the land, from the seed of the land, from the fruit of the tree, belongs to the Lord;

it is holy

to the Lord. And if a man will surely redeem from his tithe, he shall add its fifth to it.”

And we learn:

Just as

“holy”

that is written concerning the tithe, although it is the property of the Most High, with regard to redemption the Torah placed it in his possession,

so this

“holy”

that is written concerning the fourth-year vineyard, although it is not his property

but is the property of the Most High,

with regard to redeeming it [hillul]

the Torah placed it in his possession—

And since this is so, the owners can effect hillul even though the tithe is not in their possession but in the thief’s possession,

for when it is in his possession, too, it is not his

but the Torah placed it in his possession,

and he can effect hillul [redeem it],

for this reason he can effect hillul

even though it is in the thief’s hand.

But concerning gleanings,

that is, the wheat that falls together with the gleanings,

since it is his property,

therefore one can say that the tzenuim agree:

when it is in his possession, he can declare it ownerless [when the thing is in his possession, he can declare it ownerless], but

but

when it is not in his possession, he cannot declare it ownerless,

for a person cannot effect a legal status upon something that is not in his possession.

And all this is specifically if Rabbi Yohanan had not said: “The tzenuim and Rabbi Dosa stated one and the same matter.” But since Rabbi Yohanan said this, it is therefore clear that according to the tanna of the tzenuim, it is possible to act even like Rabbi Dosa; and it is proven from this that Rabbi Yohanan holds that the reason of the tzenuim is that according to their view it is not necessary that it be in his possession for every legal status to be effected, and it is not specifically with regard to hillul of second tithe.

Ravina said: If not for Rabbi Yohanan having said:

“The tzenuim and Rabbi Dosa stated one and the same matter,”

I would have said: