Bava Kamma 69b (סט:) — 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

of the hundred log of wine

that I am destined to separate

from it eventually,

are teruma

from now, since this is the measure of teruma for an average eye: one-fiftieth.

And

ten

log of the hundred log that I am destined to separate are

the first tithe!

And

nine

log out of the ninety log of untithed wine that remain in the wine are

the second tithe!

And he begins to use it

[he redeems] the second tithe upon coins that he has in his house, since the second tithe itself may not be eaten outside Jerusalem. Rather, it must be redeemed upon coins, and the coins assume its sanctity as second tithe.

And

after doing this,

he drinks the wine immediately

even before separating the teruma and the tithe, while they are still present within the wine, because the matter will be clarified retroactively: those log that he will ultimately separate were initially imbued with the sanctity of teruma and tithe, and all the rest of the wine is considered ordinary, properly tithed produce.

These are the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Shimon prohibit it,

because they maintain: “There is no retroactive clarification!”

We have thus learned that according to Rabbi Yehuda there is no retroactive clarification, and it is impossible for him to say regarding leket, “Whatever they will gather,” since that ruling depends upon retroactive clarification. Necessarily, we must reverse the statements and say that Rabbi Dosa said, “Whatever they will gather,” whereas Rabbi Yehuda said, “Whatever they gathered.”

The members of the academy said

to challenge this:

Ultimately, why did you reverse the beraita

[and why did you reverse the beraita],

because of the difficulty posed by one statement of Rabbi Yehuda against another statement of Rabbi Yehuda

with regard to retroactive clarification?

Now too, there is a difficulty posed by one statement of Rabbi Yohanan against another statement of Rabbi Yohanan

with regard to retroactive clarification!

For

you

said regarding Rabbi Yohanan:

Do not say—

that the discreet ones and Rabbi Dosa

said, “Whatever is gathered”

;

rather, say—

that the discreet ones and Rabbi Dosa

said, “Whatever is being gathered”

;

thus it is evident

that necessarily

Rabbi Yohanan holds

that Rabbi Yohanan has

the principle of retroactive clarification,

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

But Rabbi Yohanan

himself

does not hold that there is retroactive clarification!?

For Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yohanan said:

When brothers divide

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 brother inherited this portion and that brother inherited that portion. Rather, we say that perhaps this brother’s portion came to him entirely or in part from the other brother, and it follows that they are

purchasers

from

each other,

and

therefore

they return to one another

their portions

during the Jubilee,

as is the law with anyone who purchases a field that returns during the Jubilee.

Rather,

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

a.

In fact,

the discreet ones said

“Whatever is gathered,”

and not as we sought to amend their words, saying that they said, “Whatever is being gathered.” Since, according to Rabbi Yohanan, the halakha is that there is no retroactive clarification, while, on the other hand, the halakha follows the discreet ones—

it indeed follows that according to the tanna of the discreet ones it is possible to redeem an object that is not in one’s possession.

b. And in fact, do not reverse the beraita by attributing Rabbi Yehuda’s statement to Rabbi Dosa and Rabbi Dosa’s statement to Rabbi Yehuda; Rabbi Dosa too said, “Whatever is gathered.” This is because “the discreet ones and Rabbi Dosa stated the same position,” and if the discreet ones necessarily did not say, “Whatever is being gathered,” Rabbi Dosa likewise did not say so.

And

if you ask:

a. But it follows that Rabbi Yohanan, with regard to the law concerning an object that is not in one’s possession, does not agree with the tanna of the discreet ones, who maintain otherwise. This is not difficult, because

Rabbi Yohanan found another unattributed Mishna

[another unattributed Mishna], which states that it is impossible to consecrate an object that is not in one’s possession. He follows that Mishna, as the Gemara proceeds to explain. b. And if you also ask: If we do not reverse the beraita, then there is a difficulty posed by one statement of Rabbi Yehuda against another statement of Rabbi Yehuda. This too is not difficult, because Rabbi Yehuda’s reason for prohibiting the case of the “two log” is not that he holds there is no retroactive clarification. Rather, he is concerned that the wineskin might burst before he separates the tithes, with the result that the teruma would not take effect retroactively, since the teruma takes effect upon the log that he will separate.

And the unattributed Mishna that Rabbi Yohanan found, which states that it is impossible to consecrate an object that is not in one’s possession, is the one

that we learned

in our Mishna:

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

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 he steals from the house of the man,”

and we expound:

“But not from the house of the thief.”

but not from the house of the thief.”

Rather, should the second thief pay the owners

double payment!?

Rather, conclude from this:

with regard both to the thief and to the owners, this is not called “and he steals from the house of the man,” because

this one—

the thief—

because it is not his, and this one—

the owners—

because it is not in his possession.

And with regard to consecration as well, concerning which the Torah says, “When a man consecrates his house,” only what is his and in his possession is called “his house.”

And we challenge this:

What did you see—

Rabbi Yohanan—

that he follows that unattributed Mishna? Let him follow the unattributed Mishna of the discreet ones

[why does Rabbi Yohanan follow the unattributed Mishna of our tractate rather than the “unattributed Mishna” of the discreet ones]!?

And we answer:

Because a verse supports him—

the verse—

as it is stated:

“When a man consecrates his house as holy to the Lord,”

just as his house is in his possession,

Abaye said:

so too, everything must be in his possession.

Abaye said:

Had he not said

[had Rabbi Yohanan not said]

“The discreet ones and Rabbi Dosa stated the same position,” I would have said

[I would then have said]:

The discreet ones

indeed

agree with Rabbi Dosa

[the tanna of the discreet ones agrees with Rabbi Dosa],

and

if

Rabbi Dosa does not agree with the discreet ones

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

And he explains:

The discreet ones agree with Rabbi Dosa,

for

with regard to a thief the Sages instituted a corrective measure

[the Sages instituted a corrective measure] to save them from violating a prohibition through taking what they were not entitled to take, even though they deliberately take what is not theirs;

the poor—

who act mistakenly and inadvertently—

is it necessary to say

that they instituted a corrective measure for them to save them from the prohibition?

But

Rabbi Dosa

could be understood as

not agreeing with the discreet ones,

because

with regard to the poor—

who act inadvertently—

the Sages instituted a corrective measure for them, but with regard to a thief

—who acts deliberately—

the Sages did not institute a corrective measure for him.

Rava said:

If

not

for the fact that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The Tzenu'in and Rabbi Dosa stated the same matter, I would have said

that the Tzenu'in do not agree with Rabbi Dosa, who holds that a person can effect a legal status upon an item that is not in his possession, since he renders it ownerless after it has been gathered. But with regard to the view of the Tzenu'in, one could say that even according to their opinion a person cannot effect a legal status upon an item that is not in his possession, although according to their opinion it is possible to effect a ḥillul upon an item that is not in his possession. For I would have said:

Who is the tanna of

“the Tzenu'in”?

It is Rabbi Meir,

and according to his view, the law of the ḥillul of ma'aser sheni and kerem reva'i is different: A person can redeem an item that is not in his possession!

For

did Rabbi Meir not say:

“Second tithe

?

It is property belonging to Heaven,”

and nevertheless, with regard to redemption

and ḥillul,

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

For

after all,

it is written:

“And if a man redeems any of his tithe,

he shall add its fifth to it,”

the Merciful One called it [the Torah called the tithe, which is property belonging to Heaven]

“his tithe,”

“his”

of the owners,

and

therefore

he adds

it

a fifth

when he comes to redeem it; that is, the Torah gave him the status of an owner with regard to the addition of a fifth, because when the redemption is performed by someone other than the owner, he does not add a fifth, whereas the owner adds a fifth. And

with regard to kerem reva'i as well, he derives

by means of a gezeira shava

“holy, holy”

from second tithe

with regard to redemption and the addition of a fifth.

For

it is written here, with regard to kerem reva'i [Leviticus 19:24]: “And in the fourth year all its fruit shall be

holy, for praises,”

and it is written with regard to second tithe

[Leviticus 27:30]: “And every tithe of the land, of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord’s;

it is holy

to the Lord. And if a man redeems any of his tithe, he shall add its fifth to it

.”

And we learn:

Just as

“holy,”

which is written with regard to tithe—even though it is property belonging to Heaven—the Merciful One placed in his possession with regard to redemption,

so too this

“holy,”

which is written with regard to kerem reva'i—even though it is not his property

but rather property belonging to Heaven—

with regard to redeeming it [redemption]

the Merciful One placed it in his possession—

And since this is so, the owners can redeem it even though the tithe is not in their possession but in the possession of the thief,

for when it is in his possession as well, it is not his property

but the Torah placed it in his possession,

and he can redeem it [perform ḥillul],

for this reason he can redeem it

even though it is in the thief’s possession.

But with regard to gleanings,

[i.e., the kernels that fall together with the gleanings],

since they are his property,

therefore the Tzenu'in can be understood as agreeing:

When it is in his possession, he can render it ownerless [when the item is in his possession, he can render it ownerless], but

but

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

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

All this is so only if Rabbi Yoḥanan had not said: “The Tzenu'in and Rabbi Dosa stated the same matter.” But since Rabbi Yoḥanan did say this, it is clear that according to the tanna of the Tzenu'in, it is possible to act even in accordance with Rabbi Dosa. It follows that Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that, according to the reasoning of the Tzenu'in, it is not necessary that an item be in one’s possession for every legal act to take effect, and that their view applies not only with regard to the ḥillul of second tithe.

Ravina said: If not for the fact that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

“The Tzenu'in and Rabbi Dosa stated the same matter,”

I would have said: