Meilah 22a — the Talmud in English

Rav Pappa said: He threw bags of logim at him,

Reish Lakish challenged Rabbi Yohanan with a contradiction between our Mishna and the Mishna of “logim.”

Reish Lakish held that the reason Rabbi Akiva concedes in the latter clause is because he holds, “There is retroactive designation,” that is, with regard to every pruta that he withdraws until the last one, it may now be said: it has become clear that this one does not belong to the consecrated property,

And he brings a contradiction from the baraita of “logim.”

For it was taught:

One who purchases

a barrel

of wine

of one hundred logim,

from the Cutheans,

on the eve of Shabbat at twilight, and he has no time to separate terumot and tithes before the onset of Shabbat, and he has nothing to drink except this wine, which is certainly tevel—what shall he do?

He says: The two logim that I am destined to separate

at the conclusion of Shabbat,

be teruma gedola

inside the barrel.

Ten

logim that I am destined to separate

be the first tithe.

Nine

logim—let them be

the second tithe! And he may begin,

and he redeems the second tithe upon coins that he has in his house, for whatever he can rectify now, he rectifies; and the second tithe is redeemed by declaration [without an action].

And

when he has done so,

he drinks,

he is permitted to drink it,

immediately.

These are

the words of Rabbi Meir,

who holds, “There is retroactive designation”; and with regard to the wine that he drinks on Shabbat, it may be said that it is neither teruma nor the first tithe. And from what remains he will separate teruma and the tithe at the conclusion of Shabbat, and “it has become clear retroactively” that this is the teruma and the tithe, while with regard to what he drank on Shabbat, “it has become clear” that it was from the non-sacred produce.

Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Shimon prohibit

doing so, because they hold, “There is no retroactive designation.”

And now Reish Lakish challenges: Even according to Rabbi Meir, who holds that there is retroactive designation, this applies specifically when he specifies his designation and says, “I am destined to separate,” whereas when he makes an unspecified statement, without specifying, even Rabbi Meir concedes that it is not applicable to say “retroactive designation,”

whereas in our Mishna Rabbi Akiva says that even when he makes an unspecified statement and did not specify, “The pruta that I am destined to separate,” it is likewise permitted to withdraw each pruta one by one until the last one, on account of “retroactive designation”?

He said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan:

The latter clause

is speaking

of one who says, “This purse will not be released from the consecrated property,”

and therefore it is like one who specifies his designation. Just as with regard to the logim he says, “I am destined to separate,” and it is effective on account of “there is retroactive designation,” so too here it is effective on account of retroactive designation.

Another explanation: The meaning of this expression applies only to the last pruta, and there is no matter of retroactive designation here. Even if Rabbi Akiva holds that there is no retroactive designation, he concedes that only the last pruta belongs to the consecrated property.

We shall return to you, chapter “The Agent Who Performed His Agency,” and the tractate of Misuse of Consecrated Property is concluded