## Bava Kamma Daf 12b

###### Bava Kamma 12b:1
[Bava Kamma 12b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/12b:1)

הָא קַיְימָא לַן דְּלָא בָּעֵינַן צְבוּרִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Don’t **we maintain** that the *halakha* is **that we do not need** movable property **to be piled up** upon the land one acquires in order to acquire the movable property together with it?


###### Bava Kamma 12b:2
[Bava Kamma 12b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/12b:2)

אֶלָּא מַאי אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר – שָׁאנֵי מִטַּלְטְלִי דְּנָיְידִי מִמִּטַּלְטְלִי דְּלָא נָיְידִי;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, what have you to say?** Perforce, **movable property that moves around** by itself, such as slaves, **is different from movable property that does not move around** by itself, i.e., inanimate objects. The *halakha* that movable property does not need to be piled up upon the land applies only to the latter. Accordingly, in order to acquire slaves together with land, they must be standing within its borders.


###### Bava Kamma 12b:3
[Bava Kamma 12b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/12b:3)

הָכָא נָמֵי, שָׁאנֵי מְקַרְקְעֵי דְּנָיְידִי מִמְּקַרְקְעֵי דְּלָא נָיְידִי. עַבְדָּא – מְקַרְקְעֵי דְּנָיְידִי הוּא, הָתָם – סַדָּנָא דְאַרְעָא חַד הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Given this distinction, one can say that **here, also,** an entity legally classified as **land that moves around,** such as a slave, **is different from land that does not move around.** Accordingly, **a slave,** which is classified as **land that moves around,** is not included in Shmuel’s ruling, as in his ruling **there,** he refers only to acquiring multiple plots of land, which is possible only because the **crust [*sadna*] of the earth is one** block, and therefore each field is really only one part of a bigger whole. This rationale does not permit acquiring land and slaves together, as a slave is not attached to the earth and is separate from the land.


###### Bava Kamma 12b:4
[Bava Kamma 12b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/12b:4)

נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן מְעִילָה וְכוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: One is liable only with regard to damage caused to **property** for **which,** were he to use it for a non-sacred purpose, he **would not be** liable **for** the **misuse** of consecrated property.


###### Bava Kamma 12b:5
[Bava Kamma 12b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/12b:5)

מְעִילָה הוּא דְּלֵית בְּהוּ, הָא מִקְדָּשׁ – קָדְשִׁי;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers: The property in question **does not have** the prohibition of **misuse** of consecrated property, **but** it **is consecrated** property, yet one is still liable for causing damage to it.


###### Bava Kamma 12b:6
[Bava Kamma 12b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/12b:6)

מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים – וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, דְּאָמַר: מָמוֹן בְּעָלִים הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Who** is **the *tanna*** who holds like this? The Gemara answers: **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** The mishna is **referring to offerings of lesser sanctity and is in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says** that such offerings, before they are slaughtered, **are** considered **property of** their **owners,** as opposed to property of Heaven. It is only once such an offering is slaughtered that it becomes subject to the *halakhot* of misuse of consecrated property.


###### Bava Kamma 12b:7
[Bava Kamma 12b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/12b:7)

דְּתַנְיָא: ״וּמָעֲלָה מַעַל בַּה׳״ – לְרַבּוֹת קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים שֶׁהֵן מָמוֹנוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita* that concerning one who steals another’s property and takes a false oath denying he has done so, incurring the obligation to bring a guilt-offering, the verse states: **“And commits a trespass against the Lord,** and deals falsely with his neighbor” (Leviticus 5:21). The verse serves **to include** a case in which one denies having in his possession **offerings of lesser sanctity, which are property of** their owners. This is **the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.**


###### Bava Kamma 12b:8
[Bava Kamma 12b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/12b:8)

וְהָתְנַן: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּחֶלְקוֹ, בֵּין בְּקׇדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים בֵּין בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. לֵימָא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But didn’t we learn** in the mishna (*Kiddushin* 52b): In the case of a priest **who betroths** a woman **with his portion** of an offering, **whether it is from offerings of the most sacred order or from offerings of lesser sanctity, she is not betrothed? Shall we say that** this mishna is **not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili?**


###### Bava Kamma 12b:9
[Bava Kamma 12b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/12b:9)

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, כִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי – מֵחַיִּים, אֲבָל לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה – אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי מוֹדֶה, דְּכִי קָא זָכוּ – מִשֻּׁלְחַן גָּבוֹהַּ קָא זָכוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **You** can **even say** that it is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, as when Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said** that offerings of lesser sanctity are the property of their owners, that applies only **when** the animal is still **alive. But after** its **slaughter, even Rabbi Yosei HaGelili concedes** that the offering takes on a higher degree of sanctity and is now the property of Heaven. **As when they receive** their portions, they do not receive them because those portions belong to them; rather, **they receive** them **from the table of the Most High,** i.e., they have the right to partake of them, but do not own them.


###### Bava Kamma 12b:10
[Bava Kamma 12b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/12b:10)

וּמֵחַיִּים מִי אָמַר? וְהָתְנַן: בְּכוֹר, מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ תָּם – חַי (וְלֹא שָׁחוּט), וּבַעַל מוּם – חַי וְשָׁחוּט. וּמְקַדְּשִׁין בּוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But does he say** his opinion only **when** the offering is still **alive? But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Ma’aser Sheni* 1:2): With regard to the male **firstborn** of a kosher animal, which is endowed upon its birth with the sanctity of an offering of lesser sanctity, a priest **may sell it** if it is **unblemished** and **alive,** but he may not sell it once it is slaughtered, as if an unblemished firstborn animal is slaughtered it is prohibited to derive benefit from it, **and** if it is **blemished,** one can sell it both when it is **alive or** after it is **slaughtered, and one can betroth a woman with it.** This mishna assumes that even when a firstborn animal is unblemished it is considered to be the property of the priest.


###### Bava Kamma 12b:11
[Bava Kamma 12b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/12b:11)

וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּכוֹר בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה – דְּכֵיוָן דְּלָא חֲזֵי לְהַקְרָבָה, אִית לְהוּ לְכֹהֲנִים זְכִיָּיה בְּגַוֵּייהּו; אֲבָל בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים – דַּחֲזֵי לְהַקְרָבָה, לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Naḥman says** that **Rabba bar Avuh says: They taught** this **only** with regard to the status of **a firstborn** animal **in the present; since it is not fit to be sacrificed,** as there is no Temple, **the priests have ownership of it. But when the Temple is standing,** in **which** case the animal **is fit to be sacrificed, no.** When the Temple is standing a priest may slaughter and eat the firstborn only if it becomes blemished. Nowadays, since it is not possible to offer it as a sacrifice, it is certain that the animal will eventually develop a blemish and the priest will then be permitted to slaughter and eat it. Consequently, the priest is considered to have ownership of the firstborn even before it develops any blemish.


###### Bava Kamma 12b:12
[Bava Kamma 12b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/12b:12)

וְאֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: ״וּמָעֲלָה מַעַל בַּה׳״ – לְרַבּוֹת קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים שֶׁהֵן מָמוֹנוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman** from the *baraita* cited above: The verse states: “A person who sins **and commits a trespass against the Lord”** (Leviticus 5:21). The verse serves **to include** a case in which one denies having in his possession **offerings of lesser sanctity, as they are the property of** their owners; this is **the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.** Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s statement is clearly referring to a time when the Temple is standing, as it is based on a verse that continues to obligate one to bring a guilt-offering. Nevertheless, he states that offerings of lesser sanctity, of which a firstborn is an example, are considered to be the property of their owners even when they are unblemished.


###### Bava Kamma 12b:13
[Bava Kamma 12b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/12b:13)

וּמְשַׁנֵּי רָבִינָא: בִּבְכוֹר בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר: אִם בָּאוּ תְּמִימִים – יִקְרְבוּ. אִם בָּאוּ – אִין, לְכַתְּחִלָּה – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Ravina answered** that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s statement is said **with regard to a firstborn outside** of **Eretz** Yisrael, **and is in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Shimon, who says: If** firstborn animals **came** from outside of Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael and they are **unblemished, they may be sacrificed** on the altar. From Rabbi Shimon’s formulation it is apparent that **if they came,** then **yes,** they are sacrificed, but they should **not** be brought ***ab initio*.** Since the firstborn animals should not be brought to Eretz Yisrael, they are considered unfit to be sacrificed, and therefore they are considered to be the property of the priest even before they develop a blemish.


###### Bava Kamma 12b:14
[Bava Kamma 12b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/12b:14)

וְאִם אִיתָא דְּכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי מָמוֹנוֹ הוּא – מֵחַיִּים,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is apparent that Ravina understood Rav Naḥman’s qualification to be true even according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Therefore, the Gemara asks: **And if it is so that when Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said** that an offering of lesser sanctity **is the property of** its owner, that was referring only to a situation **when** they are still **alive,**