## Bava Metzia Daf 11b

###### Bava Metzia 11b:1
[Bava Metzia 11b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/11b:1)

וּמְקוֹמוֹ מוּשְׂכָּר לוֹ. וְעִישּׂוּר אַחֵר שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לָמוֹד, נָתוּן לַעֲקִיבָא בֶּן יוֹסֵף, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּזְכֶּה בּוֹ לַעֲנִיִּים, וּמְקוֹמוֹ מוּשְׂכָּר לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and the place of** the tithe **is rented to him.** Rabbi Yehoshua paid him a token sum to rent the field, which presumably became the equivalent of his courtyard, and thereby acquired the tithe. **And another one-tenth that I will measure out in the future** and separate from my produce as the poor man’s tithe **is given to Akiva ben Yosef so that he will acquire it for the poor, and its place is rented to him.**


###### Bava Metzia 11b:2
[Bava Metzia 11b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/11b:2)

וְכִי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בְּצַד שָׂדֵהוּ שֶׁל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הָיוּ עוֹמְדִין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Abba continued: **But were Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva standing next to Rabban Gamliel’s field** then? All of them were on the ship. Apparently, one’s courtyard effects acquisition for him even when he is not standing next to it.


###### Bava Metzia 11b:3
[Bava Metzia 11b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/11b:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דָּמֵי הַאי מֵרַבָּנַן כִּדְלָא גָּמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי שְׁמַעְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Ulla **said to him: This one of the Sages seems like one who has not studied *halakha*.** Ulla dismissed the question entirely, as he deemed it unworthy of consideration.


###### Bava Metzia 11b:4
[Bava Metzia 11b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/11b:4)

כִּי אֲתָא לְסוּרָא אֲמַר לְהוּ: הָכִי אָמַר עוּלָּא וְהָכִי אוֹתְבִיתֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן: רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מִטַּלְטְלֵי אַגַּב מְקַרְקְעֵי הִקְנָה לָהֶם. רַבִּי זֵירָא קַבְּלַהּ, רַבִּי אַבָּא לָא קַבְּלַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When** Rabbi Abba **came to Sura,** he related the discussion to the local scholars, **saying to them: This is what Ulla said, and this is how I challenged him. One of the Sages said to him: Rabban Gamliel transferred ownership of** the **movable property,** the tithes, **to** them **by means of** renting them the **land.** The transaction concerning the tithes was effected not by causing the location of the produce to become the equivalent of a courtyard belonging to Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva, but rather by employing the principle that movable property can be acquired together with the acquisition of land. The Gemara comments: **Rabbi Zeira accepted** this response to Rabbi Abba’s objection, but **Rabbi Abba did not accept it.**


###### Bava Metzia 11b:5
[Bava Metzia 11b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/11b:5)

אָמַר רָבָא: שַׁפִּיר עֲבַיד דְּלָא קַבְּלַהּ, וְכִי לֹא הָיָה לָהֶם סוּדָר לִקְנוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ בַּחֲלִיפִין? אֶלָּא טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה אֵינָהּ מָמוֹן לִקְנוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ בַּחֲלִיפִין. הָכָא נָמֵי טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה אֵינָהּ מָמוֹן לִקְנוֹת עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** Rabbi Abba **did well by not accepting** this response, because if Rabban Gamliel had intended to transfer his ownership of the tithes to Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva, **did they not have a cloth** with which **to acquire** the tithes **from him by means of** a symbolic **exchange?** They could have acquired the tithes through symbolic exchange without renting the land. **Rather,** clearly the tithes were not considered the property of Rabban Gamliel, as he owned only **the benefit of discretion,** i.e., the benefit accrued from the option of giving the tithes to whichever Levite or poor person that he chose, and such benefit **is not** considered **property that can be acquired by means of** a symbolic **exchange. Here, too,** the transaction was clearly effected by means of a courtyard, as **benefit of discretion is not property that can be acquired by means of** acquiring **land.** Therefore, Rabbi Abba’s explanation must be correct, and one’s courtyard effects acquisition for him even when he is not standing next to it.


###### Bava Metzia 11b:6
[Bava Metzia 11b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/11b:6)

וְלָא הִיא, מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה נְתִינָה כְּתִיבָא בְּהוּ. חֲלִיפִין, דֶּרֶךְ מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר הוּא. מִטַּלְטְלִין אַגַּב מִקַּרְקַע, נְתִינָה אַלִּימְתָּא הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects Rava’s reasoning: **But** that **is not so. With regard to gifts** to which members **of the priesthood** are entitled, and similarly with regard to tithes that are given to Levites and to the poor, the concept of **giving is written** in the Torah: “And have given it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the fatherless, and to the widow” (Deuteronomy 26:12). These gifts must be given and not sold or bartered. Therefore, since **exchange is a form of buying and selling,** it is an inappropriate mode of acquisition with regard to tithes. By contrast, transferring ownership of **movable property by means of** transferring ownership of **land is a powerful** form of **giving.** Consequently, Rabban Gamliel could not give them the tithes by means of a symbolic exchange using a cloth, but instead had to give it to them along with land. Therefore, since the transaction was not effected by means of a courtyard, it poses no difficulty to Ulla’s opinion.


###### Bava Metzia 11b:7
[Bava Metzia 11b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/11b:7)

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: דַּעַת אַחֶרֶת מַקְנָה אוֹתָן שָׁאנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said:** Even if Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva acquired the tithes by means of a courtyard, this poses no difficulty to Ulla’s opinion. Since the tithes were not ownerless items, but rather **another mind,** i.e., Rabban Gamliel, **transferred their ownership** to Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva, it **is different,** and the recipients did not need to stand next to the courtyard.


###### Bava Metzia 11b:8
[Bava Metzia 11b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/11b:8)

וּמְנָא תֵּימְרַאּ – דִּתְנַן: רָאָה אוֹתָן רָצִין אַחַר הַמְּצִיאָה כּוּ׳, וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וְהוּא שֶׁרָץ אַחֲרֵיהֶן וּמַגִּיעָן. וּבָעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, בְּמַתָּנָה הֵיאַךְ? קַבְּלַהּ מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כָּהֲנָא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרָץ אַחֲרֵיהֶן וְאֵין מַגִּיעָן. מַאי טַעְמָא – לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּדַעַת אַחֶרֶת מַקְנָה אוֹתָן שָׁאנֵי?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And from where do you state** this distinction? **As we learned** in the mishna: If one **saw** people **running after a found** ownerless animal, and said: My field has effected acquisition of this animal for me, it has effected acquisition of it for him. **And Rabbi Yirmeya says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that this *halakha* **is** true only in a case **where he** would be able to **run after them and catch them. And Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: Does** one acquire animals that are given to him **as a gift** in such a scenario? **Rabbi Abba bar Kahana accepted** the premise of the dilemma **of** Rabbi Yirmeya, and ruled that in the case of a gift one acquires the animals **even if he** would **not** be able to **run after them and catch them. What is the reason** for this distinction? Is it **not because** when **another mind transfers their ownership,** the *halakha* **is different,** in that the courtyard effects acquisition of the items with fewer limitations? This supports Rav Pappa’s explanation.


###### Bava Metzia 11b:9
[Bava Metzia 11b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/11b:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שִׁימִי לְרַב פָּפָּא: הֲרֵי גֵּט, דְּדַעַת אַחֶרֶת – מַקְנָה אוֹתָהּ, וְאָמַר עוּלָּא: וְהוּא שֶׁעוֹמֶדֶת בְּצַד בֵּיתָהּ אוֹ בְּצַד חֲצֵרָהּ. שָׁאנֵי גֵּט דְּאִיתֵיהּ בְּעַל כׇּרְחָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Shimi said to Rav Pappa: But** what about the case of **a bill of divorce, where another mind,** the husband, **transfers its ownership** to the wife, **and** nevertheless **Ulla says** with regard to one who threw a bill of divorce into his wife’s house or courtyard: **But it is** a valid divorce only if **she is standing next to her house or next to her courtyard?** Rav Pappa responded: **A bill of divorce is different, as it is** possible to give it to one’s wife even **against her will.**


###### Bava Metzia 11b:10
[Bava Metzia 11b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/11b:10)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: וְלָאו קַל וָחוֹמֶר הוּא – וּמָה גֵּט דְּאִיתֵיהּ בְּעַל כׇּרְחָהּ, אִי עוֹמֶדֶת בְּצַד בֵּיתָהּ וּבְצַד חֲצֵרָהּ – אִין, אִי לָא – לָא. מַתָּנָה דְּמִדַּעְתֵּיהּ לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, objects to this** response: **But is it not an *a fortiori*** inference? **If** in the case of **a bill of divorce, which is** valid even if it is given to the wife **against her will,** nevertheless **if she is standing next to her house or next to her courtyard** she **does** acquire the bill of divorce, and **if not** she does **not** acquire it, then in the case of **a gift, which** one can receive only **willingly,** is it **not all the more so** correct that the recipient must be next to his courtyard for the transaction to take effect?


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

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Ashi said** that the distinction between the cases of a gift and a bill of divorce should be explained as follows: