Bava Metzia — Daf 11b

ומקומו מושכר לו ועישור אחר שאני עתיד למוד נתון לעקיבא בן יוסף כדי שיזכה בו לעניים ומקומו מושכר לו

וכי רבי יהושע ורבי עקיבא בצד שדהו של רבן גמליאל היו עומדין

אמר ליה דמי האי מרבנן כדלא גמרי אינשי שמעתא

כי אתא לסורא אמר להו הכי אמר עולא והכי אותביתיה אמר ליה ההוא מרבנן רבן גמליאל מטלטלי אגב מקרקעי הקנה להם רבי זירא קבלה רבי אבא לא קבלה

אמר רבא שפיר עביד דלא קבלה וכי לא היה להם סודר לקנות ממנו בחליפין אלא טובת הנאה אינה ממון לקנות ממנו בחליפין הכא נמי טובת הנאה אינה ממון לקנות על גבי קרקע

ולא היא מתנות כהונה נתינה כתיבא בהו חליפין דרך מקח וממכר הוא מטלטלין אגב מקרקע נתינה אלימתא היא

רב פפא אמר דעת אחרת מקנה אותן שאני

ומנא תימרא דתנן ראה אותן רצין אחר המציאה כו' ואמר רבי ירמיה אמר רבי יוחנן והוא שרץ אחריהן ומגיען ובעי רבי ירמיה במתנה היאך קבלה מיניה רבי אבא בר כהנא אע"פ שרץ אחריהן ואין מגיען מאי טעמא לאו משום דדעת אחרת מקנה אותן שאני

אמר ליה רב שימי לרב פפא הרי גט דדעת אחרת מקנה אותה ואמר עולא והוא שעומדת בצד ביתה או בצד חצרה שאני גט דאיתיה בעל כרחה

מתקיף לה רב ששת בריה דרב אידי ולאו קל וחומר הוא ומה גט דאיתיה בעל כרחה אי עומדת בצד ביתה ובצד חצרה אין אי לא לא מתנה דמדעתיה לא כל שכן

אלא אמר רב אשי

and the place [where it lies] is leased to him [by me].  And the other tithe  which I shall measure off is given [by me] to Akiba b. Joseph  that he may acquire possession of it for the poor, and the place [where it lies] is leased to him [by me].  Now, were R. Joshua and R. Akiba standing by the side of the field of Rabban Gamaliel [when the latter made that declaration]?  — He ['Ulla] then said to him [R. Abba]: This student seems to imagine that people do not study the law.  When he [R. Abba] came to Sura  he related to those [at the College]: This is what 'Ulla said, and this is the objection that I placed before him. One of the Rabbis then answered him: Rabban Gamaliel made them acquire the movable property through the immovable property.  R. Zera accepted it. R. Abba did not accept it. Said Raba: He [R. Abba] did right in not accepting it: for had they not a 'cloth' by which to acquire from him [the tithes] as 'exchange'?  [It must] therefore [be said that] the enjoyment of the right [to give the tithes to whom one likes]  is not [regarded as something that has a] money [value] by which one could acquire [goods] as 'exchange'. In the same way [it must be said that] the enjoyment of this right is not [regarded as something that has a] money [value] for the purpose of being acquired through immovable property.  But this is not so: In regard to the priestly perquisites  [the term] 'giving' is used in Scripture:  'Exchange' is a commercial transaction; [whereas the acquisition of] movable property through immovable property is [a transaction to which] 'giving' [may be] legitimately [applied].  R. Papa says:  [In a case where there is] a person bestowing [upon the recipient] the right [to the property] it is different.  And whence do you derive this? From what we have learned [in our Mishnah]: 'IF A MAN SEES PEOPLE RUNNING AFTER A LOST OBJECT' etc. And [in regard to this] R. Jeremiah said in the name of R. Johanan: 'This is, provided that [if] he runs after them and can overtake them.'  R. Jeremiah then asked: What is the law regarding a gift?  R. Abba b. Kahana approved [of the distinction implied in] this question, [and he answered: If the objects are given to the owner of the field, they become his] even if he runs after them, and cannot overtake them. For what reason? Is it not because [where there is] a person bestowing [upon the recipient] the right [to the property] it is different! Said R. Shimi to R. Papa: Behold there is [the case of] a bill of divorcement [thrown by the husband into the wife's house or court-yard],  where there is a person bestowing upon the recipient the right to its possession  — and yet 'Ulla said: 'That is, provided that she is present in the vicinity of her house or her court-yard'! — [The case of] a bill of divorcement is different, as it may be given even against her will. But can it not be concluded [the other way] by means of a Kal wa-homer: If [in the case of] a bill of divorcement, which may be given against [the wife's] will, it is valid if she is standing by the side of her house or her court-yard, but not otherwise, how much more should this be so in the case of a gift, for which [the recipient's] consent [is necessary]? — Therefore R. Ashi said: