Bava Kamma

Did not Samuel say that if ten fields in ten different countries are sold, as soon as possession is taken of one of them, the transfer of all of them becomes effective?  — But even if your reasoning be followed [that it is in accordance with the version reading that slaves are considered personalty], why again the stipulation that the slaves be gathered on the land? Has it not been established that the personalty' need not be gathered on the land? You can therefore only say that there is a distinction in law between movable personalty  and immovable personalty. Likewise here also [we say] there is a distinction in law between movable realty  and immovable realty: slaves [if realty] are movable realty whereas there [in the case of the ten fields] land is but one block. THE [DAMAGED] PROPERTY MUST BE OF A KIND TO WHICH THE LAW OF SACRILEGE HAS NO APPLICATION etc. So long as [the penalty of] Sacrilege does not apply. Who is the Tanna [of this view]? — R. Johanan said: This is so in the case of minor sacrifices according to R. Jose the Galilean, who considers them to be private property; for it has been taught: If a soul sin and commit a trespass against the Lord and lie unto his neighbour… this indicates also minor sacrifices,  as these are considered private property;  so R. Jose the Galilean. But, behold, we have learnt: If one betroths [a woman] by means of the priestly portion, whether of major sacrifices or of minor sacrifices, the betrothal is not valid.  Are we to say that this Mishnah is not in accordance with R. Jose the Galilean?  — You may even reconcile it with R. Jose the Galilean; for R. Jose the Galilean confines his remark to sacrifices that are still alive, whereas, in the case of sacrifices that have already been slaughtered, even R. Jose the Galilean agrees that those who are entitled to partake of the flesh acquire this right as guests at the divine table.  But so long as the sacrifice is still alive, does he really maintain that it is private property? Behold, we have learnt: A firstling, if unblemished, may be sold only while alive; but if blemished [it may be sold] both while alive and when slaughtered. It may similarly be used for the betrothal of a woman.  And R. Nahman said on behalf of Rabbah b. Abbuha:  This is so only in the case of a firstling at the present time,  in which, on account of the fact that it is not destined to be sacrificed, the priests possess a proprietary right; but at the time when the Temple still existed, when it would have been destined to be sacrificed, the law would not have been so.  And Raba asked R. Nahman: [Was it not taught:] If a soul sin and commit a trespass against the Lord and lie unto his neighbour…  this indicates also minor sacrifices, as these are considered private property;  this is the view of R. Jose the Galilean? And Rabina replied that the latter case  deals with firstlings from outside [Palestine] and is in accordance with R. Simeon, who maintains that if they were brought [to Palestine] in an unblemished condition, they will be sacrificed.  Now this is so only if they were brought [to Palestine, which implies that] there is no necessity to bring them there in the first instance for that specific purpose.  Now, if it is the fact that R. Jose the Galilean considers them private property while alive,