Bava Kamma

why [did Rabina] not reply that the one  is in accordance with R. Jose the Galilean, and the other  in accordance with the Rabbis?  — It was said in answer: How can you refer to priestly gifts? Priestly gifts are altogether different  as those who are entitled to them enjoy that privilege as guests at the divine table. [To refer to] the main text: If a soul sin and commit a trespass against the Lord and lie unto his neighbour:  this indicates also minor sacrifices; this is the view of R. Jose the Galilean. Ben 'Azzai says that it indicates [also] peace-offerings. Abba Jose b. Dostai said that Ben 'Azzai meant to include only the firstling. The Master said:  'Ben Azzai says that it indicates [also] peace-offerings.' What does he mean to exclude? It can hardly be the firstling, for if in the case of peace-offerings which are subject to the laws of leaning,  libations  and the waving of the breast and shoulder,  you maintain that they are private property, what question could there be about the firstling?  — R. Johanan therefore said: He meant to exclude the tithe,  as taught: In the case of the firstling, it is stated, Thou shalt not redeem;  it may, however, if unblemished be sold while alive, and if blemished [it may be sold] alive or slaughtered; in the case of the tithe it is stated, It shall not be redeemed,  and it can be sold neither alive nor slaughtered neither when unblemished nor when blemished.  Rabina connected all the above discussion with the concluding clause: 'Abba Jose b. Dostai said that Ben 'Azzai meant to include only the firstling.' What does he mean to exclude? It can hardly be peace-offerings, for if the firstling which is holy from the very moment it opens the matrix,  is private property, what question could there be about peace-offerings?  — R. Johanan therefore said: He meant to exclude the tithe, as taught:  In regard to the firstling it is stated, Thou shalt not redeem;  it may, however, if unblemished be sold while alive and if blemished [it may be sold] alive or slaughtered; in regard to the tithe it is stated, It shall not be redeemed,  and it can be sold neither while alive nor when slaughtered, neither when unblemished nor blemished. But does he not say, 'The firstling alone'?  This is a difficulty indeed! Raba [on the other hand] said: What is meant by 'THE [DAMAGED] PROPERTY MUST BE OF A KIND TO WHICH THE LAW OF SACRILEGE HAS NO APPLICATION' is that the property is not of a class to which the law of sacrilege may have any reference  but is such as is owned privately. But why does not the text say. 'Private property'? — This is a difficulty indeed! R. Abba said: In the case of peace-offerings that did damage,  payment will be made  out of their flesh but no payment could be made out of their emurim.  Is it not obvious that the emurim will go up [and be burnt] on the altar? — No; we require to be told that no payment will be made out of the flesh for the proportion due from the emurim. But according to whose authority is this ruling made? If according to the Rabbis,  is this not obvious? Do they not maintain that when payment cannot be recovered from one party, it is not requisite to make it up from the other party? If according to R. Nathan,  [it is certainly otherwise] for did he not say that when no payment can be made from one party, it has to be made up from the other party? — If you wish, you may say: The ruling was made in accordance with R. Nathan; or, if you wish, you may say that it was made in accordance with the Rabbis. You may say that it was made in accordance with the Rabbis, for their ruling is confined to a case where the damage was done by two separate agencies,  whereas, in the case of one agency,  the plaintiff may be justified in demanding payment from whatever source he finds it convenient. Alternatively you may say that the ruling was made in accordance with R. Nathan, for it is only there [in the case of an ox pushing another's ox in a pit] that the owner of the damaged ox is entitled to say to the owner of the pit, 'I have found my ox in your pit; whatever is not paid to me by your co-defendant must be made up by you;'