Bava Kamma

but if they merely said to him, 'You are liable to pay him,' and after that he slaughtered or sold the animal, he would be liable to pay four-fold or five-fold payment, the reason being that since they have not pronounced final sentence upon the matter he is still a thief?  — No, its application is necessary where they have as yet merely said to him, 'You are liable to pay him'. The above text states:  'R. Johanan said: If a robber misappropriated an article and the owner has not abandoned hope of recovering it neither of them is able to consecrate it: the one  because it is not his, the other  because it is not in his possession.' Could R. Johanan really have said this? Did not R. Johanan say  that the halachah is in accordance with an anonymous Mishnah; and we have learnt:  'In the case of a vineyard in its fourth year, the owners used to mark it with clods of earth', the sign implying an analogy to earth: just as in the case of earth a benefit may ensue from it,  so also the fruit of this vineyard  will after being redeemed be permitted to be enjoyed. 'That of 'orlah  used to be marked with potsherds', the sign indicating a similarity with potsherds: just as in the case of potsherds no benefit ensues from them,  so also the fruit of 'orlah  could not be enjoyed for any use whatever. 'A field of graves used to be marked with lime', the sign having the colour of white, like corpses. 'The lime was dissolved in water and then poured out' so as to make its colour more white. 'R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: These practices were recommended only for the Sabbatical year,' when the fruits on the trees were ownerless;  'for in the case of the other years of the Septennate,  you may let the wicked stuff themselves with it till they die.  The virtuous however used to set aside money and to declare that whatever has been gleaned from this [vineyard] shall be redeemed by this money.'  Does not this contradict R. Johanan? Nor can you urge in reply that the Tanna who recorded the practice of the virtuous was R. Simeon b. Gamaliel,  [and R. Johanan might therefore not have concurred with this anonymous view stated by a single Tanna] for did not Rabbah b. Bar Hanah say  that R. Johanan stated that whenever R. Simeon expressed a view in a Mishnah the halachah is in accordance with him, with the exception of his view regarding 'Suretyship'.  'Sidon'  and the 'last [case dealing with] evidence'?  — I may reply that you should not read,  'whatever has been gleaned'  but read 'whatever will be gleaned'  from this [vineyard]. But could R. Johanan have said this: Did not R. Johanan say that the virtuous and R. Dosa said the same thing, and, as we know, R. Dosa definitely stated 'whatever has been gleaned'?  For was it not taught:  R. Judah says: In the morning the owner of the field should get up and say 'whatever the poor shall glean during the day should be considered ownerless  [from the present moment]'.  whereas R. Dosa says: It is at eveningtide that he should say, 'Whatever the poor have gleaned shall be ownerless'!  — I must transpose the view of R. Judah to R. Dosa  and the view of R. Dosa to R. Judah. But why transpose this teaching, and not transpose instead  the statement of R. Johanan, assigning to 'the virtuous and to R. Judah the same thing'? — It may, however, be said that it was impossible not to transpose this teaching,  since in this teaching  it is stated that R. Judah upholds bererah  and we find R. Judah holding in other places that there is not bererah as we have learnt