Bava Kamma

: 'If a man buys wine from among the Cutheans  [and it was late on Friday towards sunset and he has no other wine for the Sabbath]  may say 'two logs [out of a hundred] which I intend to set aside are terumah,  ten are the first tithe  and nine the second tithe,' and these he may redeem [upon money anywhere in his possession],  and he may commence drinking at once. So R. Meir.  But R. Judah, R. Jose and R. Simon prohibit this.  To this I may rejoin: When all is said and done, why have you transposed [the views mentioned in the Baraitha]? Because R. Judah would otherwise contradict R. Judah! But would not now R. Johanan contradict R. Johanan? For you stated according to R. Johanan that we should not read 'whatever has been gleaned'  but read 'whatever will be gleaned',  thus proving that he upholds bererah  whereas in fact R. Johanan does not uphold bererah. For did not R. Assi say  that R. Johanan stated that brothers dividing an inheritance are like purchasers  [in the eye of the law], so that they will have to restore the portions to one another on the advent of the jubilee year?  — We must therefore still read  'whatever has been gleaned',  and [say that] R. Johanan  found another anonymous Mishnah, as we have indeed learnt: ONE WHO STEALS [ARTICLES ALREADY STOLEN] IN THE HANDS OF A THIEF NEED NOT MAKE DOUBLE PAYMENT.  Why should this be? We grant you that he need not pay the first thief, [since Scripture says:] And it be stolen out of the man's house,  [implying] 'but not out of the house of the thief'. But why not pay the owner? We must say that this shows that the one  is not entitled to payment because the stolen article is not his, and the other one  is not entitled to payment as the article is not in his possession.  — But what induced him  to follow that anonymous Mishnah?  Why should he not act in accordance with the anonymous Mishnah dealing with the virtuous?  — Because he was supported by the verse: And when the man shall sanctify his house to be holy unto the Lord,  just as his house is in his possession,  so anything also which is in his possession can be sanctified. Abaye said: If R. Johanan had not stated that the virtuous  and R. Dosa  said the same thing,  I might have said that while the virtuous accepted the view of R. Dosa, R. Dosa did not uphold the practice of the virtuous. The virtuous accepted the view of R. Dosa; for if the Rabbis made things easier for a thief,  need we say they did so for the poor?  But R. Dosa did not uphold the practice of the virtuous: for it was only for the poor  that the Rabbis made things easier, whereas for the thief they did not make things easier.  Raba said: Had R. Johanan not stated that the virtuous and R. Dosa said the same thing, I should have said that the Tanna followed by the virtuous was R. Meir. For did not R. Meir say  that the [second] tithe  is Divine property,  and even so the Divine Law placed it in the owner's possession in respect of redemption, as written: And if a man will redeem aught of his tithe, he shall add unto it the fifth part thereof,  the Divine Law thus designating it 'his tithe' and ordering him to add a fifth.  The same applies to the vineyard in the fourth year, as can be derived from the occurrence of the term 'holy' there  and in the case of the tithe.  For it is written here 'shall be holy to praise',  and it is written in the case of tithe, 'And all tithe of the land whether of seed of the land or of the fruit of the tree it is holy':  just as the 'holy' mentioned in connection with tithe although it is divine property, has nevertheless been placed by the Divine Law in the possession of the owner for the purpose of redemption, so also the 'holy' mentioned in connection with a vineyard of the fourth year, although the property is not his own, has been placed by the Divine Law in his possession for the purpose of redemption; now seeing that even when it is in his possession it is not his and yet he may redeem it; hence he may be able to redeem it [also when out of his possession]. But in the case of the gleaning [of ears of corn] which is his own property,  it is only when it is [still] in his [own] possession that he is able to declare it ownerless, whereas when not in his possession he should not be entitled to declare it ownerless. Rabina said: Had R. Johanan not stated that the virtuous and R. Dosa said the same thing, I should have said that the Tanna stating the case of the virtuous was R. Dosa, so that this anonymous Mishnah would not refute the view of R. Johanan, for R. Johanan