Bava Metzia

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: