Study Bava Batra folio 79B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
ואי בשדה ואילן, אמאי מחליף? אלא אמר רבה: מחלוקת בבור ושובך, אבל בשדה ואילן – דברי הכל מועלין בהן ובמה שבתוכן.
And if their dispute is referring to a field and a tree, why does R' Elazar, son of R' Shimon, reverse his opinion? Rather, Rabba’s statement must be adjusted, and this is what Rabba said: This dispute between the first tanna and R' Elazar, son of R' Shimon, applies only in the cases of a cistern and a dovecote. But in the cases of a field and a tree, everyone agrees that one is liable for misuse of consecrated property if one derives benefit from them or their contents.
ובבור ושובך – בריקנין במאי פליגי, ובמלאין במאי פליגי? בריקנין – פליגי בפלוגתא דרבי מאיר ורבנן;
The Talmud asks: And in the cases of a cistern and a dovecote, where the cistern and the dovecote are empty, with regard to what matter do they disagree? And similarly, where the cistern and the dovecote are full, with regard to what do they disagree? The Talmud answers: In the cases of a cistern and a dovecote that are empty, they disagree with regard to the matter that is the subject of the dispute between R' Meir and the Rabbis.
דתנא קמא סבר לה כרבנן, דאמרי: אין אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם; ורבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון סבר כרבי מאיר, דאמר: אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם.
The first tanna and R' Elazar, son of R' Shimon, disagree because the first tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: A person cannot transfer ownership of an object that has not yet come into the world, i.e., that one does not currently own. Therefore, one cannot consecrate water or doves that will enter the cistern or dovecote only in the future. And R' Elazar, son of R' Shimon, holds in accordance with the opinion of R' Meir, who says: A person can transfer ownership of an object that has not yet come into the world.