נתון לו ליהושע ומקומו מושכר לו ועישור אחר שאני עתיד למוד נתון לו לעקיבא בן יוסף כדי שיזכה בו לעניים ומקומו מושכר לו ש"מ בעינן צבורים בה שאני התם כי היכי דלא ליטרחינהו
is given as first tithe to Yehoshua ben Ḥananya, who was a Levite, and the place of the tithe is rented to him so that he can acquire the tithe by means of the land. And another tenth that I will measure out in the future as the poor man’s tithe is given to Akiva ben Yosef so that he will acquire it on behalf of the poor, and its place is rented to him. One can learn from here that we require the movable property to be piled on the land, as Rabban Gamliel emphasized: Its place. The Gemara rejects this argument: It is different there, as Rabban Gamliel did this so as not to trouble the Sages to whom he was giving the tithes by forcing them to transport the tithes to a different location. For reasons of convenience he transferred to the other Sages ownership of the land where the tithes were already situated.
ת"ש דאמר רבא בר יצחק אמר רב שני שטרות הן זכו בשדה זו לפלוני וכתבו לו את השטר חוזר בשטר ואינו חוזר בשדה ע"מ שתכתבו לו את השטר חוזר בין בשטר בין בשדה
The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a solution for this dilemma, as Rava bar Yitzḥak says that Rav says: There are two types of documents. If one says: Acquire this field for so-and-so and write the document for him as proof of the sale of the field, he can retract his agreement with regard to the document. He can change his mind and tell them not to write the document. But he cannot retract his agreement with regard to the field, as the buyer has already acquired it. By contrast, if he said: Acquire this field for so-and-so on the condition that you write him a document, if the document has not yet been given he can retract his agreement both with regard to the document and with regard to the field, as he transfers the field to him only on the condition that he writes a document.
ורב חייא בר אבין אמר רב הונא שלשה שטרות הן תרי הא דאמרן אידך אם קדם מוכר וכתב לו את השטר כאותה ששנינו כותבים שטר למוכר אע"פ שאין לוקח עמו כיון שהחזיק עמו בקרקע נקנה שטר בכל מקום שהוא
And Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said that Rav Huna said: There are actually three types of documents. Two types are those that we said, and the other type is as follows. If the seller first wrote him the document, as a seller can write a bill of sale before the transaction and give it when he receives payment. This is as we learned in a mishna (Bava Batra 167b): A scribe may write a deed of sale for the seller of property who requests one, even if the purchaser is not with him when he presents his request. In a case of this kind, once the buyer takes possession of the land from him, the document is acquired by the buyer wherever it is, i.e., even if it is not in the possession of the buyer.
שמע מינה לא בעינן צבורים בה שאני שטר דאפסירא דארעא הוא
One can learn from here that we do not require that the property be piled on it, as in this case the document is acquired by means of the land wherever the document is located. The Gemara rejects this proof: A document is different, as it is the bridle of the land. Since the document that refers to the land is the means by which one takes possession of the land, it is considered as though the document is part of the land. Therefore, one can take possession of the document by means of the land without it actually having to be placed there. The same does not necessarily apply to other movable property, which does not refer specifically to the land.
והא עלה קתני זו היא ששנינו נכסים שאין להם אחריות נקנין עם נכסים שיש להם אחריות בכסף בשטר ובחזקה ש"מ לא בעינן צבורים בה ש"מ:
The Gemara asks: But it was taught concerning this halakha that a document can effect acquisition wherever it is located: This is what we learned in the mishna: Property that does not serve as a guarantee can be acquired along with property that serves as a guarantee by means of giving money, by means of giving a document, or by means of taking possession of them. This indicates that there is no difference between a document and other types of movable property. Consequently, one can learn from here that we do not require that the property be piled on the land. The Gemara affirms: One can learn from here that this is the case.
איבעיא להו מי בעינן אגב או לא ת"ש דקתני כל הני ולא קתני אגב ולטעמיך קני מי קתני
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Do we require that one who sells movable property by means of land state explicitly that this is his intention, or not? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as those aforementioned baraitot teach all these halakhot of acquiring movable property through land, and they do not teach the expression: By means of. This indicates that it is not necessary to specify this aspect of the acquisition. The Gemara rejects this proof: And according to your reasoning, is it taught that he must say to him: Acquire it? The baraitot do not state this, and yet everyone agrees that the seller must say to him that he should acquire the land.
אלא עד דאמר קני הכא נמי עד דאמר אגב והלכתא צבורים לא בעינן אגב וקני בעינן:
Rather, one must say that the acquisition is not effective unless he says: Acquire it, and yet the tanna did not deem it necessary to mention this requirement. Here too, the acquisition is not effective unless he says: By means of. This requirement is not mentioned because these baraitot do not discuss the type of statements he must issue, but simply are referring to the basic legal issues involved. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that we do not require that the property be piled on the land, but we require that the seller say that he is transferring the movable property by means of the land, and he must say: Acquire it.
אבעיא להו שדה במכר ומטלטלין במתנה מהו ת"ש עישור שאני עתיד למוד נתון ליהושע ומקומו מושכר לו ש"מ
§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a seller wishes to give a field in the form of a sale and with it movable property as a gift, what is the halakha? Can he transfer them together by means of a transaction performed with the land? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof for this dilemma from the incident involving Rabban Gamliel, as he said: One-tenth of produce that I will measure out in the future is given to Yehoshua, and its place is rented to him. Learn from this that even if the field is rented, which is equivalent to a sale, and the tithe is given as a gift, one can transfer the two together.
איבעיא להו שדה לאחד ומטלטלין לאחר מהו ת"ש עישור שאני עתיד למוד נתון לעקיבא בן יוסף כדי שיזכה בו לעניים ומקומו מושכר לו
Another dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one wishes to give a field to one person and movable property to another, what is the halakha? Can one transfer movable property to one person by means of land that is going to be gifted to another? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which Rabban Gamliel stated: One-tenth of that which I will measure out in the future is given to Akiva ben Yosef so that he will acquire it on behalf of the poor, and its place is rented to him. Although the gift is for the poor and the place is rented to Rabbi Akiva, the acquisition is effective.
מאי מושכר מושכר למעשר ואי בעית אימא שאני ר' עקיבא דיד עניים הוה
The Gemara rejects this proof: What is the meaning of: Rented, in this case? It means rented for tithe. This land was not rented to Rabbi Akiva for his own use, but only so that he could receive the tithe. Therefore, the land was also given to the poor. And if you wish, say a different refutation: Rabbi Akiva is different, as he was a charity collector, and therefore he was considered like the hand of the poor. Since a charity collector collects charity on behalf of the poor, he has the status of the poor himself. If so, this cannot be compared to a case in which one transfers a certain item to one person and land to someone else.
אמר רבא לא שנו אלא שנתן דמי כולן אבל לא נתן דמי כולן לא קנה אלא כנגד מעותיו
§ Rava says: The Sages taught that one can acquire movable property by way of land only when he gives all the money for the land and the movable property. But if he did not give the money for all the property, even if they were transferred to him he acquires only the movable property corresponding to the money that he paid.
תניא כוותיה דרבא יפה כח הכסף מכח השטר וכח השטר מכח הכסף יפה כח הכסף שהכסף פודין בו הקדשות ומעשר שני מה שאין כן בשטר ויפה כח השטר שהשטר מוציא בבת ישראל מה שאין כן בכסף
It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Ketubot 2:3) in accordance with the opinion of Rava: The power of money is greater than the power of a document in one way, and the power of a document is greater than the power of money in a different way. The baraita elaborates: The power of money is greater in that money can be used to redeem consecrated property and second tithe, which is not the case with a document. And the power of a document is greater than the power of money, as a document releases a Jewish woman, i.e., a man can divorce his wife with a bill of divorce, which is not the case with money.
ויפה כח שניהם מכח חזקה וכח חזקה מכח שניהם יפה כח שניהם ששניהם קונים בעבד עברי מה שאין כן בחזקה יפה כח חזקה שחזקה מכר לו עשר שדות בעשר מדינות כיון שהחזיק באחת מהם קנאם כולם
The baraita continues: And furthermore, the power of each, money and a document, as a means to transfer ownership is greater than the power of acquisition by means of taking possession, and the power of taking possession is greater than the power of acquisition of each of them. How so? The power of each of them is greater than the power of acquisition of taking possession, as each of them effects acquisition in the case of a Hebrew slave, which is not the case for taking possession (see 14b). The power of taking possession is greater than the power of acquisition of each of them, as with regard to taking possession, if one sold another ten fields in ten countries, once the buyer takes possession one of the fields he acquires all of them.