(R. Yochanan): If something was stolen and the owner did not despair, neither the thief nor owner can make it Hekdesh;

The thief cannot, for it is not his. The owner cannot, for it is not in his Reshus!

Contradiction: R. Yochanan said that the Halachah follows an anonymous Mishnah!

(Mishnah #1): People used to mark off Reva'i with clods off earth.

The symbolism was, just like we can benefit from earth, also from these fruits (after redeeming them).

They would mark off Orlah (fruits in the first three years) with pottery shards.

This was a sign: just like shards give no benefit, also these fruits.

Graves were marked off with limestone. This signified bones, which are also white.

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, this was only in Shemitah, when people may enter others' fields. In other years, one who enters another's field is a thief. We are not concerned if the food he steals is forbidden!

The Tzenu'im would take coins and say 'whatever (Reva'i) was gathered from my field is redeemed on these coins.' (Even though the Reva'i is not in their Reshus, they were able to redeem it. This shows that one can be Makdish something not in his Reshus!)

Suggestion: Perhaps Tzenu'im hold like R. Shimon ben Gamliel, and R. Yochanan holds like Chachamim.

Rejection: Rabah bar bar Chanah cited R. Yochanan to say that wherever R. Shimon ben Gamliel appears in the Mishnah, the Halachah follows him, except for (three Mishnayos:) a guarantor, the case in Tzidon, and one who later found a proof.

Answer #1: The text of the Mishnah should say 'whatever will be gathered from my field is redeemed on these coins.'

Question: R. Yochanan said that Tzenu'im and R. Dosa hold like each other, and R. Dosa holds that they said so after it was gathered (regarding poor people gathering Leket, i.e. what falls at the time of harvest);

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah): In the morning, the owner says 'what the poor will gather today (mistakenly, thinking that it is Leket) is (now) Hefker';

R. Dosa says, at evening he says 'what the poor gathered is Hefker'.

Answer #1: We must switch the opinions of R. Yehudah and R. Dosa.

Question: It is better to switch the words of R. Yochanan, and say that he taught that Tzenu'im and R. Yehudah hold like each other!

Answer: In any case, the Beraisa must be switched. According to our text, R. Yehudah holds that Yesh Bereirah (one can stipulate that things take effect based on future events, e.g. which Peros the poor will take.) We know that R. Yehudah holds that Ein Bereirah!

(Mishnah - R. Meir): (The Kusim were converts who transgress many Mitzvos; they were suspected not to tithe.) If one buys (100 Lugim of) wine from Kusim (and cannot separate the tithes before drinking), he says: the two Lugim that I will later separate should be Terumah. Ten Lugim (that I will separate) are Ma'aser Rishon. Nine Lugim are Ma'aser Sheni. He is Meichal (Rashi - redeems the Ma'aser Sheni) and may drink immediately;

R. Yehudah, R. Yosi and R. Shimon forbid (to drink before separating the tithes).

Question: Even after switching the Beraisa, R. Yochanan still contradicts himself!

R. Yochanan changed the text to read 'that will be gathered.' This shows that he holds that Yesh Bereirah;

(Rav Asi citing R. Yochanan): Brothers who divide an inheritance are like buyers (we do not know which share each inherits. Whatever each takes is like a purchase, in place of what his brother took from him), so they must re-divide in Yovel (when all sold land reverts to the seller).

Answer #2 (to question 1:b above): Really, R. Yochanan leaves the text 'was gathered.' He holds like a Stam Mishnah that argues with Mishnah #1 (of Tzenu'im).

(Mishnah #2): One who steals from a thief does not pay Kefel. If he then slaughters or sells it, he does not pay four and five.

We understand why he doesn't pay Kefel to the first thief - "and was stolen from the man's house", not from the house of the thief;

Question: Why doesn't he pay Kefel to the owner?

Answer: He doesn't pay the thief, for it is not the thief's. He doesn't pay the owner, for it was not in his Reshus. (For the same reason, neither can make it Hekdesh.)

Question: Why does R. Yochanan rule like Mishnah #2 against Mishnah #1?

Answer: A verse supports it - "if a man will make his house Hekdesh." One can be Makdish only things like his house, which is in his Reshus.

Abaye: I would have said differently than R. Yochanan. Tzenu'im hold like R. Dosa, but R. Dosa does not hold like Tzenu'im!

Tzenu'im hold like R. Dosa. If Chachamim made an enactment for thieves (so they not transgress eating Reva'i), all the more so for the poor (who did not intentionally sin)!

R. Dosa does not hold like Tzenu'im. Chachamim made an enactment for the poor, but not for thieves.

Rava: I would have said differently than R. Yochanan. Tzenu'im hold like R. Meir;

R. Meir says that Ma'aser Sheni is like Hash-m's money, but regarding redemption, it is considered a person's money;

"If a man will redeem his Ma'aser, he will add its fifth" - the Torah calls it his Ma'aser, and he adds a fifth;

The same applies to Reva'i of grapes. We learn a Gezeirah Shavah "Kodesh-Kodesh" from Ma'aser!

Ma'aser is like Hash-m's money, but regarding redemption, it is considered a person's money. The same applies to Reva'i.

However, when the poor take what they (mistakenly) think is Leket, that is the owner's money. He cannot redeem it when it is not in his Reshus! (Tzenu'im could argue with R. Dosa.)

Ravina: R. Yochanan should have said that R. Dosa is the Tana of Mishnah #1;

This would answer why he holds like Mishnah #2, unlike Mishnah #1. R. Yochanan's rule that the Halachah follows a Stam Mishnah does not apply when we find the law of the Mishnah attributed to a particular Tana.