Don’t we maintain that the halakha is that we do not need movable property to be piled up upon the land one acquires in order to acquire the movable property together with it?

Rather, what have you to say? Perforce, movable property that moves around by itself, such as slaves, is different from movable property that does not move around by itself, i.e., inanimate objects. The halakha that movable property does not need to be piled up upon the land applies only to the latter. Accordingly, in order to acquire slaves together with land, they must be standing within its borders.

Given this distinction, one can say that here, also, an entity legally classified as land that moves around, such as a slave, is different from land that does not move around. Accordingly, a slave, which is classified as land that moves around, is not included in Shmuel’s ruling, as in his ruling there, he refers only to acquiring multiple plots of land, which is possible only because the crust [sadna] of the earth is one block, and therefore each field is really only one part of a bigger whole. This rationale does not permit acquiring land and slaves together, as a slave is not attached to the earth and is separate from the land.

§ The mishna teaches: One is liable only with regard to damage caused to property for which, were he to use it for a non-sacred purpose, he would not be liable for the misuse of consecrated property.

The Gemara infers: The property in question does not have the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property, but it is consecrated property, yet one is still liable for causing damage to it.

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who holds like this? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The mishna is referring to offerings of lesser sanctity and is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says that such offerings, before they are slaughtered, are considered property of their owners, as opposed to property of Heaven. It is only once such an offering is slaughtered that it becomes subject to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property.

As it is taught in a baraita that concerning one who steals another’s property and takes a false oath denying he has done so, incurring the obligation to bring a guilt-offering, the verse states: “And commits a trespass against the Lord, and deals falsely with his neighbor” (Leviticus 5:21). The verse serves to include a case in which one denies having in his possession offerings of lesser sanctity, which are property of their owners. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna (Kiddushin 52b): In the case of a priest who betroths a woman with his portion of an offering, whether it is from offerings of the most sacred order or from offerings of lesser sanctity, she is not betrothed? Shall we say that this mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili?

The Gemara suggests: You can even say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, as when Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said that offerings of lesser sanctity are the property of their owners, that applies only when the animal is still alive. But after its slaughter, even Rabbi Yosei HaGelili concedes that the offering takes on a higher degree of sanctity and is now the property of Heaven. As when they receive their portions, they do not receive them because those portions belong to them; rather, they receive them from the table of the Most High, i.e., they have the right to partake of them, but do not own them.

The Gemara asks: But does he say his opinion only when the offering is still alive? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Ma’aser Sheni 1:2): With regard to the male firstborn of a kosher animal, which is endowed upon its birth with the sanctity of an offering of lesser sanctity, a priest may sell it if it is unblemished and alive, but he may not sell it once it is slaughtered, as if an unblemished firstborn animal is slaughtered it is prohibited to derive benefit from it, and if it is blemished, one can sell it both when it is alive or after it is slaughtered, and one can betroth a woman with it. This mishna assumes that even when a firstborn animal is unblemished it is considered to be the property of the priest.

And Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: They taught this only with regard to the status of a firstborn animal in the present; since it is not fit to be sacrificed, as there is no Temple, the priests have ownership of it. But when the Temple is standing, in which case the animal is fit to be sacrificed, no. When the Temple is standing a priest may slaughter and eat the firstborn only if it becomes blemished. Nowadays, since it is not possible to offer it as a sacrifice, it is certain that the animal will eventually develop a blemish and the priest will then be permitted to slaughter and eat it. Consequently, the priest is considered to have ownership of the firstborn even before it develops any blemish.

And Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman from the baraita cited above: The verse states: “A person who sins and commits a trespass against the Lord” (Leviticus 5:21). The verse serves to include a case in which one denies having in his possession offerings of lesser sanctity, as they are the property of their owners; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s statement is clearly referring to a time when the Temple is standing, as it is based on a verse that continues to obligate one to bring a guilt-offering. Nevertheless, he states that offerings of lesser sanctity, of which a firstborn is an example, are considered to be the property of their owners even when they are unblemished.

And Ravina answered that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s statement is said with regard to a firstborn outside of Eretz Yisrael, and is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: If firstborn animals came from outside of Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael and they are unblemished, they may be sacrificed on the altar. From Rabbi Shimon’s formulation it is apparent that if they came, then yes, they are sacrificed, but they should not be brought ab initio. Since the firstborn animals should not be brought to Eretz Yisrael, they are considered unfit to be sacrificed, and therefore they are considered to be the property of the priest even before they develop a blemish.

It is apparent that Ravina understood Rav Naḥman’s qualification to be true even according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Therefore, the Gemara asks: And if it is so that when Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said that an offering of lesser sanctity is the property of its owner, that was referring only to a situation when they are still alive,