Question

The Talmud in Bava Kamma 69b says: “There is a difficulty from Rabbi Yohanan against Rabbi Yohanan. For you said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Do not say ‘everything already picked,’ but rather say ‘everything that will be picked,’ which implies that he accepts retroactive clarification; but Rabbi Yohanan does not accept retroactive clarification, as Rav Assi said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: ‘Brothers who divided an inheritance are considered purchasers from one another, and they return portions to one another in the Jubilee year.’” Seemingly, it is not clear why, in the case of brothers who divided an inheritance, one must attribute to Rabbi Yohanan the position that there is no retroactive clarification. For even if, in principle, retroactive clarification exists, perhaps it applies only when, at the actual time, a person also had the power to carry out the decision that was later clarified retroactively. But if the uncertainty was not dependent on him, why should we say retroactively that the parcel he ultimately received had belonged to him from the outset? At the actual time, he had no power over what was later clarified to be his, since the brothers’ partnership in the inheritance was equal.