Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:10

משנה: הָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְאֵין לוֹ מַה יֹאכַל נוֹתֵן לְאַחֵר לְשֶׁם מַתָּנָה וְהַלָּהּ מוּתָּר בָּהּ. אִם אֵין עִמָּהֶן אַחֵר מַנִּיחַ עַל הַסֶּלַע אוֹ עַל הַגֶּדֶר וְאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי הֶן מוּבְקָרִים לְכָל־מִי שֶׁיַּחְפּוֹץ וְהַלָּהּ נוֹטֵל וְאוֹכֵל וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹסֵר. MISHNAH: If they were walking on the road and he had nothing to eat, the other gives something to a third person as a gift, and this one is permitted it. If nobody is with them, he puts it on a rock or a fence and says, this is ownerless for everyone to take and this one can come and eat, but Rebbi Yose forbids⁹⁷These two words are probably superfluous; they are missing in the parallel in Nedarim 4:10:2-4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.4.10.2-4">Halakhah 10. It is stated in Nedarim 4:10:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.4.10.1">Mishnah 10 that if A and B walk together and B has no food, then A may put some food on a rock and declare it ownerless, whereupon B can take it. R. Yose objects since A’s food remains forbidden to B if nobody else acquired it before it came to A. R. Yose [Peah 6:1 (fol. 19b), Demay 3:2 (fol. 23b), Nedarim 4:10:2-4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.4.10.2-4">Nedarim 4:10] rejects the concept of ownerless property and holds that the owner has full responsibility for his abandoned property until it is taken up and acquired by another person..

הלכה: הָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְאֵין לוֹ מַה יֹאכַל כול׳. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. כֵּיוָן שֶׁאָדָם מַבְקִיר יָצָא דָבָר מֵרְשׁוּתוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר אֵין הֶבְקֵר יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי הַבְּעָלִים אֶלָּא בִּזְכִייָה. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה רִבִּי בָּא בַּר חִייָה תְּרֵיהוֹן אָֽמְרִין רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּנוֹתֵן מַתָּנָה לָעֲשָׂרָה וְזֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶן. הִבְקִיר שָׂדֵהוּ. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. חוֹזֵר בּוֹ. וְאִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר בּוֹ. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה רִבִי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. מָאן דָּמַר. חוֹזֵר. כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וּמָאן דָּמַר. אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר. כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. הֶבְקֵר כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְחַייָב בְּמַעְשְׂרוֹת. מָה אָמַר. הֶבְקֵר. לֹא מַתָּנָה. אָתָא רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֶׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. הֶבְקֵר כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְחַייָב בְּמַעְשְׂרוֹת. תַּמָּן אָֽמְרִין. הֶבְקֵר כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְאֵינוֹ חַייָב בְּמַעְשְׂרוֹת. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. וּבָא הַלֵּוִי כִּי אֵין לוֹ וגו׳. מִמָּה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָךְ וְאֵין לוֹ חַייָב אַתָּה לִיתֵּן לוֹ. יָצָא הֶבְקֵר שֶׁיָּדָךְ וְיָדוֹ שָׁוִין בּוֹ. הִיא לֶקֶט הִיא שִׁכְחָה הִיא פֵיאָה הִיא הֶבְקֵר. HALAKHAH: It was stated: Rebbi Meïr says that as soon as a person abandons anything from his property, it is no longer in his possession. Rebbi Yose says, nothing may leave the hands of its owners except if it is taken up by another person¹¹⁵E. g., if somebody is injured on abandoned property which had not been taken up by another person, the original owner has to pay according to R. Yose but not according to R. Meïr.. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya, both say, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: The words of Rebbi Yose [deal with the case] that a person gave a gift to ten people and this one was one of them¹¹⁶R. Yose compares abandoning property to giving something to a group of people without specifying who gets what. In that case, the transfer of ownership rights certainly depends on the new owner taking possession. This is also R. Joḥanan’s position in the Nedarim.43a">Babli, 43a.. If somebody abandoned his field, some Tannaïm say, he can retract¹¹⁷If nobody took the property in the meantime., but some Tannaïm say, he cannot retract. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The one who says that he can retract follows Rebbi Yose¹¹⁸Since the property still is his to do with as he pleases.. But the one who says that he cannot retract follows Rebbi Meïr. Does this mean that abandoned property in the sense of Rebbi Yose is subject to tithes¹¹⁹Since a gift does not remove the obligation of heave and tithes; cf. Ma‘serot 1:1, Notes 18–23.? What did he say? Abandoned property, not gift¹²⁰Since the statement of R. Yose is about abandoned property; it cannot follow all the rules of gifts.! Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa came in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Abandoned property in the sense of Rebbi Yose is subject to tithes. There¹²¹In Babylonia., they say that abandoned property in the sense of Rebbi Yose is not subject to tithes, ¹²²From here to the end of the paragraph, the text is from Ma‘serot 1:1, Note 20. since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: ¹²³Deuteronomy.14.29">Deut. 14:29.“The Levite shall come,” etc. You are obliged to give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes abandoned property for which your and his hands are equal. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property are all equal.

עַד כְּדוֹן כְּשֶׁמַּבְקִירָהּ לִזְמָן מְרוּבֶּה. אֲפִילּוּ הִבְקִירָהּ לִזְמָן מְמוּעָט. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. הַמַּבְקִיר שָׂדֵהוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים חוֹזֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא שְׁלֹשָָׁה. הָא לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשָׁה אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר בּוֹ. תַּנִּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דַּייָנָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא. אֲפִילוּ לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשָׁה חוֹזֵר בּוֹ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מִכֵּיוָן דְּאַתְּ אָמַר. לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשָׁה חוֹזֵר בּוֹ. הִיא לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשָׁה הִיא לְאַחַר כַּמָּה יָמִים. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייְעָה לְרִבִּי זְעִירָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אָמוּרִים. בְּשֶׁהִבְקִיר סְתָם. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר. שָׂדִי מוּבְקֶרֶת יוֹם אֶחָד שַׁבָּת אַחַת חֹדֶשׁ אֶחָד שָׁנָה אַחַת שָׁבוּעַ אֶחָד. עַד שֶׁלֹּא זָכָה בֵּין הוּא בֵּין אַחֵר יָכוֹל הוּא לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ. מִשֶּׁזָּכָה בָּהּ בֵּין הוּא בֵּין אַחֵר אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה הוּא זְמָן מְרוּבֶּה הוּא זְמָן מְמוּעָט. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה שֶׁלֹּא חָשׁוּ לָהַעֲרָמָה. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה שֶׁאָדָם מַבְקִיר וְחוֹזֵר וְזוֹכֶה. הָדָא פָֽשְׁטָה שְׁאֵלַת דְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא. דְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא אָמַר. הוּא זְמָן מוּעָט הוּא זְמָן מְרוּבָּה. ¹²⁴The entire paragraph is also in Peah 6:1, explained there in Nedarim 4:3:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.4.3.1">Notes 23–27. So far, if he abandoned it for a longer period of time. But if he abandoned only for a short time? Let us hear from the following: “If he abandoned his field, he may cancel his action during three days.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, it says only “three days”. Therefore, after three days he may not cancel his action. Rebbi Simeon Dayana stated before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Even after three he may cancel his action. He said to him, since you say after three days, is it the same after three or after many? A baraita supports Rebbi Ze‘ira¹²⁵Nedarim.44a">Babli 44a.: “About when is this said? If he abandoned in an unspecified way. But if he said: My field shall be abandoned one day, one week, one month, one year, a sabbatical period, as long as nobody took it over, either he or another person, he may cancel. But after somebody acquired it, either he or somebody else, he cannot cancel.” This means that short or long periods are the same. It also means that they were not worried about dishonesty. This means that a person may abandon and reacquire. That obviously answers Rebbi Zeïra’s question, since Rebbi Zeira had said, are short and long times the same?

וְהַלָּהּ נוֹטֵל וְאוֹכֵל וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹסֵר. מַאי טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקָּדַם נִדְרוֹ לְהֶבְקֵירוֹ. הָא הֶבְקֵירוֹ לְנִדְרוֹ לֹא. בְּעוֹן קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקָּדַם נִדְרוֹ לְהֶבְקֵירוֹ. מָה בֵּין שֶׁקָּדַם הֶבְקֵירוֹ לְנִדְרוֹ. אָמַר לוֹן. לֹא עָלַת עַל דַּעְתּוֹ לֶאֱסוֹר מַה שֶׁהִבְקִיר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה. הָכֵין קָשׁוֹן קֳדָמוֹי. הָא הֶבְקֵר יָחִיד לֹא. וְהָא תַנִּינָן וְהַלָּהּ נוֹטֵל וְאוֹכֵל וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹסֵר. אֲמַר לוֹן. לֹא עָלַת עַל דַּעְתּוֹ לֶאֱסוֹר מַה שֶׁהִבְקִיר. רִבִּי יוֹנָה רִבִּי אַבָּא רִבִּי חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹצָדָק. הַמַּבְקִיר שָׂדֵה לָעֲשָׂרָה בְּנֵי אָדָם אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר בּוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. אַתְייָא כְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. רִבִּי מָנָא בָעֵי. מָה אַתְּ אָֽמְרָת. לִשְׁלֹשָׁה. לִפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה. עַל דְּאַתְּ מַקְשֵׁי עַל רִבִּי מֵאִיר קְשִׁיתָהּ עַל דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מָה אַתְּ אָֽמְרָת. לָעֲשָׂרָה. לִפְנֵי עֲשָׂרָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. הִבְקִירָהּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם חוֹזֵר בּוֹ וְחַייָב בְּמַעְשְׂרוֹת. בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר בּוֹ וּפָטוּר מִן הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת. “This one can come and eat, but Rebbi Yose forbids.” What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? Because his vow preceded his abandonment. Therefore, not if his abandonment preceded his vow. They asked before Rebbi Yose: What is the difference if his vow preceded his abandonment¹²⁶Why does R. Yose accept abandonment before the vow as valid when he holds that everything remains the person’s own until it is picked up by somebody else?? He said to them, it did not occur to him to forbid what he abandoned¹²⁷It has nothing to do with property rights. A vow cannot refer to anything that was not in the vower’s mind.. Rebbi Jonah said, so they asked before him: That means, not if it applies to a single person¹²⁸The reference is to the second half of the paragraph where it is stated that for everybody abandonment declared before three adult witnesses is immediately valid since it is a public act; even for R. Meïr an act before less than three witnesses is not valid. But in the Mishnah it is stated that no witnesses are present and nevertheless R. Meïr holds that in respect to the vow the abandonment is valid.? But did we not state: “This one can come and eat, but Rebbi Yose forbids”? He said to them, it did not occur to him to forbid what he abandoned. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Joṣadaq: If somebody abandons his field to ten persons he cannot retract¹²⁹In the Nedarim.45a">Babli, 45a, three people. (R. Joshua ben Levi holds that this requirement is rabbinic.). Rebbi Yose said, that follows Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Mana asked: When you said, “to three,” [did you not mean] “in the presence of three”? Instead of asking about Rebbi Meïr, ask about Rebbi Yose! When you said, “to ten,” [did you not mean] “in the presence of ten”? He said to him, if he abandoned it before two persons, he can retract and it remains subject to tithes¹³⁰If any of the persons knowing of the abandonment takes the property for himself, he cannot prove the title if the original owner reneges on his abandonment since he can support his claim only by one witness, which is not enough. Therefore, if the owner abandons the real estate and then reclaims it, it never left his potential possession and all produce grown on his field was never totally abandoned; the duty of tithing was never disestablished... If he abandoned it before three persons, he cannot retract and it is free from tithes¹³¹Any one of the three can take the real estate and has two witnesses to back up his claim. If the original owner would retake it when nobody else had taken it, he takes genuinely abandoned property and no tithes are due (cf. Nedarim 4:9:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.4.9.2">Note 106)..