PEREK BEIS SHAMMAI
1)

DECLARING HEFKER ONLY FOR THE POOR (Yerushalmi Peah Halachah 1 Daf 28a)

îùðä [ãó ëç òîåã à] áéú ùîàé àåîøéí äá÷ø ìòðééí äá÷ø åáä"à àéðå äá÷ø òã ùéá÷åø àó ìòùéøé' ëùîéèä

(a)

(Mishnah): Beis Shammai say - it is possible to declare something Hefker (ownerless) just for the poor; Beis Hillel say that it is not possible unless he declares it Hefker even for the rich, like Shemittah.

ëì òåîøé äùãä ùì ÷á ÷á åà' ùì àøáòú ÷áéï åùëçå á"ù àåîøéí àéðä ùëçä åáä"à ùëçä

(b)

If all of the sheaves of a field were a Kav and one was four Kav and he forgot it, Beis Shammai say that it is not Shichechah and Beis Hillel say that it is Shichechah.

âîøà øáé çééà áùí ø' éåçðï èòîééäå ãáéú ùîàé ìòðé åìâø îä ú"ì úòæåá àåúí éù ìê òæéáä àçøú ëæå îä æå ìòðééí åìà ìòùéøéí àó îä ùðàîø áî÷åí àçø ìòðééí åìà ìòùéøéí

(c)

(Gemara) (R. Chiya citing R. Yochanan): Beis Shammai's source is the pasuk that states (Vayikra 19:10), "you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger" - 'you shall leave them' teaches that there is another 'leaving' like it (i.e. declaring it Hefker). Just as Leket and Peah are only for the poor, so too declaring it Hefker can be just for the poor and not the rich.

àîø ø"ù á"ì èòîééäå ãá"ä (ùîåú ëâ) úùîèðä îä ú"ì åðèùúä éù ìê ðèéùä àçøú ùäéà ëæå îä æå áéï ìòðééí áéï ìòùéøéí àó îä ùðàîø áî÷åí àçø áéï ìòðééí áéï ìòùéøéí

(d)

(R. Shimon ben Lakish): Beis Hillel's source is the pasuk that states (Shemos 23:11), "(But in the seventh year) you shall release it (and abandon it) - what does 'and abandon it' teach? There is another abandoning (i.e. declaring Hefker) that it is like it - just as abandoning it in the seventh year is for the rich and poor alike, so too declaring it Hefker must be for the rich and poor alike.

îä î÷ééîåï á"ä èòîééäå ãá"ù úòæåá àåúí îéòåè æå ìòðééí åìà ìòùéøéí àáì îä ùàîø áî÷åí àçø áéï ìòðééí áéï ìòùéøéí

(e)

Question: How do Beis Hillel use Beis Shammai's source? 'You shall leave them' - this case applies to the poor but not the rich, but the other case of 'leaving them' applies to everyone.

îä î÷ééîåï á"ù èòîééäå ãá"ä úùîèðä åðèùúä îéòåè æä áéï ìòðééí áéï ìòùéøéí àáì îä ùðàîø áî÷åí àçø ìòðééí àáì ìà ìòùéøéí

(f)

Question: How do Beis Shammai use Beis Hillel's source? (Shemos 23:11), "you shall release it and abandon it" - only this applies to the poor and rich, but another case (Hefker) can apply to the poor but not the rich.

àîø ø' àáåï ìéùï ãîúðé' îñééò ìø"ù á"ì òã ùéô÷éø àó ìòùéøéí ëùîéèä

(g)

(R. Avun): The wording of Beis Hillel in the Mishnah supports R. Shimon ben Lakish - 'it is not possible unless he declares it Hefker even for the rich, like Shemittah'.

[ãó îè òîåã á (òåæ åäãø)] äô÷ø ìáäîä àáì ìà ìàãí ìâåéí àáì ìà ìéùøàì ìòùéøéí àáì ìà ìòðééí ã"ä àéï äô÷øå äô÷ø ìàãí àáì ìà ìáäîä ìéùøàì àáì ìà ìâåéí ìòðéé àåúä äòéø àáì ìà ìòðéé òéø àçøú ôìåâúà ãø' éåçðï åø"ù á"ì òì ãòúéä ãø' éåçðï äô÷øå äô÷ø åò"ã ãø"ù á"ì àéï äô÷øå äô÷ø

(h)

If he declared it Hefker for animals but not for people; for gentiles but not for Jews; for the rich but not for the poor - all agree that it is not Hefker. If he declared it Hefker for people but not animals, for Jews but not gentiles, for the poor of that city but not of another city - R. Yochanan reasoned that it is Hefker; R. Shimon ben Lakish reasoned that it is not Hefker.

à"ø ìà áôéøåù ôìéâé ø"é àîø äô÷øå äô÷ø åø' ùîòåï á"ì àîø àéï äô÷øå äô÷ø

(i)

(R. Ila): They disagree explicitly - R. Yochanan said it is Hefker; R. Shimon ben Lakish said that it is not Hefker.

àîø ø' àáåï á"ø çééà äãä àîø' äô÷ø ìòðééí åæëå áäï òùéøéí úôìåâúà ãø"î åø' éåñé ò"ã ãø"î ãå àîø ëéåï ùàãí îô÷éø ãáø îøùåúå äô÷øå äô÷ø [ãó ð òîåã à (òåæ åäãø)] òì ãòúéä ãø"é ãå àîø àéï äô÷ø éåöà îúçú éãé áòìéí àìà áæëéä àéï äô÷øå äô÷ø

(j)

(R. Avun b'R. Chiya): This teaches that if a person declared something Hefker to the poor and the rich then took it, it is a dispute between R. Meir and R. Yosi. According to R. Meir, since a person can relinquish his control of an item, it can become Hefker. According to R. Yosi, since an item does not leave someone's domain without an acquisition, it is not Hefker.