A man sold himself to cannibals. He asked R. Ami to redeem him.

R. Ami: The Mishnah teaches that if one sold himself and his children to Nochrim, we do not redeem the father, but we redeem his children. This is so the children will not learn to act like the Nochrim. All the more so, we redeem in order to save a life!

Rabanan: This man is a Mumar (he sins to anger Hash-m). We saw him eat Neveilos and Treifos (animals that died without slaughter or were mortally injured)!

R. Ami: Perhaps he desired eating them (but otherwise, he would not sin).

Rabanan: Sometimes, when he has a choice, he prefers forbidden food to permitted food!

R. Ami (to the man): Leave. Based on their testimony, I cannot redeem you.

Reish Lakish sold himself to cannibals. He took with him a sack with a lead ball concealed inside. He knew that they grant their victims any request on the last day, in order that the victims will pardon them for eating them.

On his last day he requested that they all be tied up, and he would give one and a half hits to each. He was able to kill them all, most with only one hit.

When Reish Lakish died, he left over some saffron to his heirs. He (regretted that he worked more than he needed to, and) applied to himself "they left their wealth to others."

(Mishnah): If one sold his field to Nochrim, for Tikun ha'Olam he buys the fruit and brings from it Bikurim (the first Peros to ripen of the seven species. They are given to a Kohen in the Mikdash.)

(Gemara - Rabah): A Nochri cannot acquire land in Eretz Yisrael to exempt (what grows on) it from Ma'aser (so that one need not tithe the fruit, like land of Chutz La'aretz). "To Me (Hash-m) is the land" - the Kedushah of the land is Mine (it never goes away);

However, a Nochri can acquire land in Eretz Yisrael to allow him to dig pits (even though this damages the land) - "Shamayim is of Hash-m, and the land was given to man."

(R. Elazar): A Nochri can acquire land in Eretz Yisrael to exempt it from tithes - "(you will tithe) your grain", not the grain of Nochrim;

However, a Nochri cannot acquire land in Eretz Yisrael to allow him to dig pits - "the land is Hash-m's."

Question: What is the source of their argument?

Answer: R. Elazar expounds "your Degen (grain)", not grain of Nochrim. Rabah expounds "your Digun (piling of grain)", not the piling of Nochrim.

Support (Rabah for himself - Mishnah): Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah (agricultural gifts left for the poor) of Nochrim must be tithed, unless he declared them to be Hefker.

Question: What is the case?

Suggestion: The fruit grew on a Yisrael's field, and a Nochri took them.

Rejection: If so, the fruit would be Hefker without any declaration. The Mishnah says 'unless he declared them to be Hefker'!

Answer: Rather, the fruit grew on a Nochri's field, and a Yisrael took them.

This shows that if the Nochri does not make them Hefker, they must be tithed!

Rejection: Really, the fruit grew on a Yisrael's field, and a Nochri took them;

The fruit is not fully Hefker without a declaration. The owner left them only for Yisre'elim to take, not for Nochrim to take them!

Support (for R. Elazar - Beraisa): If a Yisrael bought a field from a Nochri before the fruit was a third grown, and sold it back after the fruit was a third grown, it must be tithed, because it was already obligated to be tithed (when it was a third grown by the Yisrael).

Inference: Had it not grown a third when the Yisrael owned it, it would be exempt (even after it finished growing under Nochri ownership)!

Rejection: The Beraisa discusses Surya. The Tana holds that Kivush Yachid (land conquered by an individual, in this case David) is invalid (it does not get Kedushas Eretz Yisrael. Tithes apply there mid'Rabanan, only on the land of Yisre'elim.)

Support (for R. Elazar - Beraisa - Rebbi): If a Yisrael and Nochri bought a field in partnership, the produce is a mixture of Tevel (untithed produce) and Chulin (produce that need not be tithed);

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, the Nochri's produce need not be tithed. The Yisrael's produce must be tithed.

They argue only about Breirah (R. Shimon holds that each partner receives his own share. Rebbi holds that each owns half of every fruit. When they divide the fruit, it is as if they sell to each other.) All agree that what grows on the Nochri's portion is exempt!

Rejection: Also this Beraisa discusses Surya. The Tana holds that Kivush Yachid is invalid.

Support (for R. Elazar - R. Chiya bar Aba - Mishnah): If one sold his field to Nochrim, he buys the fruit and brings from it Bikurim for Tikun ha'Olam.

This is only an enactment for Tikun ha'Olam. Mid'Oraisa, it is exempt!

Rejection (Rav Ashi): Really, a Nochri cannot acquire land in Eretz Yisrael to exempt it from its Kedushah. There were two enactments;

At first, people would bring Bikurim mid'Oraisa. Chachamim saw that people were selling since they felt that the land retains its Kedushah, so they enacted not to bring Bikurim from such fields;

The result was that people left the field in the hands of the Nochri (to be exempt from Bikurim). Chachamim enacted that people resume bringing Bikurim.

(R. Yochanan): If one sold the rights to consume the Peros of his field, the buyer brings Bikurim and recites the declaration (in which he thanks Hash-m for "the land that You gave to me");

(Reish Lakish): The buyer brings Bikurim, but does not recite.

R. Yochanan says that he brings and recites. He holds that Kinyan (owning rights to the) Peros is like Kinyan ha'Guf (owning the field itself);

Reish Lakish says, he brings but does not recite. He holds that that Kinyan Peros is not like Kinyan ha'Guf.

Version #1 - Question (R. Yochanan - Beraisa): "For your house" teaches that a man brings Bikurim from his wife's property (in which he has Kinyan Peros) and recites.

Answer (Reish Lakish): That is an exception, because the Torah says "for your house."

Version #2 - Question (Reish Lakish - Beraisa): "For your house" teaches that a man brings Bikurim from his wife's property and recites.

This is only because the Torah says "for your house." Normally, one who has Kinyan Peros would not recite!

Answer (R. Yochanan): We learn from here (to everywhere) that Kinyan Peros is like Kinyan ha'Guf. (end of Version #2)

Question (against R. Yochanan - Beraisa): If a man was bringing his wife's Bikurim, and he heard that she died, he brings them and recites.

Inference: Had she not died, he would not recite! (Tosfos - we ask how R. Yochanan can learn from the verse. Perhaps it discusses only this case!)

Answer: No, even had she not died, he would recite. The Beraisa discusses when she died, to teach that we do not decree due to R. Yosi bar Chanina's law;

(R. Yosi bar Chanina): If David harvested Bikurim of his land and sent them with a Shali'ach, and the Shali'ach died, even if David finishes bringing them himself, he does not recite. "You will take... and you will bring" - the same person must take and bring (for the Parshah of recital to apply).