(Mishnah): Sharecroppers, Chakiros (they rent land on condition to pay a fixed amount of Peros from it), a Sikrikon (extortionist who took land, and the owner fears to contest him) and a Gazlan do not bring for that reason (given at the end of the previous Mishnah) - "Reishis Bikurei Admasecha.''

(Gemara) Question: This is when he stole land. If he stole a branch and planted it [what is the law]?

Answer: Does he not [acquire it, and he merely] owes money [to the branch's original owner?! Surely he brings and recites!]

Question: Rather, Rabanan asked whether a Mitzvah (e.g. Bikurim) is like Gavoha (something stolen is Pasul for a Korban even after there is despair and the Gazlan acquires it), or is it not like Gavoha?

If you will say that it is like Gavoha, he does not bring [Bikurim]. If you will say that it is not like Gavoha, he brings.

All agree about an Asheirah (a tree planted for idolatry) that was Batel (the owner did an act to show that he no longer worships it), that one may not bring from it logs for the Ma'arachah (woodpile on the Mizbe'ach).

Question (Reish Lakish): May one bring from it a Lulav? Is a Mitzvah like Gavoha, or not like Gavoha?

If you will say that it is like Gavoha, he does not bring [a Lulav from it]. If you will say that it is not like Gavoha, he brings.

Answer: Clearly, he may bring from it a Lulav, for a Mitzvah is not like Gavoha.

Question: May one bring [from it] Bikurim?

Answer: According to R. Yehudah, who says that [Bikurim] are equated to Kodshei ha'Gevul (in Chalah 4:4, he does not permit giving them to any Kohen; they are like Terumah, which we give only to a Chaver who is careful about Tum'ah), he brings. According to Rabanan, who say that [Bikurim] are equated to Kodshei ha'Mikdash (one may give them to any Kohen), he does not bring.

Question: This is only for theft from which the owner did not despair. Is it even for theft from which the owner despaired?

Answer: We learn from the following (Mishnah). These apply to Terumah and Ma'aser (they apply to sharecroppers, Chakiros, a Sikrikon and a Gazlan), but not to Bikurim.

This is needed only for theft from which the owner despaired. Theft from which the owner did not despair, even for Terumah he did not do anything!

This is like it was taught, an extortionist, Ganav or Gazlan, when the owner chases after them, their Terumah is not Terumah, their Ma'aser is not Ma'aser, and their Hekdesh is not Hekdesh;

When the owner does not chase after them, their Terumah is Terumah, their Ma'aser is Ma'aser, and their Hekdesh is Hekdesh;

(R. Yosi citing R. Yochanan): This one (the Gazlan) cannot be Torem (for it is not his), and this one (the owner) cannot be Torem (for it is not in his Reshus).

(R. Ami citing R. Yochanan): Even if the owner was Torem, it is not Terumah [even b'Di'eved].

Rebuttal (of the above answer): We discuss a theft from which the owner did not despair.

Question: [If there was no despair,] for what matter was it taught 'these apply to Terumah and Ma'aser, but not to Bikurim'?

Answer: It is possible for Peros without Bikurim (there is no Isur to eat before Bikurim are brought). Is it possible for Peros without Terumah and Ma'aseros?! (A Gazlan cannot tithe before despair, but the Peros are forbidden until they are tithed, even if someone else bought them - R. SHLOMO SIRILIYO.)

However, theft from which the owner despaired, it is a question (whether or not the Gazlan brings Bikurim).