(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.

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.

(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.

(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.

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.

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.

(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'.

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.

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

(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.