Nedarim 44a — the Talmud in English

And if

a man said

a man:

“Let this field be ownerless for one day,”

or he said that it should be ownerless

for one week [

for a seven-year cycle]

one,

or he said

“for one month,”

or

“for one year,”

or

“for one seven-year cycle” [

for seven sabbatical years],

then,

before he acquired it, whether

he did not acquire it

himself,

and

whether

he did not acquire it

another—

the one who made it ownerless can

the one who made it ownerless

retract.

But

once it was acquired, whether by him or by another—

he cannot retract

from his declaration of ownerlessness.

And the practical difference between his acquiring it himself from the ownerless property and his retracting from his declaration of ownerlessness is as follows:

In order to acquire from ownerless property, he must perform an act of acquisition with it, whereas for retraction, it is sufficient that he retract verbally.

And likewise, if he acquired it from ownerless property, he is exempt from the tithe even according to Rabbi Yosei, despite the fact that it is considered that he acquired it from himself! But if he retracted from his declaration of ownerlessness, he is liable for the tithe, for it is revealed that it had never been ownerless!

It emerges that the

first clause—

according to the method of

the Rabbis,

who hold that ownerless property leaves his possession immediately when he declares it ownerless, but that during three days there is concern for swindlers, and therefore he can retract.

But

if the

last clause—

according to the method of

Rabbi Yosei

is! For in the last clause there is no concern for swindlers, since if he were a swindler, he would not need to declare it ownerless for a defined period. And if so, that which we learned, that before he or another acquired it he can retract, must necessarily be according to the method of Rabbi Yosei!?

Ulla said: The last clause also—

according to the method of

the Rabbis.

And we raise a difficulty:

If so, why, before he or another acquired it, can he retract?

And we explain:

It is different

when he declares it ownerless for

a year and

for

a seven-year cycle, for it is not common

that people declare property ownerless in this manner. And since this man acted differently, we assess his intention: since he did not wish to declare it ownerless forever, and he is still attached to the object, it is reasonable that even during the period for which he declared it ownerless, he was not content for the object to leave his possession—until another acquired it.

Reish Lakish said: Since the last clause

is according to the method of

Rabbi Yosei, the first clause also—

Rabbi Yosei.

And indeed, according to his method, the one who declares property ownerless can always retract.

And the reason for the first clause is

that after three days he cannot retract, since the Sages were stringent in the matter, so that

the law of ownerlessness should not be forgotten.

Since there is concern that if the one who declared it ownerless could retract, the acquirer would infer from this that even when he did not retract, this was not complete ownerlessness, but was in the owner’s possession until the acquirer acquired it; and he would think that his status is like that of one who receives a gift, and not like that of one who acquires from ownerless property, and that the produce is liable for the tithe, and they would come to tithe from it for tevel produce, and this would be tithing from that which is exempt for that which is liable!

And we raise a difficulty:

If so,

if this is the reason, then

even from the first day it should likewise be ownerless,

since already then he would not be able to retract, so that the law of ownerlessness should not be forgotten! And why did they institute that it should be ownerless only after three days?

Rabba said:

the reason that the ownerlessness does not take effect until three days is

because of the swindlers. For they declare property ownerless—

and then retract from it [

as was explained above], and therefore, for all three days they left their enactment according to the Torah law, so that the ownerlessness would not take effect—until it comes into the possession of the acquirer.

And we raise a difficulty:

But according to Torah law,

even after three days

it is not ownerless

according to the method of Rabbi Yosei; rather, the Rabbis only instituted that it should be ownerless, so that the law of ownerlessness should not be forgotten. And if so, one must certainly say that the Rabbis made it liable for the tithe, since according to Torah law this is not ownerless property .