Nedarim 44a (מד.) — the Talmud in English

And if

a man

said:

“Let this field be ownerless for one day,”

or he said that it should be ownerless

for one week

[for one week]

,

or he said

“for one month,”

or

“for one year,”

or

“for one seven-year cycle”

[for the seven years of a Sabbatical cycle],

then,

until it has not been acquired, whether

he has not acquired it

himself,

or

whether

someone else has not acquired it

either—

the owner who declared it ownerless can retract his declaration.

retract the declaration

.

But

once it has been acquired, whether by him or by someone else—

he can no longer retract his declaration

of ownerlessness.

And the practical difference between acquiring it oneself after it was declared ownerless and retracting one’s declaration of ownerlessness is as follows:

In order to acquire something that was declared ownerless, one must perform an act of acquisition upon it, whereas retraction suffices if one retracts the declaration verbally.

Similarly, if he acquired it after it was declared ownerless, he is exempt from tithing even according to Rabbi Yosei, despite the fact that it is considered as though he acquired it from himself. But if he retracted his declaration of ownerlessness, he is obligated to tithe, because it is revealed that the matter was never ownerless at all!

It follows that the

first clause—

is in accordance with the opinion of

the Rabbis,

who hold that an ownerless object leaves its owner’s possession immediately when he declares it ownerless, except that during the first three days they are concerned about fraudsters; therefore, he can retract his declaration.

And

the

last clause—

is in accordance with the opinion of

Rabbi Yosei

! For in the last clause there is no concern about fraudsters, since had he been a fraudster, he would not have needed to declare it ownerless for a specified period. If so, what we learned—that until it has been acquired, whether by him or by someone else, he can retract his declaration—must necessarily be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei!?

Ulla said: The last clause as well

is in accordance with the opinion of

the Rabbis.

And we raise an objection:

If so, why, until it has been acquired, whether by him or by someone else, can he retract his declaration?

And we explain:

It is different

when he declares it ownerless

for a year or

for a

seven-year cycle, as it is uncommon

to declare property ownerless in this manner. And since this person deviated from the usual practice, we assess his intention: Since he did not wish to declare it ownerless forever, and he remains attached to the object, it stands to reason that even during the period for which he declared it ownerless, he was not comfortable with the object leaving his possession—until someone else acquired it.

Reish Lakish said: Since the last clause

is in accordance with the opinion of

Rabbi Yosei, the first clause as well—

is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

And indeed, according to his opinion, the person who declared the property ownerless can always retract his declaration.

And the reason for the first clause

that after three days he cannot retract his declaration is that the Sages were stringent in this matter, in order

that the law of ownerlessness not be forgotten.

For there is concern that if the person who declared the property ownerless were able to retract his declaration, the acquirer would infer that even when he did not retract it, the property had not been completely ownerless, but had remained in the owner’s possession until the acquirer acquired it. He would then think that its legal status is that of property received as a gift, and not that of property acquired after being declared ownerless; consequently, the produce would be obligated in tithes, and people might tithe from it on untithed produce, thereby tithing from exempt produce on obligated produce!

And we challenge this:

If so,

if this is the reason, then

even from the first day as well it should be considered ownerless,

since already then he would be unable to retract his declaration, so that the law of ownerlessness would not be forgotten! And why did they establish that it becomes ownerless only after three days?

Rabba said:

The reason that the declaration of ownerlessness does not take effect until three days have passed is

because of the fraudsters. For they declare property ownerless

and then retract their declarations

[as explained above]. Therefore, throughout the three days, they left the matter governed by Torah law, so that the declaration of ownerlessness would not take effect—until it comes into the possession of the acquirer.

And we challenge this:

But according to Torah law,

even after three days

it is not ownerless

according to Rabbi Yosei. Rather, only the Rabbis enacted that it should be considered ownerless, so that the law of ownerlessness would not be forgotten. If so, they certainly must have required him to tithe, since according to Torah law this property is not ownerless .