Previous daf

1)

(a) We learned in a Beraisa that for the first three days after a person has declared his field Hefker, he is able to retract.
Does this apply even if someone else acquired it first?

(b) Why did Chazal institute the basic Takanah of being able to retract (verbally) from the Hefker?

(c) And why did they extend this concession even to after someone has already acquired the field (when the reason for the Takanah no longer applies)?

(d) Why did they then limit the decree to three days? Why is the Hefker fully valid after that?

(a) What does the Seifa of the Beraisa rule in a case where the owner declared his field Hefker for a day, a week, a month, a year or a cycle of seven years?

(b) Initially, we establish the Reisha like the Rabbanan, and the Seifa, like Rebbi Yossi'.
How do we currently explain Rebbi Yossi? Why does he forbid the Mudar to benefit from the food that the Madir declared Hefker in our Mishnah?

(c) What would Rebbi Yossi say in the Reisha? With which point does he disagree with the Rabbanan?

(d) And what would the Rabbanan say in the Seifa? With which point do they disagree with Rebbi Yossi?

(a) Seeing as, according to Rebbi Yossi, the owner can retract even in a case of Hefker which is not limited to any time, why did he restrict his case to when it is?

(b) What are the ramifications of the statement of Rebbi Yossi that, even if *he* acquired it from Hefker, he can no longer retract?

(c) Why should he not be obligated to Ma'aser the produce, seeing as it remains in his domain until someone acquires it?

(d) On what grounds do Ula and Resh Lakish disagree with this explanation, despite the fact that everything fits so nicely into place?

5)

(a) According to Resh Lakish, the author of the entire Beraisa is Rebbi Yossi. Then why, in the Reisha, can the owner not retract after three days?

(b) Why did they not then extend the decree to the first three days?

(c) What prompted the Rabbanan to issue such a decree? What problem might it cause if the owner could retract even after three days, according to Rebbi Yossi?

(a) In the previous case, even after the three days, seeing as the owner is able to retract, according to Din Torah, it turns out that the field is not really Hefker at all.
Now that Chazal decreed that it is, does it mean that the Chiyuv T'rumos and Ma'asros no longer exists?

(b) What problem does this cause?

(c) So what did Chazal do to circumvent this problem?

(a) The Beraisa discusses the Din of someone who declares his field Hefker regarding Peret, Olelos, Shikchah, Pei'ah and Ma'asros.
What is ...

1. ... Peret?
2. ... Olelos?

(b) Is someone who declares his field Hefker, obligated to leave Peret and Olelos in his vineyard and Shikchah and Pei'ah in his field, or to separate Ma'asros?

(c) Does he remain Patur from separating Ma'asros after he re-acquires it?

(d) Then why is he obligated to leave Peret, Olelos, Shikchah and Pei'ah?

(a) How will Ula (who learned above that, according to the Rabbanan, within three days of declaring one's field Hefker, the owner may retract), explain the above Beraisa? Why does the Tana exempt the owner who does so from Ma'asros?

(b) Resh Lakish established the Beraisa above (which authorized the owner to retract within three days) like Rebbi Yossi.
Is it possible, according to Resh Lakish in Rebbi Yossi, for the owner to be exempt from Ma'asros should he re-acquire his field within three days?

(c) Considering then, that the Tana does not require the owner to specify that he is acquiring the field from Hefker, how will Resh Lakish explain the Beraisa?

Next daf