Talmud su Deuteronomio 14:29

Rav Ḥisda said, if somebody declared his standing grain ownerless, came back and retook possession, and illegally gave heave, that is heave¹⁸Produce collected from ownerless property is not subject to heave and tithes, as deduced later in this paragraph from Deut. 18:4. In general, if somebody gives heave and tithes from exempt produce, his action is invalid and no sanctity is attached to the heave given. Standing grain is not under any obligation of heave. The obligation of heave and tithes falls on the grain when it is stored after threshing but there is a latent obligation from the time it is cut since then it is potential commercial produce. Therefore, if heave was given from standing grain, that is an invalid act; if heave was given from cut ears of grain, this is against the rules but valid. If the exempt produce was cut while in the possession of its owner, a latent obligation is on it which can be activated by his giving heave and tithes “illegally”, i. e., against the rules.
In the Babli (Nedarim 44b, Baba Qama 28a,94a, Temurah 6a, Ḥulin 134b, Niddah 51a), a similar principle is established using the grape harvest as an example. The entire argument disregards the opinion of R. Yose [Peah6:1 (fol. 19b), Demay 3:2 (fol. 23b), Nedarim 4:10 (fol. 38d)] who rejects the concept of ownerless property and holds that the owner has full responsibility for his abandoned property until it is taken up and acquired by another person.. What is the difference between standing grain and ears of grain? Standing grain, if he illegally gave heave before he declared it ownerless, that is not heave. Ears, if he illegally gave heave before he declared them ownerless, that is heave. Rav Ḥinena in the name of Rav Ḥisda, the same applies to a dedicated crop¹⁹As indicated below, a crop which is Temple property is exempt from heave and tithes, as well as from the gifts to the poor. Rav Ḥisda wants to extend this exemption to standing grain which was dedicated to the Temple and redeemed while standing. In that case, there certainly is no exemption from the gifts to the poor, Peah Mishnah 4:5.. The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai²⁰Terumot 1:5 (fol. 40d), Ḥallah1:3 (fol. 57c), Nedarim 4:10 (fol. 38d); as tannaïtic statement Sifry Deut. 109.: (Deut. 14:29) “The Levite shall come, because he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You are obliged to give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes gleanings for which your and his hands are equal. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property are all equal. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the company did ask: But dedications, where your and his hands are not equal, are treated²¹By Rav Ḥisda. One continues to show that Rav Ḥisda’s statement is wrong. as if your and his hands were equal. Said Rebbi Ila, what are we talking about? If the heap was made when it was ownerless or dedicated, the Torah said (Deut. 18:4) “the first of your grain”, not the ownerless, “the first of your grain”, not Temple property. But we must be talking about ears that he declared ownerless and of which he retook possession. If they were ownerless, he would be free, if dedicated, he would be obligated. If they were ownerless, he would be free, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: (Deut. 14:29) “The Levite shall come, because he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You are obligated to give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes gleanings for which your and his hands are equal. If dedicated, he would be obligated, from the following²²Mishnah Peah 4:5.: “If somebody dedicated standing produce and redeemed it standing, it is obligated.” What is the difference between ownerless and dedicated? Ownerless [property] is outside the power of everybody, dedicated [property] is not outside the power of the Temple treasurer. Rebbi Abin said, it did not even go outside the power of its owners since he must say to him you redeem first²³The prior owner of dedicated property retains the right of first refusal when the Temple wants to sell the property (Sifra Beḥuqotay Pereq10)..

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: The only kinds admitting an intention of exemption are three: [buckthorn]⁷Reading with R. S. Cirillo רימין for רימון, defined by Maimonides (Demay 1:1) by Arabic נַבק “buckthorn, lotus fruit.” Pomegranate trees (רימון) have valuable fruits and are not planted for their wood. Cf. Demay 1, Note 4., sycamore, and caper bush. Are these obligated for tithes⁷Reading with R. S. Cirillo רימין for רימון, defined by Maimonides (Demay 1:1) by Arabic נַבק “buckthorn, lotus fruit.” Pomegranate trees (רימון) have valuable fruits and are not planted for their wood. Cf. Demay 1, Note 4.? This is a dispute between Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi Hila. They differed: If somebody kept his fruit trees for wood, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said he is obligated, Rebbi Hila said he is exempted. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said he is obligated, from the following⁹Ma‘serot 1:1, Note 20.: (Deut. 14:29) “The Levite shall come, because he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You are obliged to give him from what you have but he has not¹⁰Since the fruits of the tree destined to be cut down as fire wood remain private property, they are subject to tithes. The next two sentences are irrelevant here; they are just copied from the source in Ma‘serot.. This excludes abandoned property for which your and his hands are equal. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property are all equal.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: Rebbi Meïr says that as soon as a person abandons anything from his property, it is no longer in his possession. Rebbi Yose says, nothing may leave the hands of its owners except if it is taken up by another person¹¹⁵E. g., if somebody is injured on abandoned property which had not been taken up by another person, the original owner has to pay according to R. Yose but not according to R. Meïr.. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya, both say, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: The words of Rebbi Yose [deal with the case] that a person gave a gift to ten people and this one was one of them¹¹⁶R. Yose compares abandoning property to giving something to a group of people without specifying who gets what. In that case, the transfer of ownership rights certainly depends on the new owner taking possession. This is also R. Joḥanan’s position in the Babli, 43a.. If somebody abandoned his field, some Tannaïm say, he can retract¹¹⁷If nobody took the property in the meantime., but some Tannaïm say, he cannot retract. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The one who says that he can retract follows Rebbi Yose¹¹⁸Since the property still is his to do with as he pleases.. But the one who says that he cannot retract follows Rebbi Meïr. Does this mean that abandoned property in the sense of Rebbi Yose is subject to tithes¹¹⁹Since a gift does not remove the obligation of heave and tithes; cf. Ma‘serot 1:1, Notes 18–23.? What did he say? Abandoned property, not gift¹²⁰Since the statement of R. Yose is about abandoned property; it cannot follow all the rules of gifts.! Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa came in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Abandoned property in the sense of Rebbi Yose is subject to tithes. There¹²¹In Babylonia., they say that abandoned property in the sense of Rebbi Yose is not subject to tithes, ¹²²From here to the end of the paragraph, the text is from Ma‘serot 1:1, Note 20. since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: ¹²³Deut. 14:29.“The Levite shall come,” etc. You are obliged to give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes abandoned property for which your and his hands are equal. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property are all equal.