Related%20passage for Bava Metzia 60:4

איבעיא להו דרכו להחזיר בשדה ואין דרכו להחזיר בעיר מהו מי אמרינן השבה מעליא בעינן וכיון דלאו דרכיה להחזיר בעיר לא לחייב או דלמא בשדה מיהת הוא דאיחייב ליה וכיון דאיחייב ליה בשדה איחייב ליה בעיר תיקו

Thereupon he [the carrier] re-acquired it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And again asked R. Ishmael to help him. ');">⁷</span> He gave him another half <i>zuz</i> and again declared it hefker. Seeing that he was again about to re-acquire it, he said to him, 'I have declared it hefker for all but you.' But is it then hefker in that case? Have we not learnt: Beth Shammai maintain, hefker for the poor [only] is valid hefker; whilst Beth Hillel rule, It is valid only if declared hefker for the poor and the rich, as the year of release.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pe'ah VI, 1; 'Ed. IV. 3. Produce acquired from hefker was exempt from tithes. If, however, it was only partially declared hefker i.e., for the poor alone, Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel dispute whether that is valid. Since in all cases of dispute between these two academies the halachah was according to Beth Hillel, we see that partial hefker is invalid; hence R. Ishmael's declaration was illegal. — The seventh year was called the year of release (shemittah), and its crops were free to all; v. Lev. XXV, 1-7. ');">⁸</span> — But R. Ishmael son of R. Jose did in fact render it hefker for all; and he stopped the other [from taking possession again] by mere words. Yet was not R. Ishmael son of R. Jose an elder for whom it was undignified [to help one to take up a load]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then pay him off? ');">⁹</span>

Explore related%20passage for Bava Metzia 60:4. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.