The גמרא at the end of the previous דף and this דף discuss the concept of הפקר. There are many fundamental יסודות of how הפקר works that comes out from our סוגיא. The ירושלמי in פּאה פּרק ו says that the concept of הפקר according to בית הלל is learned from the extra word “ונטשתה” by שמיטה. The ערוך השולחן in חו"מ סימן רע"ג אות ג explains that this is a גזרת הכתוב, because without a גזרת הכתוב one would think that without a קנין you cannot simply remove your ownership of something. Interestingly, theרמב"ם in הלכות נדרים פּרק ב׳ הל׳ י"ד says that while הפקרis not a נדר it is like a נדר and one is not allowed to be חוזר from it. This is also paskened in שולחן ערוךin סימן רע"ג. The words sound like it works מתורת נדר which would fit with the הוה אמינא of the ערוך השולחן, that one cannot actually remove your ownership of something without a קנין. In fact, the קצות החושן there says that although he doesn’t know the source of the רמב"ם , the רמב"ם means what he says and the נפקא מינה is that if the owner dies then the children can be חוזר on the הפקר since they don’t need to keep their father’s נדרים. This is also the reason רש"יin פּסחים דף ד׳ ע"ב learns that ביטול חמץ on פּסח is because its counts as תשביתו but it isn’t because of הפקר like תוספות says there since הפקר wouldn’t help as it’s still in your רשות except for the איסור בל יחל. Most אחרונים don’t seem to learn like this and assume its not really like a נדר but just נדר-like and there is no בעל יחל for reneging on a נדר. As the ערוך השולחן points out, if it was really a נדר then you should be able to be שואל on your הפקר and annul it like a נדר and the ר"ן says that there is no such thing as annulling הפקר. However, the fact that the רמב"ם put all הלכות הפקר in הלכות נדרים seems to indicate that he feels it is a נדר. Furthermore, the נתיבות המשפּטin סימן רע"ה אות אsays that actually one can be שואל on their הפקר. The ר"ן that says you cant be שואל on הפקר is talking about once someone else is זוכה in it where it becomes his because of יאוש which is not the same as הפקר.

The גמרא says according to עולאthat even the רבנן agree that if you are מפקיר your field for a week, it is still considered yours during that week until someone takes it since we assume from the fact that you were only מפקיר it for a week, you are still connected to it and want to retain your ownership until someone takes it. If so, we have the following question: if owns an animal one is מצווה על שביתתו and cannot let it work for you. If a נכרי has your animal and didn’t give it back to you before Shabbos, the שולחן ערוך in או"ח סימן רמ"ו סעיף ג says you can be מפקיר and the רמ"א quotes the טור who says its obviously only הפקר for Shabbos and no one can take it after Shabbos. In light of what our גמרא says, how would being מפקיר it for one Shabbos help? When you are מפקיר something for a finite time, you still own it until someone takes it, so it should still be an issue of שביתת בהמתו since you still own the animal. The מחנה אפרים in זכיה מהפקר סימן ב asks this question and says that we cannot simply say that we don’t pasken like עולא’s answer but rather like ר"ל because theרמב"ם is משמע we do pasken like עולא. Therefore, he answers that just as we are אומד דעתו that when he says he wants something הפקר for a week he doesn’t want it to leave his רשות, we can similarly be אומד דעתו that when he is trying to get out of an איסור דאורייתא he means to be fully מפקיר it for that day.

New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters

Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder

Daf HaShavua Choveres - compiled by Rabbi Pinchas Englander

Rabbi Ari Keilson - Maarei Mekomos

Rabbi Yaakov Blumenfeld - Shakla Vetarya

Review Test