Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nedarim

Folio 45a

Alternatively: One case refers to hefker declared in the presence of two; the other, if declared before three. For R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon b. Jehozadak: Hefker declared in the presence of three is valid, but not in the presence of two.¹  R. Joshua b. Levi said: By the Torah, it is hefker even if declared in the presence of one: why then are three required? So that one can take possession, and the other two attest it.²

1. Until one actually takes possession. Therefore, in the Mishnah, since no person is present, R. Jose maintains that if the maddir declares the food hefker, and the muddar takes it, he receives it directly from the maddir. But the vineyard, we assume, was renounced in the presence of three; therefore even R. Jose agrees that the renunciation is immediately valid. Hence, if he re-acquires it, it is exempt from tithe. The stronger validity of hefker in the presence of three is due to its greater publicity.
2. For otherwise the first owner can deny his renunciation.

CHAPTER V

MISHNAH. IF [TWO] JOINT OWNERS MADE A VOW NOT TO BENEFIT FROM ONE ANOTHER, THEY MAY NOT ENTER THE COURTYARD.¹  R. ELIEZER B. JACOB SAID: EACH ENTERS INTO HIS OWN.²

1. Which belongs to both.
2. He maintains that it is as though it had been stipulated when jointly acquiring the property, that it should belong to each partner separately for his entering therein. Consequently, when he enters, he is not benefiting from the other. The Sages do not accept this view.