Hefker produce – produce that anyone is free to take – is exempt from terumot and ma’asrot. The Torah states: “Then the levi shall come, for he has no portion or inheritance with you” (Devarim 14:29). The Sages infer that terumot and ma’asrot apply only to produce in which the levi has no portion or inheritance. Hefker produce is different: since the levi does have a share in it and may take it like anyone else, no separation is required (Yerushalmi, Terumot 1:3; Yerushalmi, Ma’asrot 1:1). Therefore, hikers who pick wild fruit growing in a place that belongs to no one may eat it, whether in the field or at home, without separating terumot and ma’asrot.
Fruit trees planted decoratively in public gardens owned by a municipality or public association are exempt from terumot and ma’asrot as long as those responsible for the gardens allow anyone to pick fruit without restriction. If this is unclear, those responsible should announce before three people that the fruit is hefker. This removes any doubt and exempts the fruit.
One who wants to declare his own fruit hefker must say before three people: “My fruit is hefker.” The fruit then becomes ownerless, and anyone may acquire it. At least two of those present must be halakhically valid witnesses, so that if the third person acquires the fruit, the other two can testify that he did so lawfully (SA ḤM 273:7). If one declares the fruit ownerless only for the poor but not for the rich, or even for everyone except one person, it is not hefker, and terumot and ma’asrot must be separated from it (Mishna, Pe’a 6:1).
The hefker that exempts produce from ma’asrot applies from the time it reaches onat ha-ma’asrot – the stage at which it becomes edible in pressing circumstances – until it is picked and becomes fixed for ma’asrot (see below, sections 6–7). If one declared his fruit hefker while it was still attached to the trees, but did not declare his field hefker, the fruit is exempt from terumot and ma’asrot (MT, Laws of Ma’aser 1:12). But if he declared the field hefker and not the fruit, the fruit remains subject to terumot and ma’asrot. Similarly, if one plants in an ownerless field, even though the field remains hefker, the produce is his, and terumot and ma’asrot must be separated from it (MT, Laws of Terumot 2:11).
If one declares his produce hefker, even for a single moment, anyone who acquires it during that time is exempt from terumot and ma’asrot. Once another person has acquired the produce, the original owner can no longer retract his declaration. If no one else has acquired it, however, the Sages enacted that during the first three days the owner may undo the hefker, either by retracting his declaration or by reacquiring the produce through lifting it. In either case, terumot and ma’asrot must once again be separated from the produce. Only if the produce remained hefker for three days, and the owner reacquired it afterward, is he exempt from separating terumot and ma’asrot.
This enactment was designed to prevent abuse: people might otherwise declare their produce hefker for a brief moment and immediately reclaim it, with no real intention of relinquishing ownership, solely to avoid the obligation of terumot and ma’asrot.[5]
[5]. The timing of hefker is critical. If one declared produce hefker before it reached onat ha-ma’asrot, but he or someone else reacquired it before that point, terumot and ma’asrot apply to the produce. Since it was no longer hefker when it reached onat ha-ma’asrot, the exemption never took effect. Similarly, if one declared it hefker only after it had already become fixed for ma’asrot, the existing obligation remains. Thus, hefker exempts produce only during the middle stage: after it reaches onat ha-ma’asrot but before it becomes fixed for ma’asrot.
Once its final processing is complete, however, the Sages prohibited declaring it hefker in order to exempt it from terumot and ma’asrot, even if it has not yet become fixed for ma’asrot. Nevertheless, if one violated this prohibition and declared it hefker, the declaration is effective and the produce is exempt, since it had not yet become fixed for ma’asrot (MT, Laws of Ma’aser 3:20; Shakh, YD 331:116).
The ruling above follows the discussion in Nedarim 43b–44b: during the first three days, the owner can still undo the hefker, and the produce returns to its original obligation; after three days, if he reacquires it, it remains exempt. This is Rambam’s position (MT, Laws of Vows 2:17), as understood by Kesef Mishneh, and it is codified in SA, ḤM 273:9. There is, however, a narrower way to understand this rule. Some maintain that terumot and ma’asrot apply only if the owner cancels the hefker within three days. If instead he reacquires the produce through a normal act of acquisition, just as anyone else could have done, it remains exempt. Even so, the enactment still prevents fraud. To reacquire the produce normally, the owner would have to pick or lift all of it, and he would worry that others might take some before he succeeds. Only by retroactively canceling the hefker within three days does the produce return fully to his possession and regain its original obligation in terumot and ma’asrot (Rashba and Rosh, Nedarim 43b; Leḥem Mishneh in the view of Rambam; Netivot Ha-Mishpat 273:2).
Others understand the enactment more broadly. In their view, anyone who acquires this produce during the first three days must separate terumot and ma’asrot, whether he is the original owner or someone else. Only one who acquires it after three days is exempt (Ran and Tosafot, Nedarim 43b).
A separate concern applies when one gathers a very large amount of hefker fruit. If he makes it into a pile, he appears to be acting like an owner. Therefore, because of mar’it ayin, the Sages required him to separate terumot and ma’asrot (Berakhot 40b; MT, Laws of Terumot 2:9).
