(Mishnah): If a vineyard consists entirely of Olelos - R. Eliezer says that it belongs to the owner; R. Akiva says that it belongs to the poor.

(R. Eliezer): The pasuk states (Devarim 24:21), "When you harvest, do not take off the small clusters". If there is no harvest, how can you have Olelos?

(R. Akiva to R. Eliezer): The pasuk states (Vayikra 19:10), "Do not take off the small clusters of your vineyard" - even if all are Olelos. If so, why does it say, "when you pick your grapes, do not take off the small clusters"? To teach that the poor do not receive Olelos before harvesting.

(Gemara): Just as the poor may not take Olelos until the owner harvests, similarly with Peret. The owner needs to harvest a certain minimum amount for this (as will be explained). If he began harvesting and an animal ate what he had harvested, he cannot count the original produce (that was eaten) towards that minimum.

Question: What is that minimum?

Answer (D' Beis Shila): Three clusters, that produce a Revi'is (around 86 ml/ close to 3 fl oz) of wine.

Question: R. Akiva explained both pesukim, but how does R. Eliezer understand R. Akiva's pasuk of "Do not take off the small clusters of your vineyard"?

Answer: So that you should not say that since the poor may not take Olelos before the harvest, the owner could therefore take them.

(Mishnah): One who consecrated his vineyard before the Olelos were visible, they do not belong to the poor; if it was after they were visible, they belong to the poor.

(R. Yosi): They must give the value of their growth (i.e. the value of the amount they grew between his consecration and until they ripened) to Hekdesh.

What is considered Shichechah of vines growing on a trellis? When he is no longer able to stretch out his hand and take it. And in the case of vines at foot level; it is Shichechah when the gatherers have passed by.

(Gemara) (Mishnah in Maseches Pesachim): (The people of Yericho) permitted branches of trees they consecrated. The Chachamim said to them - Don't you agree that growths of Hekdesh are prohibited? They replied - When our fathers consecrated, they only consecrated the beams, because of the powerful men who would come and take them by force.

Question: If so, what was the Chachamim's reason to object? You cannot assume that they left the growths unconsecrated.

Answer #2: Even if they consecrated only the beams and not the growths, the Chachamim were doubtful as to whether that condition was valid - when one consecrated an orchard, can he retain the growths for himself?

Suggestion: Answer it from our Mishnah - 'if it was after the Olelos were visible, they belong to the poor' - even though the Olelos grew from Hekdesh branches!

Rejection: It is because a person cannot consecrate something that is not his (namely, the Olelos that are the property of the poor).

Question: This should be true even before the Olelos are visible?

Answer: (Since they were not known at the time of his consecration, they are like Olelos from a Hekdesh vineyard...

As the Baraisa teaches that if one plants a vineyard for Hekdesh, it is exempt from Orlah, from Revay and from Olelos, but it is obligated in the laws of Sheviis (refraining from working the land in the Shemittah year).

(R. Zeira citing R. Yochanan): (Why is it obligated in Sheviis?) The pasuk states (Vayikra 25:2), "And the land shall rest a resting to Hash-m" - Sheviis rests (even) upon something that is to Hash-m.

Question (R. Chiya bar Abba to R. Mana): Even if Sheviis rests upon Hekdesh produce, it certainly requires redemption in order to allow it to be eaten. If he redeems the fruits, the money receives the sanctity of Sheviis (meaning that it can only be used for food), but Hekdesh cannot be used for food - and it is as if he bought a pickaxe with Sheviis money?!

Answer (R. Mana): The treasurer exchanges it for another Jew's money and it then receives the sanctity of Sheviis (and must be used to buy food).

(R. Yosi said in the Mishnah that they must give the value of their growth to Hekdesh.) R. Matanyah asked - (the Mishnah in Nedarim teaches that if a person vowed, prohibiting benefit to another, if that person does not have food to eat, the one who vowed may even place it on a rock and declare it Hefker and the other one can then take it. R. Yosi prohibits this. R. Yochanan said that R. Yosi's reason is that his vow preceded his declaration of Hefker. If so, what is the question of R. Chiya bar Abba - surely the sanctity of Hekdesh cannot fall on the produce, since the Torah ordered it to be Hefker (because of Sheviis)? (The Gemara leaves this question unanswered.)

(R. Yochanan): It once happened that they ruled like R. Yosi that they must give the value of their growth to Hekdesh.

Question: (The Mishnah taught - What is considered Shichechah of vines growing on a trellis? When he is no longer able to stretch out his hand and take it.) Isn't this against R. Yochanan who said (earlier in Perek 5 Halacha 2 - Zevachim daf 48(h)) that once he has passed by the olive, it is Shichechah (even though he could still reach out and take it)?

Answer: A trellis is different - since it is growing on a raised pole, it is normal to go back and check it.

And this does not even disagree with R. Hoshiya (above Perek 6 Halachah 4 - Zevachim daf 59-2(j)) who said, "I was once harvesting olives with R. Chiya the Great and he told me that any olive that you can reach out and take is not Shichechah (even if he has already passed it by)" - since even he agrees that vines at foot level are different, because each vine is considered a separate row.