MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor is abandoned¹, but the House of Hillel say, it is not abandoned unless it is abandoned also to the rich, as in a Sabbatical year². If all sheaves of a field are of one qab each, except one which is of four qab and they forgot about that one, the House of Shammai say, it cannot be a forgotten sheaf³, but the House of Hillel say, it can be a forgotten sheaf.

footnotes: ¹ It is free from any obligation of heave and tithes. ² I. e., what grows on the fields in a Sabbatical year without being planted or sown, which is exempt from heave and tithes. ³ Because it may be unbundled into several sheaves and, therefore, is not a final sheaf as required by the preceding Mishnah.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya⁴ in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of the House of Shammai (Lev. 19:10, 23:22)⁵ “for the poor and the sojourner.” Why does the verse say, “relinquish them”? There is another relinquishing like this one. Just as this one is for the poor and not the rich, also what is spoken of elsewhere⁶ is for the poor and not for the rich.

footnotes: ⁴ Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. ⁵ “Do not go over your vineyard a second time, nor pick up the single berries of your vineyard; to the poor and the sojourner relinquish them.” Why does it say “relinquish,” and not “give”? ⁶ Any meaning of עזב must conform with this paradigm.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the reason of the House of Hillel, (*Ex.*23:11)⁷ “let drop,” why does the verse say, “and abandon it”? There is another abandoning like this one. Just as this one is for poor and rich alike, also what is spoken of elsewhere⁸ is for poor and rich alike.

footnotes: ⁷ Speaking of the produce of the Sabbatical year. ⁸ Any meaning of נטש must conform with this paradigm.

How⁹ do the House of Hillel deal with the reason of the House of Shammai? “Relinquish them” is a restriction, these are for the poor, not for the rich, but what is spoken of elsewhere¹⁰ is for poor and rich alike. How do the House of Shammai deal with the reason of the House of Hillel? “Let it drop and abandon it” is a restriction, this abandoning is for poor and rich alike, but what is spoken of elsewhere¹¹ is for the poor but not for the rich. Rebbi Avin said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish¹²: “Abandoned also to the rich, as in the Sabbatical year.”

footnotes: ⁹ As in most Talmudic discussions, if themes 1–2 are introduced in order, they will be discussed as 2–1. The verse whose interpretation is ascribed to the House of Shammai is also the base of R. Joḥanan’s interpretation for the House of Hillel. ¹⁰ Where עזב is used, it does not have to conform to the paradigm. ¹¹ Where נטש is used, it does not have to conform to the paradigm. ¹² Since the House of Shammai disappeared soon after the destruction of the Temple and R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish lived almost 200 years later, their deductions are intellectual exercises which moreover have been shown here to be contradictory, as the same principles applied to two different verses lead to contradictory results. But R. Simeon ben Laqish’s argument very likely is historically true.

Property abandoned to animals but not to humans, to Gentiles but not to Jews, to rich but not to poor, everybody agrees that it does not have the status of abandoned property¹³. For humans but not for animals, for Jews but not for Gentiles, for the poor of one town but not for the poor of any other town¹⁴ 3:1 it is stated that “the House of Shammai agree with the House of Hillel that if he abandoned property for humans but not for animals, for Jews but not for Gentiles, it is legally abandoned.” This, then, must be taken as the Babylonian position. is a disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, this abandoning is legal abandoning¹⁵. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this abandoning is not legal abandoning¹⁶. Rebbi Lia said, they disagree explicitly: Rebbi Joḥanan said, this abandoning is legal abandoning. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this abandoning is not legal abandoning.

footnotes: ¹³ And is subject to the laws of heave and tithes. ¹⁴ This shows that the entire discussion is about the opinion of the House of Shammai. However, in Tosephta Peah ¹⁵ In his opinion, restrictive abandoning is permitted. ¹⁶ Since he deduces the rules from the Sabbatical year, and there animals and the stranger are explicitly mentioned as beneficiaries.

Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, that which was said, if it was abandoned to the poor but grabbed by the rich is a difference between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Yose¹⁷, Babli 43a ff., Yerushalmi 4:10. The Mishnah speaks of a person A who made a vow not to use anything belonging to another person B. According to R. Meïr, B may abandon some property which A may take, but according to R. Yose, the abandoned property still belongs to B (who is also responsible for any damage caused by or on this property) until someone picked it up; hence, A may not take up the abandoned property.. According to Rebbi Meïr, who asserts that [it is legally abandoned] as soon as a person abandons anything from his property, [in our case] it is legally abandoned¹⁸. According to Rebbi Yose, who says that nothing may leave the hands of its owners except if it is taken up [by another person, in our case] it is not legally abandoned¹⁹.

footnotes: ¹⁷ The main source is Nedarim ¹⁸ The rich person, while acting in an improper way, nevertheless acquired the abandoned article. ¹⁹ Since under the terms of the abandonment, the rich person will not acquire it even if he picks it up.

So far²³, not here. The question is, whether a person may abandon real property on condition that it automatically revert to the previous owner unless picked up by another person in a certain interval of time. In order to avoid declarations of abandonment simply for the purpose of evading heave, tithes, and taxes, restrictions might have been placed by the Rabbinic Court on the right of reversal., if he abandoned it for a longer period of time. But if he abandoned only for a short time? Let us hear from the following²⁴ 3:11; see also Babli Nedarim 43b–44a.: “If he abandoned his field, he may cancel his action during two or three days²⁵.” Rebbi Simeon Dima stated before Rebbi Zeïra: Even after three he may cancel his action. He said to him, since you say after three days, is it the same after three or after many? The language of a baraitha supports Rebbi Zeïra: “About when is this said²⁶? If he abandoned in an unspecified way. But if he said: My field shall be abandoned one day, one week, one month, one year, a sabbatical period, as long as nobody took it over, either he or another person, he may cancel. But after somebody acquired it, either he or somebody else, he cannot cancel.” This means that short or long periods are the same. It also means that they were not worried about dishonesty²⁷. That obviously answers Rebbi Zeïra’s question, since Rebbi Zeïra had said, are short and long times the same?

footnotes: ²³ These two words belong to Nedarim ²⁴ The two passages in quotation marks are from a text close to Tosephta Ma‘serot ²⁵ But after that, the renunciation becomes absolute. ²⁶ That after two days the act becomes irrevocable. ²⁷ Since the probability that nobody else took the property is very small.

What are we discussing²⁹? If it should be recognizable, two would be enough. If for a row³⁰, three would be enough. One scholar quoted this statement by Rebbi Joḥanan before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Anything he can split and make into a row following the House of Shammai³¹. Rebbi Jonah: That goes by proportionality; “if all sheaves of a field are of one qab each, except one which is of four qab and they forgot about that one,” if all sheaves of a field are of two qab each, except one which is of eight qab.

footnotes: ²⁹ This deals with the last part of the Mishnah, quoted by R. Jonah, that an outsize sheaf left on the field is not “forgotten” for the House of Shammai. ³⁰ This refers to Mishnah 4, which states that two sheaves constitute forgotten sheaves, but three sheaves do not. On this, the Halakhah specifies that the three sheaves must form a row in order to escape the law of forgotten sheaves. ³¹ At the end of Mishnah 4, the House of Shammai is quoted as giving three sheaves to the poor, four sheaves to the farmer.

MISHNAH: A sheaf that was near a closure³²25b), Rabbenu Ḥananel (loc. cit.), and Maimonides (Commentary on the Mishnah) and, therefore, Geonic tradition. Ben Jehudah derives the word from the root גוף, גפף “to close an opening.” For example, מגופה is a clay block with which the top of an amphora containing wine or olive oil is sealed. The deviating explanation of R. Simson of Sens, “a stone fence made without mortar,” is preferred by modern Talmudic dictionaries. Schwab translates: “fence of pales,” close to the Modern Hebrew acception: “fence made of a weave of reeds or rods.”, a stack, cattle³³, or vessels, if it was forgotten, the House of Shammai say, it is not a forgotten sheaf, but the House of Hillel say, it is a forgotten sheaf.

footnotes: ³² Where an opening in a fence was closed with wood or other materials. This is the concurrent explanation of Rashi (Baba Meẓi‘a ³³ Cattle rather than horses were used to draw agricultural implements.

HALAKHAH: It is difficult about the House of Shammai; closure and stack are definite things, and they say it is not a forgotten sheaf. It is difficult about the House of Hillel; cattle and vessels are not definite things, and they say it is a forgotten sheaf³⁴. 24:19) “and you will forget,” i. e., it must be you who forgets. We have to assume that the House of Shammai in principle also will agree to such an interpretation. Then we would say that it is difficult to forget something deposited near a landmark; hence, if it is forgotten, the House of Shammai are not justified not to declare it a forgotten sheaf. On the other hand, if the sheaf was deposited near movable objects and is not easily found again, the House of Hillel should have accepted the action of prior acquisition. (Interpretation of Tosafot Yom Tov on the Mishnah.) But the position of this set of questions before the interpretation of the Mishnah seems to indicate that the question is asked in a general way, rather than about a sheaf which was already taken up. Therefore, most commentators, from R. Simson to R. Z. Frankel, prefer to change the text and switch the names of Hillel and Shammai. There is no textual basis for this. The best interpretation of the text as it stands is the one of R. Moshe Margalit, who explains as follows: “It is difficult about the House of Shammai; (if their reason is that) closure and stack are definite things (location not easily forgotten), and they say (even for cattle and vessels,which are easily moved) it is not a forgotten sheaf! It is difficult about the House of Hillel, (if their reason is that) cattle and vessels are not stationary, and they say (even for closure and stack) it is a forgotten sheaf!”.

footnotes: ³⁴ The background of the question is not clear. It is stated in the paragraph after the next that in one interpretation the Mishnah deals only with the case that the sheaf was already taken up to be brought to the threshing floor but then was deposited somewhere and forgotten. It is stated as a general principle of the House of Shammai that the farmer already acquired final possession of the sheaf by taking it up. The House of Hillel is of the opinion that the Biblical ordinance of the forgotten sheaf overrides everything until the grain is removed from the fields. The operating term in this respect is (Deut

“By its place, if it was standing beside the wine press or beside a breach in the fence³⁵.” This Mishnah follows the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, it is not a forgotten sheaf³⁶. Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion. There a stationary object³⁷ is beside a stationary one, but here a movable object³⁸ is beside a stationary one.

footnotes: ³⁵ This is a quote from Mishnah 7:1: “Every olive tree which has a special name on the field, for example ‘a dripping olive tree’ at harvest time, if it was forgotten, is not subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf. How is this said? By its name, its yield, or its place.… By its place, if it was standing beside the wine press or beside a breach in the fence.” ³⁶ If the sheaf was forgotten near a well-defined breach in the fence. This would imply that practice has to follow the House of Shammai, against the general rule to follow the House of Hillel. ³⁷ The olive tree. ³⁸ The sheaf, which according to the House of Hillel is considered forgotten in the legal sense.

⁴⁰ 3:2. Rebbi Ilaï⁴¹ said: I asked Rebbi Joshua, about which sheaves do the Houses of Shammai and Hillel disagree? He said to me, this is the teaching: The sheaf which was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten, the House of Shammai say it is a forgotten sheaf, but the House of Hillel say it is not a forgotten sheaf⁴² 5:3).. But when I came to Rebbi Eliezer, he told me that the Houses of Shammai and Hillel did not disagree that a sheaf near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten, was a forgotten sheaf. What did they disagree about? About a sheaf he took up⁴³ and put beside a closure, beside a stack, beside cattle, beside vessels, and forgot about it; in that case the House of Shammai say it is not a forgotten sheaf because he already acquired rights to it. But the House of Hillel say it is a forgotten sheaf. And when I came and lectured about these things before Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, he said to me, by the Covenant⁴⁴, these are the words that had been spoken to Moses on Horeb.

footnotes: ⁴⁰ With some minor deviations, this is Tosephta Peah ⁴¹ A Tanna of the third generation, student mostly of R. Eliezer, but also of the other great leaders of the second generation. Through his son, Rebbi Jehudah, the teachings of Rebbi Eliezer became so influential in the Mishnah. ⁴² I. e., the Mishnah deals with the status of these sheaves under various circumstances. The text here switches the positions of the Houses of Hillel and Shammai. In the Tosephta, the rest of the sentence starting with “the House of Shammai say,” is missing. Hence, either R. Joshua disagrees with the Mishnah which is formulated in the tradition of R. Eliezer, or there is a scribal error. While in general, the opinion of R. Joshua prevails against that of R. Eliezer, here R. Eliezer’s opinion is endorsed in the strongest terms by R. Eleazar ben Azariah and should determine practice (Maimonides Mattenot Aniïm ⁴³ And removed the sheaf away from the original field; since the owner cannot acquire his own property on his own field, he must have moved on the public road at least for a few steps. Then the only question is whether the commandment of the forgotten sheaf overrides the acquisition. ⁴⁴ An oath formula.

There⁴⁵ 8:1; there this paragraph and the next one appear. we have stated: “A woman who inherited property before she was betrothed⁴⁶, which for lack of a better English equivalent was translated as “betrothed,” requires the groom to hand over to the bride an object of value (today, a gold ring) and to declare before two witnesses that the woman is betrothed to him. From that moment on they are married as far as penal law is concerned. In antiquity, the propective bride (who probably was in her early teens) did not prepare any trousseau. Hence, after qiddushin she was given adequate time to prepare and then was married to live with her husband in a second public ceremony, nissuïn, the execution of the ketubah document, in which the groom mortgages all his possessions and earnings for the upkeep of his wife and the care of his children, followed by the public recitation of seven benedictions (in the presence of 10 adult males). From that moment on, the couple is required to live in intimacy. Today, the two ceremonies are separated only by the reading of the ketubah and, sometimes, by a rabbi’s sermon. The period between qiddushin and nissuïn is one in which the groom is married, but as he is forbidden marital relations with his wife, as yet has no financial responsibility. After nissuïn, since the wife has a claim on his property enforceable in court, he receives administration of her estate., the Houses of Shammai and Hillel both are of the opinion that she may sell or give away and her actions are valid. If she inherited after she was betrothed, the House of Shammai say, she may sell, but the House of Hillel say, she may not sell⁴⁷..” Rebbi Phineas asked before Rebbi Yose, why did we not state it with the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel⁴⁸, the few cases in which the House of Shammai are more lenient than that of Hillel are enumerated. The first two Mishnaiot of the present chapter are included in that list, the one from Ketubot is not.? He said to him, the Mishnaiot come only for circumstances that are either stringent on both sides or lenient on both sides. But here it is a stringency on one side⁴⁹ and a leniency on the other side. But did we not state: “The House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor is abandoned?” Is this not lenient for the poor and stringent for the householder, and it was stated! It is lenient for the poor⁵⁰ and not stringent for the householder, since it was abandoned by his intent. He said to him, did we not state: “The sheaf that was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten,” is this not lenient for the householder and stringent for the poor, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the householder but not stringent for the poor, because they did not acquire it yet. You may also say here⁵¹., it is lenient for the woman and not stringent for the husband since he did not yet acquire property rights to it. He⁵² said to him, since he became betrothed to her, the inheritance fell to both of them.

footnotes: ⁴⁵ Ketubot ⁴⁶ A Jewish marriage is performed in two stages. The first, qiddushin ⁴⁷ Since the husband will have a monetary interest in the property after nissuïn ⁴⁸ In the fourth chapter of Iddiut ⁴⁹ On the wife, who is restricted in her actions. The law is lenient for the husband, who gets veto power over the actions of his wife before he mortgages all his property to her. ⁵⁰ In that non-poor persons may not acquire it. ⁵¹ In the case of Ketubot ⁵² Rebbi Yose.

Rebbi Jehudah said⁵³; it was copied with the preceding paragraph., they argued before Rabban Gamliel: Because betrothed she is his wife and married she is his wife; just as the sale by the latter is void, the sale by the former also should be void. He said to them, we are ashamed of the new ones⁵⁴, now you want to roll old ones over us⁵⁵.! The new ones, after nissuïn, the old ones before nissuïn, when she was married in the second ceremony.

footnotes: ⁵³ This paragraph belongs only to Ketubot ⁵⁴ To require the husband’s consent to any financial or business transaction by his wife. ⁵⁵ Extending the husband’s rights to qiddushin

MISHNAH: Heads of rows⁵⁶, the sheaf next to it proves⁵⁷, and a sheaf that was taken up to be brought to town⁵⁸ and then was forgotten, they all agree that they never are forgotten sheaves. The following describe heads of rows: Two who started in the middle of the row, one turned North and the other turned South, and they forgot before them or after them. The one before them is a forgotten sheaf⁵⁹, the one after them is not a forgotten sheaf. A single person who started at the head of a row and forgot before and after himself. The one before him is not a forgotten sheaf⁶⁰, but the one after him is a forgotten sheaf because it falls under (Deut. 24:19) “do not return to take it.” This is the principle: Anything that falls under “do not return to take it,” is a forgotten sheaf, but anything that does not fall under “do not return to take it,” is not a forgotten sheaf.

footnotes: ⁵⁶ When sheaves are arranged in rows, the first sheaf in each row is always exempt from the law of forgotten sheaves since either one starts from it or one ends at it; in neither case could one return to it. ⁵⁷ If sheaves were arranged in parallel rows, and the sheaves were then removed by rows in one direction. If a sheaf from one was left standing but in the orthogonal direction there was a sheaf standing next to it, the standing sheaf now belongs to a row in the other direction; it is not forgotten until it is isolated in all directions from the rest of the sheaves still on the field. (By Mishnah 4, two isolated sheaves may be “forgotten”, a group of three is not.) ⁵⁸ The House of Hillel agree with that of Shammai that as soon as the sheaf is taken up to be removed from growing areas, the laws of the forgotten stalk no longer apply. ⁵⁹ Any sheaf that at the start of the collection was in front of one of the workers, if forgotten, is subject to the law of forgotten sheaves. But if a sheaf was between the two, in the back of both of them, it is not forgotten since it never was considered, and it remains the head of an East-West row. ⁶⁰ If he leaves sheaves before him but does not jump over one, these belong to East-West rows and do not have the status of being forgotten.

HALAKHAH: From where about heads of rows⁶¹? Rebbi Jonah said, it is written (Deut. 24:19): “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field and you forget,” what you harvest you can forget⁶². That refers to the start of rows of standing grain. End of rows of standing grain? Rebbi Jonah said, “do not return to take it.” From the place you came from you should not return to take it⁶³. So far, about starts of rows of sheaves, ends of rows of sheaves? Rebbi Jonah said, we learn starts of rows of sheaves from starts of rows of standing grain and ends of rows of standing grain from ends of rows of sheaves⁶⁴.

footnotes: ⁶¹ That they are exempt from the laws of forgotten sheaves. ⁶² But you cannot forget what you only start to harvest. Hence, uncut stalks at the start of a row to be cut are not for the poor. ⁶³ At the end of the row one goes to the next row; since one is at the end of the field he cannot retrace his steps to the end of the row. ⁶⁴ The verse speaks of the forgotten sheaf but is formulated in terms of harvesting standing grain. Just as forgotten standing stalks at beginning and end of rows are not for the poor, neither are sheaves at beginning and end of rows.

“The sheaf next to it proves⁶⁵.” How is that? (Tosephta Peah 3:4): “If he had ten rows of ten sheaves each and he removed one row of them in a North-South direction; when he forgot one of them it is not forgotten because it is considered East-West⁶⁶.” When he then removed the sheaves East-West and forgot one of them, let us hear from the following⁶⁷: When he removed the first, second, and third sheaves⁶⁸ but forgot⁶⁹ the fourth, some state: If he removed the fifth, it becomes legally forgotten, but some state: If he waited long enough that he could have removed the fifth, it becomes legally forgotten. Rebbi Avin bar Ḥiyya said, he who says, “if he removed the fifth” if there is a sixth⁷⁰, but he who says, “if he waited long enough that he could have removed the fifth” if there is no sixth⁷¹. Before he took away the fifth, would not the fourth be apt to be considered starting a row⁷²? If this is named “forgotten,” then also in our case⁷³ it is “forgotten.”

footnotes: ⁶⁵ Quote from the Mishnah. ⁶⁶ It is connected to the part of the field not yet worked over in the orthogonal direction. ⁶⁷ Word-by-word parallel to Chapter 5, Halakhah 2. ⁶⁸ He not only bound them but he also removed them to a storage place or threshing floor. This statement assumes that a standard row of sheaves are three sheaves. Hence, the full second row would be sheaves 4,5,6. ⁶⁹ To remove the fourth after it was bound. ⁷⁰ Because sheaves in a row are saved by the next sheaf just as stalks in a row are saved by the next stalk. Hence, the fourth can become legally forgotten only if the fifth, which saves it from being legally forgotten, is removed. ⁷¹ Since there is no row of three sheaves, they will be taken to be removed individually and not as a row. Hence, it is enough that the fifth could have been finished and removed. ⁷² If there are six sheaves, the fourth does not become legally abandoned until the sheaf which saves it is removed. ⁷³ Of sheaves first taken N-S, then E-W.

If there was an oversize sheaf⁷⁴ and he removed a sheaf from the outside next to the inside, it is considered a row⁷⁵. If he removed from the inside next to the outside, may it be considered a row⁷⁶? If he removed from the top beside the bottom it is considered a row⁷⁷. If he removed from the bottom beside the top, is it considered a row?

footnotes: ⁷⁴ And he decided to split it into regular size sheaves. ⁷⁵ If only part of the sheaf is removed, that part must be bound in a separate sheaf. We must assume that there is another sheaf standing nearby, so that there are three sheaves standing close together which form a row for the House of Hillel (Mishnah 4), or that the farmer splits his oversized sheaf into three, working from the outside in (which is the natural thing to do.) ⁷⁶ We still have a minimum of three sheaves (see preceding Note) but since the farmer works from the inside out he is going back and, by R. Jonah’s argument at the start of the Halakhah, the sheaf formed by the outside stalks should not be protected as “head of row.” ⁷⁷ That means, he takes off the top stalks to form a separate sheaf, the bottom part taking the place of the original oversized sheaf. This certainly is legitimate. However, if the farmer contrives a way to pull the lower stalks out of the sheaf, the question is as before, whether any of the resulting sheaves can be protected as heads of a row. These purely theoretical questions are not answered.

When Rav descended there⁷⁸ 45a, the actor being Abbaie, three generations after Rav; the Yerushalmi version is also in Sota 9:2., he declared: I am this place’s Ben Azai⁷⁹. There came an old man and asked him, two slain people, one on top of the other⁸⁰ 21:1–9, about the purification ceremony when a person is found murdered and the murderer is not found. Then a calf’s neck is broken in a ravine not used for agriculture.? Rav was of the opinion that one breaks the neck. He told him, one does not break the neck. He asked him, why? He said to him, not the lower one for he is hidden⁸¹ 21:1: “If a corpse is found on the land the Eternal, your God, gives to you.…” The lower body is not “found”; he is only discovered when the other body is removed. The upper body is not found on the land., not the upper one because he floats. When he ascended here, he came to Rebbi, who told him: He told you correctly, “if he is found,” and not “if they are found.”

footnotes: ⁷⁸ “There” always means Babylonia; going to Babylonia is “descending,” going to the Land of Israel is “ascending.” The story appears in the same context in Babli Sotah ⁷⁹ Ben Azai, one of the most outstanding students of Rebbi Aqiba, was a walking encyclopedia and used to stroll through the markets of Tiberias, ready to immediately answer any question of Jewish learning. He died during mystical studies before he could marry R. Aqiba’s daughter. In the Talmudim, several sages are reported to have tried to imitate Ben Azai but all of them were quickly confronted with a question for which they gave the wrong answer or did not know any answer at all. The story is inserted here because a few paragraphs down hidden sheaves will be discussed. ⁸⁰ This refers to Deut. ⁸¹ The relevant verse is Deut.

The great Rebbi Jehudah⁸² said: If a water canal crossed the entire field, if he has to lift the plough on one side and put it on the other side, it is not considered one row, otherwise it is considered one row⁸³. If he cut half a row and came back the next day it is considered a row⁸⁴, when he sat down to eat, when he sat down to sleep, when his friend called him, when it got dark.

footnotes: ⁸² He probably is Jehudah bar Ḥiyya, son of the great R. Ḥiyya and twin brother of Ḥizqiah. ⁸³ If the irrigation canal is so shallow that the farmer can plough right across, the rows on both sides form just one row together. But if the plough has to be lifted and carried to the other side, then even if the furrow on one side is the exact continuation of the one on the other side, there are legally two rows and four ends that are protected from the law of forgotten sheaves. ⁸⁴ As in the following examples, anytime the harvest or the work on the sheaves was interrupted, the new start is counted as head of row and exempt from becoming “forgotten.”

“⁸⁵ 3:3. R. Eliahu Fulda explains that חבירו refers to a friend of the farmer; he and his friend both carry a sheaf. This is impossible since one speaks about “upper and lower” sheaf. The other commentators, from Rashi on the Babli to R. S. Lieberman on the Tosephta, do not note the incongruity of having the farmer taking up one sheaf and forgetting two. One has to explain that חבירו is another sheaf; now two are lying on top of one another. {This is good Hebrew style, cf. Ex. 26:3 where gobelins are “sisters”.} When the upper one is taken up, it is acquired. The lower one then lies uncovered in the field and its status is the subject of the disagreement in the Tosephta. (Problem noted by E. G.) A sheaf he took to bring to town, put it on another one, and forgot about both, the lower one is a forgotten sheaf but the upper one is not a forgotten sheaf. Rebbi Simeon⁸⁶ 45b, this is quoted in the name of R. Simeon ben Jehudah who earlier in 5:6 quoted the tradition of R. Simeon (bar Ioḥai.) said, neither of them is a forgotten sheaf; not the lower one because it is covered⁸⁷ and not the upper one because he already had acquired it.” Rebbi Zeïra said, if he remembers⁸⁸. Rebbi Zeïra parallels Rebbi Jonah, just as Rebbi Jonah said⁸⁹, if he remembers the straws, so Rebbi Zeïra said, if he remembers the upper one.

footnotes: ⁸⁵ An almost identical text is Tosephta Peah ⁸⁶ In the Babli, Sotah ⁸⁷ R. Simeon follows the opinion of R. Jehudah in Mishnah 9 that covered sheaves do not fall under the law of forgotten sheaves. ⁸⁸ If he somehow later remembers the upper one, it is his by prior acquisition as spelled out in the Mishnah. If he never remembers the upper one, then the lower one is not covered by anything different from itself and, therefore, cannot legally qualify as hidden. ⁸⁹ Chapter 5, Halakhah 6, speaking about a sheaf covered under straw which is not forgotten as long as the farmer has the intention of collecting the straw since then the sheaf will automatically be discovered.

(Tosephta Peah 3:4) “A field whose sheaves are mixed up, if one was forgotten it is not a forgotten sheaf until he removes all around it⁹⁰.”

footnotes: ⁹⁰ The principle of the Mishnah is applied here to a field whose sheaves are not in orderly rows. Nevertheless, a sheaf is not legally forgotten unless it is completely isolated.

MISHNAH: Two sheaves may qualify as forgotten sheaves, three may not. Two heaps of olives or carob may qualify as “forgotten sheaves”, three may not. Two plants⁹¹ “sheaves.” of hemp may qualify as “forgotten sheaves”, three may not. Two berries may qualify as dropped berries⁹² 19:10: “The dropped berries in your vineyard you shall not collect; abandon them to the poor and the stranger.”, three may not. Two stalks may be gleanings, three may not, following the House of Hillel. About all of these, the House of Shammai say three are for the poor and four for the proprietor.

footnotes: ⁹¹ Definition of Maimonides and R. Simson, cf. Arabic חוּץ “palm leaves.” R. Isaac ben Malchisedek Simponti translates by Italian manelle ⁹² Refers to Lev.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he made them like a Gamma (Γ)⁹³.

footnotes: ⁹³ The sentence combines the Mishnah and the end of the previous Halakhah: A sheaf is not forgotten unless it became isolated from the others. Then how can two sheaves become forgotten sheaves? If they stood like the ends of a Γ separated by a missing sheaf at the angle.

He said⁹⁴ only “heaps”, not olives. What is the difference between heaps and olives? Heaps are the end of the harvest⁹⁵, single olives are not the end of the harvest.

footnotes: ⁹⁴ The Mishnah speaks of “heaps of olives,” not single olives. ⁹⁵ Hence, by Mishnah 5:7, the law of forgotten sheaves applies. Once the olives are put in orderly heaps, the work of the harvest is finished and that of the oil press starts.

Rebbi Hoshaia said⁹⁶, when I was mashing olives with the great Rebbi Ḥiyya, he said to me: Any olive you can reach when stretching out your hand is not forgotten. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he passed it over and forgot it, it is forgotten.

footnotes: ⁹⁶ For comment, see Chapter 5, Halakhah 2, Note 40.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of the great Rebbi Ḥiyya: Half a bunch of grapes are dropped berries. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Half a bunch of grapes or an entire bunch are dropped berries. But did we not state: “Two berries are dropped berries?” Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya: If he cuts and deposits them under the vine⁹⁷.

footnotes: ⁹⁷ Where the grapes become dusty and cannot be put in the basket to be transported either to the wine press or to market.

If they are made like a shepherd’s flute⁹⁸3:10); Gesenius and Lysowski explain as bagpipe. A shepherd’s flute made from reeds of different lengths glued together; the question is whether a plant (probably hemp) that grows different stalks of different lengths from one root is counted as one (and is under the law of forgotten sheaves) or as several (and is not).? Menahem⁹⁹ in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Only if he cuts them equally¹⁰⁰.

footnotes: ⁹⁸ Greek σίφων, -ωνος, ὁ, “pipe, water spout; a musical instrument” (I. Löw), same as Biblical (pl.) סופניה (Dan. ⁹⁹ A Galilean Amora of the third generation. His time may be determined from the fact that he quotes R. Ammi and is mentioned as teacher of R. Ḥaggai. ¹⁰⁰ They may be counted as separate plants if they are cut equally near the ground. But stalks cut together count as one.

Rebbi Abin said, the reason of the House of Shammai (*Deut.*24:19,20,21): “It shall belong to the stranger, the orphan, and the widow¹⁰¹.” The reason of the House of Hillel (Lev. 19:10): “For the poor and the stranger.” Rebbi Mana said, both of them explained the same verse, “it shall belong to the stranger, the orphan, and the widow.” The House of Shammai say, for the poor¹⁰², and the House of Hillel say, for the proprietor¹⁰³.

footnotes: ¹⁰¹ Since there are three categories mentioned, each of them should have the possibility to get a separate piece. ¹⁰² All three, as given by R. Abin. ¹⁰³ Since there is only one connective “and”, only two belong together. However, there are three categories of people entitled to collect gleanings and leftovers.

MISHNAH: A sheaf containing two seah¹⁰⁴, Chapter 3, Note 164. Halakhah 6 spells out that the grain kernels alone, without the straw, are meant. that was forgotten is not a “forgotten sheaf.” Two sheaves that together are two seah, Rabban Gamliel says, they are for the proprietor, but the Sages say, they are for the poor. Rabban Gamliel said to them: Does large size of the sheaves increase or decrease the power of the proprietor? They said to him, it increases it. He said to them: Since a sheaf containing two seah that was forgotten is not “forgotten sheaf,” it is only logical that two sheaves that together are two seah should not be “forgotten sheaf” either. They said to him, if they said that about one sheaf that is like a stack¹⁰⁵, do you want to say the same about two sheaves that are like bundles? Standing produce of two seah which was forgotten is not “forgotten sheaf.” If it does not have two seah but it might bring two seah, even if it were oats¹¹³ it is considered like barley grains.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁴ 25.6 liter, about .9 cu. ft., cf. Berakhot ¹⁰⁵ Exempt from the laws of “forgotten sheaves,” Mishnah 6:2. This applies to sheaves as large as a stack. ¹¹³ Arabic קוּרטֻמָאן “oats”, with short kernels (Translation of Maimonides). Arukh translates טופח by Arabic גֹֻלֻבָּאן, peas. Barley grains are three to an inch. The field would not be under the laws of “forgetting” if it would yield .9 cu. ft. if all grains were the size of barley grains (in the shell, hairs attached.)

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, it is written (Deut. 24:19): “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field and you forget a sheaf on the field,” a sheaf to which you may stretch out your hand and take it¹⁰⁶. Some Tannaïm stated¹⁰⁷ 283.: “And you forget a sheaf,” but not a stack.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁶ But not one where you need both hands. ¹⁰⁷ Sifry Deut.

How does it work out¹⁰⁸? If he forgot one sheaf next to it, if you make it a sheaf, everybody agrees that it is “forgotten sheaf.¹⁰⁹” If you make it a stack, a difference between Shammai and Hillel¹¹⁰. If he forgot two sheaves, if you make it sheaves, a difference between the Houses of Shammai and Hillel¹¹¹; if you make it a stack it will not be considered a row¹¹².

footnotes: ¹⁰⁸ What is the practical difference between R. Eleazar who treats the oversized sheaf as sheaf and the Tanna who treats it as a stack? ¹⁰⁹ Then you have two sheaves which for everybody are subject to “forgotten sheaves.” ¹¹⁰ This should read: the Houses of Shanmai and Hillel. The House of Shammai in Mishnah 6:2 freed the sheaf next to a stack from “forgotten sheaves;” the House of Hillel did not. ¹¹¹ For the House of Hillel, one has three sheaves and it is an exempted row; for the House of Shammai one would need four. ¹¹² Then one only has two sheaves which even for the House of Hillel are not a row.

Rebbi Jonah said (Deut. 24:19): “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field and you forget a sheaf on the field,” a sheaf containing two seah that was forgotten is not “forgotten sheaf.” Standing produce¹¹⁴ of the verse. containing two seah that was forgotten is not “forgotten sheaf.” Rebbi Yose said, considering only the ears¹¹⁵. If they were thin, one looks at them as if they were long, if they were scorched, one looks at them as if they were full.

footnotes: ¹¹⁴ The field ¹¹⁵ But not the straw.

MISHNAH: Standing produce saves sheaves and standing produce¹¹⁶. But a sheaf¹¹⁷ saves neither sheaves nor standing produce. What is standing produce that saves sheaves? Everything that is not forgotten, even if it is only one stalk. A seah of uprooted grain and a seah of not uprooted grain¹³¹ that exempt from the laws of forgotten sheaves., also trees¹³², garlic and onions do not combine¹³³. Rebbi Yose says, if a poor man’s right comes in the middle¹³⁴, gleanings, or forgotten sheaves, the two parts cannot be combined. In vineyards, the poor have the right to collect the single berries that grow on the vines. But for other trees, the poor have no rights until the end of the harvest; for R. Yose, harvested and hanging fruits of other trees combine., they do not combine, otherwise they do combine.

footnotes: ¹¹⁶ Standing produce which was not forgotten protects produce nearby that was forgotten from becoming legally “forgotten.” “Nearby” was defined earlier as close so that the ears of one may touch the other. ¹¹⁷ A sheaf which either is not forgotten or which itself is exempt from the laws of the “forgotten sheaf.” ¹³¹ They do not combine to form the two seah ¹³² Harvested and hanging fruits do not combine. ¹³³ They belong to the same family but different species. ¹³⁴ If at any time after the cutting of the first part the poor had the right to collect peah

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Illa said, it is written (Deut. 24:19): “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field and you forget a sheaf on the field,” a sheaf surrounded by harvest and not a sheaf surrounded by standing produce. And why a sheaf surrounded by harvest and not a sheaf surrounded by standing produce? Under a sheaf surrounded by harvest is the field¹¹⁹, under a sheaf surrounded by standing produce is straw.

footnotes: ¹¹⁹ Since the harvest is not finished.

It was stated¹²⁰ 3:5; there (and in the manuscript of R. S. Cirillo) the name of the first Tanna is R. Meïr.: “The standing produce of his neighbor saves his own¹²¹, the standing produce of a Gentile saves that of a Jew, the standing wheat saves barley, the words of Rebbi. But the Sages say, only his own produce saves and only its own kind.”

footnotes: ¹²⁰ Tosephta Peah ¹²¹ If his forgotten patch of produce is close to the neighbor’s field that was not yet harvested.

Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel stated¹²² 3:6. In the edition of R. S. Lieberman, the punctuation and interpretation of the abbreviation are incorrect. The text of the Tosephta is garbled and the good text of the Yerushalmi was misunderstood by R. Simson and the other commentators.: Just as standing produce saves the sheaf, so the sheaf saves the standing produce. This is logical: If standing produce, on which the power of the poor is enhanced¹²³, gleanings, and forgotten sheaves., saves if any of it was forgotten, it is only logical that the sheaf should save, since on it the power of the poor is reduced¹²⁴. Rebbi¹²⁵ answered him: If standing produce, on which the power of the poor is enhanced, saves if any of it¹²⁶ was forgotten, is it logical that the sheaf, on which the power of the poor is reduced, if any of it was forgotten should save¹²⁷? From the words of both of them we infer that sheaf is saved by sheaf¹²⁸, but standing produce is not saved by standing produce¹²⁹.

footnotes: ¹²² Tosephta Peah ¹²³ Since he has the right to peah ¹²⁴ It is reduced to the forgotten sheaf. ¹²⁵ The son of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. ¹²⁶ The sheaf, on which the power of the poor is weak. ¹²⁷ The standing produce, to which the claim of the poor is much stronger! ¹²⁸ If both sheaves are close together. For Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel it follows from his logical argument, for Rebbi it follows since the claim of the poor to the sheaf is reduced. ¹²⁹ For neither of them is there an argument that anything should save standing produce to which the claim of the poor is enhanced.

Hence¹³⁰, if he forgot, is it “forgotten sheaf”? Explain it if he forgot the standing produce first.

footnotes: ¹³⁰ This paragraph is part of the next Halakhah in the manuscripts and first prints. But it belongs here, as discussion of whether “even if it is only one stalk” means that if a single stalk is forgotten, nothing is saved. The answer is that it is enough if one stalk was not forgotten.

Hence, if all¹³⁵. is cut it is for the proprietor. Our Mishnah follows Rabban Gamliel¹³⁶ do not fall under the law of the forgotten sheaf. Since the Mishnah is formulated as anonymous statement, practice has to follow Rabban Gamliel..

footnotes: ¹³⁵ Adding up to two seah ¹³⁶ Who asserted in Mishnah 5 that sheaves which together add up to 2 seah

Then¹³⁷ the cut grain should save the uncut grain. This means that something that is apt to save, but was forgotten, can become legally forgotten. Rebbi Jonathan¹³⁸ said, explain it if he was cutting and removing the sheaves row by row. He already forgot the standing grain before he might forget the sheaves¹³⁹.

footnotes: ¹³⁷ If we follow Rabban Gamliel. The same text, with a different thrust, is found Chapter 5, Halakhah 2. ¹³⁸ There, R. Jonah. ¹³⁹ And Rabban Gamliel will not have the two combined if they are separated in space and time.

Does it mean that it really comes, or only that it is able to come¹⁴¹? Let us hear from the following¹⁴² 3:5: “According to R. Yose, Ḥananiah, the nephew of R. Joshua, said that whenever a poor man’s right comes in between, for example grain and vineyard, they do not combine. Whenever a poor man’s right does not come in between, for example fruits of trees, they do combine.”: “For example grain and vineyard.” And is the vineyard on the spot¹⁴³? That means, even if it is able to come¹⁴⁴!

footnotes: ¹⁴¹ Does it mean that Rebbi Yose excludes combining only if the poor actually could exercise their rights, or even if there is only a theoretical possibility. ¹⁴² Tosephta Peah ¹⁴³ It is true that there is no manual grain harvest without gleanings; the poor always have the right to enter after cutting and binding of the sheaves. But there are vines which do not produce single berries; in a vineyard, the right of the poor is conditional. ¹⁴⁴ It includes all vineyards and mechanical harvesting.

MISHNAH: Grain cut for animal feed¹⁴⁵ or to bind sheaves, and similarly garlic used to bind¹⁴⁶ as well as bundles of garlic and onions¹⁴⁷ are not subject to “forgotten sheaves.” Anything hidden in the ground¹⁴⁸, such as luf¹⁴⁹, a plant with a large bulb. This is the identification given by Arukh, based on a Gaonic source. Maimonides (Commentary on the Mishnah) declares it “doubtless to be a kind of onion.” Rashi (Shabbat 126b) declares it to be a kind of legume. The determination by Arukh must be accepted. (In modern Arabic, לוּף liffa is Luffa cylindrica Roem, dishcloth gourd, which is inedible.), garlic, and onions, Rebbi Jehudah says, they are not subject to “forgotten sheaves”, but the Sages say, they are subject to “forgotten sheaves.”

footnotes: ¹⁴⁵ Cut as fodder (in contrast to grain cut for human consumption but used as fodder) means that it was cut green. In the same way, grain cut to bind sheaves must still have flexible stalks; it cannot be dry and does not qualify as “harvest.” ¹⁴⁶ Garlic leaves used to bind bundles of garlic or onions. ¹⁴⁷ Onions and garlic are bound or plaited in small bundles for later use but these are then bound together in large bunches for transport. The small bundles are not made for transport to storage and by Mishnah 5:7 do not fall under the law of the forgotten sheaf. ¹⁴⁸ Plants whose edible part, or main part, is the one hidden in the ground. ¹⁴⁹ In classical Arabic, לוּף means serpentary, snake weed, Arum Dracunculus L.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said¹⁵⁰, not only if he gave it but even if he took it with the intention of giving it.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁰ At the moment the decision is made to use certain produce as fodder, not for human consumption, it becomes exempt from the law of the forgotten sheaf.

There¹⁵¹ 6:5 in a different formulation. we have stated: “If someone sets fire to a stack in which were hidden vessels, Rebbi Jehudah says, he pays for all that was in it. But the Sages say, he only pays for a stack of wheat or barley¹⁵² 61b) states that the Sages agree that whoever started the fire is responsible for agricultural implements usually hidden in stacks. Hence, in the opinion of the Babli but not the Yerushalmi, the Sages free him only from the responsibility for unexpected losses..” The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted; there he says to include the hidden things, but here he says to exclude the hidden things. There (Ex. 22:5) “and a¹⁵³ stack or standing grain was consumed.” I understand that since it says “standing grain” it includes a stack. Why does the verse add “a stack?” In order to include the hidden things. But here (Deut. 24:10) “your field,” in the open, to exclude anything hidden. The argument of the rabbis is inverted; there they say to exclude the hidden things, but here they say to include the hidden things. There, “or standing grain or a field,” just as a field is in the open, so all must be in the open. But here, “your field,” in the open, to exclude that which is hidden; “your harvest,” in the open, to exclude that which is hidden. That is a restriction after a restriction and every restriction after a restriction is only¹⁵⁴12:1). The principle that a restriction after a restriction is an extension is universally accepted in both Talmudim; in Horaiot 1:1 it is generalized to the statement that any sequence of restrictions of an even number of elements is an extension; for an odd number of elements it is a restriction. to add the hidden things.

footnotes: ¹⁵¹ The discussion is paralleled in Baba Qama ¹⁵² Both Babli and Yerushalmi are agreed that the Mishnah refers only to a man who lights a legal fire on his own field and it burns out of control. But an arsonist has to pay for everything under any circumstance. The Babli (Baba Qama ¹⁵³ This is the Biblical text, not “the stack” as given here. “If fire gets out of control and a stack, or the standing grain, or the field is consumed, the person who caused the fire should certainly pay.” ¹⁵⁴ There is an אלא missing in the text or the אין is superfluous (Yebamot

MISHNAH: He who harvests at night or removes the stacks, or a blind person¹⁵⁵, are subject to the law of forgotten sheaves. But if he¹⁵⁶ 5:8). intended only to take the large pieces, he is not subject to the law of forgotten sheaves. If he said: “I harvest on the understanding that I shall take what I might forget,” he is subject to the law of forgotten sheaves.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁵ All of whom are likely to miss some standing produce or some sheaves. ¹⁵⁶ The one who harvested or removed the sheaves at night, and the blind (Maimonides Mattenot Aniïm

HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: He who harvests at night or removes the stacks at night, or a blind person day or night.

Rebbi Jonah said¹⁵⁷, not only for the large pieces, but also for the thin pieces. Since he is going to check for the large ones, the thin ones likewise are not subject to the law of forgotten sheaves.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁷ He refers to the second sentence in the Mishnah.

If he said: “I harvest on the undertanding that I shall take what I might forget,” he is subject to the law of forgotten sheaves, since he made a condition¹⁵⁸ against what is written in the Torah, and if anybody makes a condition against what is written in the Torah, his condition is invalid¹⁵⁹.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁸ Not a condition in the legal sense, since a legal condition needs a positive and a negative and he cannot say, “if I cannot take everything then what I harvest shall not be harvested.” Probably, “condition” should be read as “understanding.” ¹⁵⁹ Except in the matter of civil contracts.