Tosefta for Peah 6:12

The following divide a field for Peah (see Peah 2:1, following Kulp tr.): a stream, a pool, a private road, a public road, a public path, a private path in constant use in summer and the rainy season, fallow land, a plowed field, and a different seed, and the harvest [specifically done] for animal fodder, and three furrows of newly broken land (see Kilayim 2:6), and a water channel that makes harvesting on one side impossible (see Peah 2:2). Rabbi Yehudah says, if he [is able to] stand in the middle and harvest on both sides, it divides [a field for Peah], but if not, then it does not divide. [If] it was devoured by chagav (a species of locust), devoured by govei (another species of locust), undermined by ants, or a storm or animals broke it, everyone agrees that if he plowed [the field after it was ruined, see Y. Peah II.1.10, Guggenheimer tr.], it (i.e., the newly plowed field separates), and if not, it does not separate.

An ear of grain that is among the standing grain, behold, it belongs to the homeowner. [An ear of grain] that is among the harvested [grain], behold, it belongs to the poor. [If] half is among the standing grain, and half is among the harvested [grain], he takes it and throws it behind him, because [in a case of] doubt [as to what is considered] gleanings, [the doubt is resolved in favor of its status being] gleanings (see also Peah 6:4 re: forgotten sheaves).

Rebbi Ilai said, “I asked Rebbi Yehoshua, ‘Regarding which sheaves Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel argue [whether they are considered to be Shikcha (forgotten sheaves) or not]?’ He said to me, ‘[I swear] by this Torah [that they argue]’ regarding a sheaf [that is left in the field] next to a hedge, or [next to] a stack, [or next to] cattle [used for plowing], or [next to plowing] tools, and it was forgotten [there by the farmer].’ And when I came and asked Rebbi Eliezer, he said to me, ‘They agree by all of these [cases that Rebbi Yehoshua mentioned] that it is not [considered to be] Shikcha. [So] what [case] do they argue about? Regarding a sheaf that [the farmer] took [with him] to bring to the city and put it on the side of a stone fence or on the side of a hedge [in order to take a break], and forgot it [there], that Bet Shammai say that it is not [considered to be] Shikcha, because he [already] acquired it [for himself], and Bet Hillel say [that it is considered to be] Shikcha.’ And when I came and proclaimed [these] words [of Rebbi Eliezer] in front of Rebbi Elazar Ben Azaryah he said to me, ‘[I swear] by the Torah, these are the words that were spoken to Moshe on Sinai.’”

[If a farmer] took a sheaf in order to take it to the city, and [then] he put [this sheaf] down [on the ground] on top of his friend (i.e. another sheaf) [while still in the field] and [then] he forgot both of them [in the field where he put them down], then the bottom [sheaf] is [considered to be] Shikcha (forgotten sheaf), and the top [sheaf] is not [considered to be] Shikcha. Rebbi Shimon says, “Both of them are not [considered to be] Shikcha. The bottom [sheaf is not considered to be Shikcha], because it is covered [by the top sheaf], and the top [sheaf is not considered to be Shikcha], because [the farmer] acquired it [for himself].”

[If a farmer] stooked [some] sheaves in a field in which sheaves have been [laid out in a] mixed [fashion], and forgot one [of the sheaves, then this sheaf] is not [considered to be] Shikcha (forgotten sheaves), until he stooks all of the [other sheaves] around it.

What is [the case mentioned in the Mishna titled as] “a sheaf that is in front of it proves [that it is not considered to be Shikcha”]? Someone who had 10 rows [of sheaves with] 10 sheaves in each row, and he stooked one of [the rows in the direction] from North to South, and [then] forgot [the last sheaf in that row.] It is not [considered to be] Shikcha (forgotten sheaf), because [that sheaf] can be counted [as a part of the last row that goes] from East to West.

What is [the case mentioned in the Mishna titled as] “a sheaf that is in front of it proves [that it is not considered to be Shikcha”]? Someone who had 10 rows [of sheaves with] 10 sheaves in each row, and he stooked one of [the rows in the direction] from North to South, and [then] forgot [the last sheaf in that row.] It is not [considered to be] Shikcha (forgotten sheaf), because [that sheaf] can be counted [as a part of the last row that goes] from East to West.

Two gavels separated from one another are [considered to be] Shikcha (forgotten sheaves), [but] three [gavels] are not [considered to be] Shikcha. Two sheaves separated from one another are [considered to be] Shikcha (forgotten sheaves), [but] three [sheaves] are not [considered to be] Shikcha. Two grapevines separated from one another (i.e. from separate tree trunks) are [considered to be] Shikcha (forgotten sheaves), [but] three [grapevines] are not [considered to be] Shikcha. Two [grape] berries [lying next to each other on the ground] are [considered to be] Peret (individual fallen grapes), [but] three [grape berries lying next to each other on the ground] are not [considered to be] Peret. Two stalks [of grain] separated from one another in the usual fashion are [considered to be] Leket (fallen stalks), [but] three [stalks of grain] are not [considered to be] Leket. These are the words of Bet Hillel. Rebbi Yossi says, “Chananyah, the son of the brother of Rebbi Yehoshua says, ‘Any [type of produce] where the property of the poor person (i.e. some kind of gift to the poor) can come in the middle [of two sets of produce, one standing and one detached, both of which are one Seah in volume], for example grain and vineyard, does not combine [to form two Seahs and therefore both parts are still considered to be Shikcha]. However, any [produce] where the property of the poor person (i.e. some kind of gift to the poor) cannot come in the middle [of two sets of produce, one standing and one detached, both of which are one Seah in volume], for example fruits of a tree, does combine [to form two Seahs and therefore both parts are not considered to be Shikcha].’”

Two gavels separated from one another are [considered to be] Shikcha (forgotten sheaves), [but] three [gavels] are not [considered to be] Shikcha. Two sheaves separated from one another are [considered to be] Shikcha (forgotten sheaves), [but] three [sheaves] are not [considered to be] Shikcha. Two grapevines separated from one another (i.e. from separate tree trunks) are [considered to be] Shikcha (forgotten sheaves), [but] three [grapevines] are not [considered to be] Shikcha. Two [grape] berries [lying next to each other on the ground] are [considered to be] Peret (individual fallen grapes), [but] three [grape berries lying next to each other on the ground] are not [considered to be] Peret. Two stalks [of grain] separated from one another in the usual fashion are [considered to be] Leket (fallen stalks), [but] three [stalks of grain] are not [considered to be] Leket. These are the words of Bet Hillel. Rebbi Yossi says, “Chananyah, the son of the brother of Rebbi Yehoshua says, ‘Any [type of produce] where the property of the poor person (i.e. some kind of gift to the poor) can come in the middle [of two sets of produce, one standing and one detached, both of which are one Seah in volume], for example grain and vineyard, does not combine [to form two Seahs and therefore both parts are still considered to be Shikcha]. However, any [produce] where the property of the poor person (i.e. some kind of gift to the poor) cannot come in the middle [of two sets of produce, one standing and one detached, both of which are one Seah in volume], for example fruits of a tree, does combine [to form two Seahs and therefore both parts are not considered to be Shikcha].’”

When did they (i.e. the Rabbis) say [that] standing crops [that have not been forgotten] disqualify a sheaf [that was forgotten next to those standing crops from being considered Shikcha (forgotten sheaves)]? At the time when [the standing crops] were not taken in the middle (i.e. between the time when the sheaf was forgotten and remembered by the farmer), but if [the standing crops] were taken in the middle (i.e. prior to the farmer remembering that he forgot that sheaf) then it does not disqualify [that sheaf from being considered Shikcha, and the farmer cannot go back and take it for himself]. “The standing crops of his (i.e. the farmer’s) friend [that were not forgotten] disqualify his (i.e. the farmer’s) [own standing crops that were forgotten from being considered Shikcha], [the standing crops] of wheat [that were not forgotten disqualify the standing crops] of barley [that were forgotten from being considered Shikcha], [the standing crops] of a non-Jew [that were not forgotten disqualify the standing crops] of a Jew [that were forgotten from being considered Shikcha].” These are the words of Rebbi Meir. But the Chachamim (Sages) say, “[Standing crops that were not forgotten] do not disqualify [other standing crops that were forgotten], unless they were his (i.e. the farmer’s and not someone else’s) [own] and [they were] of the same kind [of crops].” Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel says, “Just like standing crops [that were not forgotten] disqualify a sheaf [that was forgotten from being considered Shikcha], so too the sheaf [that was not forgotten] disqualifies standing crops [that were forgotten from being considered Shikcha]. And [the reason for this law] is a Kal Vechomer (derivation from minor to major) [which goes as follows]. Since standing crops by which the power of the poor person is weak [have the capability to] disqualify a sheaf [from being considered Shikcha], then for sure a sheaf by which the power of the poor person is strong should [have the capability to] disqualify standing crops.” They (i.e. the Chachamim) said [back] to him (i.e. Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel), “Rebbi! [That is not correct, because the reverse argument can be made as well, as follows.] Just like standing crops can disqualify a sheaf by which the power of the poor person is strong [from being considered Shikcha], so too the sheaf should disqualify the standing crops by which the power of the poor person is [also] strong [for a different reason as explained in the next Tosefta] [from being considered Shikcha].”

The power of the poor person is stronger with regards to standing crops than with regards to a sheaf. And [yet at the same time the power of the poor person] is stronger with regards to a sheaf than with regards to standing crops. Because [all three gifts to the poor:] Leket (fallen stalks), Shikcha (forgotten sheaves) and Peah (corners of the field) apply to standing crops, but it is not so with regards to a sheaf, [to which only Shikcha and Peah apply, but Leket does not.] And [yet the opposite is true as well since] the sheaf that is two Seahs [in size by volume] and has been forgotten, is not considered to be Shikcha, unless it is smaller than two Seahs, [whereas standing crops are not considered Shikcha even if they are smaller than two Seahs in size, as long as they have the potential of being two Seahs in size in a different year due to better growth.]

[A person] who is cutting gavels [of grain, with intention] to bundle them into sheaves later [and not right away], and also [a person who is piling up] heaps of garlic [with intention to make from the heaps] bundles of garlic, or [spread out] onions, [later and not right away, if any of these gavels of grain or heaps of garlic, or spread out onions, have been forgotten in the field, the law of] Shikcha (forgotten sheaves) does not apply to them, [and therefore they still belong to the owner, who can go back and retrieve them.] [A person] who is binding sheaves, because of [an approaching] fire or because of an irrigation canal [that broke through and is about to flood the field, if any of these sheaves have been forgotten in the field the law of] Shikcha does not apply to them, [and therefore they still belong to the owner, who can go back and retrieve them,] because he (i.e. the farmer) will check [the field for any forgotten sheaves, since he is not harvesting them, but rather moving them out of the way of the fire or flooding water.] It happened with a certain pious person that he forgot a sheaf in his field [during harvest,] and he said to his son, “Go [to the Temple in Jerusalem] and sacrifice in my name a bull for Korban Olah (burnt-offering) and a bull for Korban Shlamim (peace-offering).” He (i.e. his son) said [back] to him (i.e. the father), “Father! What have you seen in this commandment [of Shikcha that caused you] to rejoice [about it] more than all [other] commandments that are mentioned in the Torah?” He (i.e. the father) said [back] to him (i.e. the son), “All [other] commandments [that are mentioned] in the Torah have been given to us by God [to be executed] consciously (i.e. on purpose with intent). [But] this [commandment of Shikcha was given to us by God to be executed] unconsciously (i.e. accidentally due to forgetfulness), because if we would have done it willingly (i.e. left the sheaf in the field on purpose for the poor to take) in front of God, this commandment would not be counted for us [as a fulfilled commandment of Shikcha, but rather as a random act of kindness.]” He (i.e. the son) said [back] to him (i.e. the father), “It says [in the Torah], ‘When you will harvest your harvest in your field and you will forget a sheaf in the field, do not go back to take it. It shall be [left there] for the Non-Jewish resident, for the orphan, and for the widow, in order that Hashem, your God, will bless you with all the deeds of your hand.’ (Devarim 24:19) The verse has granted him (i.e. the farmer who left the sheaf in the field) a blessing. [But why did the verse need to say explicitly that the farmer will get a blessing?] Is not it a Kal Vechomer (derivation from minor to major) [which can be concluded by us logically without the need of an explicit verse]? Just like someone who did not intend to do something good, but he [ended up] doing something good [anyway], the verse considers him as if he has done something good, so for sure someone who intended to do something good, and [ended up] doing something good [that he meant to do] how much more so [should get a blessing]?” Similarly, [it says in the Torah:] “If a soul from the common people sins by accident by doing one of the negative commandments of Hashem, and becomes guilty of it. When his sin which he sinned will become known to him … (the verses go on to describe the sacrifice that the sinner should bring) … and the priest will atone for him, and he will be forgiven.” (Vayikra 4:27-31) And it is a Kal Vechomer [which can be concluded by us logically]! Just like someone who did not intend to sin, but sinned [anyway], we consider him as if he sinned. So someone who intended to sin and [then] sinned, how much more so [should be considered as if he sinned. And therefore will for sure get punished.]