Si una gavilla tiene [un volumen de] dos Seah [una unidad de volumen específica] y la olvida, no es Shikhechah . Si dos gavillas tienen [juntas un volumen de] dos Seah , Rabban Gamliel dice: [Pertenece] al dueño de la propiedad; los sabios dicen: [pertenece] a los pobres. Rabban Gamliel dijo: "¿Una abundancia de gavillas fortalece el poder del dueño de la propiedad o debilita su poder?" Le dijeron: "Fortalecen su poder". Él les dijo: "Entonces, en un momento en que hay una gavilla y tiene dos Se'ah y la olvidó, no es Shikhechah , [si él tuviera] dos gavillas y tienen dos Se'ah , es ¿No es la ley que no serán Shikhechah ? Le dijeron: "No, si dices [una ley] con respecto a una gavilla, que es como una pila, ¿dirás [esa ley] con respecto a dos gavillas, que son como pequeños bultos?"
Tosefta Peah
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].’”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Tosefta Peah
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].”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Tosefta Peah
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.]
