Beth Shammai dice: Hefker per i poveri è hefker. [Se uno ha prodotto (i suoi prodotti) un hefker (cioè, "rinunciato") per i poveri ma non per i ricchi, ha il frastuono di hefker e non è soggetto a leket, shikchah e peah o ma'aser, essendo scritto rispetto a Leket e Peah (Levitico 19:10): "Al povero e allo straniero li lascerai". Qual è l'intento di "loro"? Per informarci di un altro "partire", cioè, hefker, che è così. Proprio come questo è per i poveri e non per i ricchi, così, il hefker è (cioè può essere) per i poveri e non per i ricchi.] E Beth Hillel dice: Non è hefker fino a quando non è reso hefker per i ricchi anche, come shemitah, [essendo scritto (Esodo 23:11): "E il settimo anno resterà incolto e lo lascerai". Qual è l'intento di "e lo lascerai"? Per informarci che c'è un altro "partire", vale a dire, hefker, che è come shevi'ith. Proprio come lo è shevi'ith sia per i ricchi che per i poveri, quindi, hefker.] Se tutte le pulegge nel campo fossero (le dimensioni di) un kav e uno, quattro kabin, e fossero state dimenticate, Beth Shammai dice che è non shikchah, e Beth Hillel dice che è shikchah. E, allo stesso modo, se tutti i covoni fossero due kabin e uno, otto kabin, e se lo dimenticasse, è shikchah. Più di questo non è shikchah.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
הבקר לעניים הבקר (this Mishnah is also taught in Tractate Peah, Chapter 6, Mishnah 1)– he who renounced ownership for the poor but not for the rich, the law of renunciation applies to him, and he is not liable for gleanings, forgotten produce, the corner or the field nor for tithes, as it is written (Leviticus 19:10): ”[You shall not pick your vineyard bare, or gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard;] you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger…” What is the meaning of “you shall leave them?” It teaches about another form of leaving, that is renunciation of ownership like this, just as it is for the poor and not for the rich, so renunciation of ownership is for the poor and not for the rich.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
Introduction
The Mishnah continues to bring disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel, in which Beth Shammai took the lenient position.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
עד שיפקיר אף לעשירים כשמטה – as it is written (Exodus 23:11): “But in the seventh you shall let it rest and lie fallow…” What does it mean “and lie fallow?” It comes to teach on another form of lying fallow, that is, a renunciation of ownership which is like the Seventh year. Just as the Seventh year is for the poor and for the rich, so too, renunciation of ownership is for the poor and for the rich.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
Beth Shammai says: [produce pronounced] ownerless with respect to the poor [only] is counted as ownerless. But Beth Hillel says: it is not counted as ownerless unless it is made ownerless also with respect to the rich, as in the year of release (. This section discusses the process whereby a person announces that something he owns is legally ownerless. One of the important consequences of such an action is that if the item is a food product he need not separate tithes before he eats it. In other words if a person has some produce he may pronounce it ownerless and eat from it without tithing. Of course, he runs the risk of having other people come and take it from him. According to Beth Shammai one could partially pronounce his produce ownerless by declaring that only the poor may partake of it. Beth Hillel disagrees and says that pronouncing something legally ownerless must be complete. Beth Hillel learns this from the precedent set by the laws of the “year of release”, or the shmittah (seventh) year. During the seventh year all produce grown in the fields is ownerless and anyone may enter any field and eat from it, both rich and poor. Beth Hillel says that just as seventh year produce is ownerless and available to anyone, so too all produce must be available to all.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
כל עומרי השדה של קב קב – if each of all the sheaves in the field were one kab, and one was four kabim and he forgot that one, that is forgetting. More than this, it is not forgetting, and similarly, if all the sheaves were two kabs and one was eight kabs and he forgot it, that is also forgetfulness. More than this is not forgetfulness.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
If all the sheaves of the field were of one kav each and one was of four kavs, and it was forgotten, Beth Shammai says: it does not count as forgotten, And Beth Hillel says: it counts as forgotten. There are a number of agricultural rights given by the Torah to the poor. One of them is the right to collect the harvested sheaves forgotten in a field (Deuteronomy 24:19). The dispute here is over the definition of a forgotten sheaf. According to Beth Shammai if all of the sheaves were one kav in volume and the forgotten sheaf was four times that size, and he left the large sheaf in the field, it is not considered forgotten. The reason is that four separate sheaves that are left together are not considered to be forgotten. In other words, if four separate sheaves are left in a field we can assume that the owner never came to collect them, and not that he came to collect them and left them behind. Beth Shammai says that if one sheaf is the size of four sheaves of that field we can consider it to be four separate sheaves and it is not considered forgotten. Beth Hillel holds that since it is really only one sheaf, we can assume that he did forget it, and hence it already belongs to the poor.
