Jeśli snopek znajdował się w pobliżu gappah [ogrodzenia z kamieni ułożonych jeden na drugim bez gliny], stosu, bydła lub narzędzi [do orki], Beth Shammai mówi, że to nie jest szikcha, a Beth Hillel mówi, że to jest szikcha. [Spór między Beth Shammai i Beth Hillel dotyczył snopu, który chwycił, aby zabrać do miasta i który umieścił obok gappah lub stosu, gdzie o nim zapomniał. Beth Shammai mówi, że to nie jest szikcha, ponieważ ją przejął, a Beth Hillel mówi, że to szikcha. Inna interpretacja: Beth Shammai mówi, że nie jest to szikcha nawet z snopem, którego w ogóle nie chwycił. Ponieważ bowiem umieścił go obok jakiegoś przedmiotu, zapamięta go; a Beth Hillel twierdzi, że jest to szikcha, o ile go nie opanował. A Beth Hillel przyznaje, że jeśli go złapał, a potem zapomniał, to nie jest to szikcha.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
לגפה (this Mishnah is also taught in Tractate Peah, Chapter 6, Mishnah 2) – a fence of stones set up one on top of the other without plaster.
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
ולכלים – the utensil of the plough
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
A sheaf which was close to a wall or to a stack or to the herd or to [field] utensils, and was forgotten, Beth Shammai says: it does not count as forgotten, And Beth Hillel says: it counts as forgotten. This mishnah continues to discuss the definition of “forgotten”. According to Beth Shammai, if one left a sheaf close to a specific item, we can assume that he intended to go back and get the sheaf, and that is why he left it close to that item. In this case he may go back and collect it at a later time. Beth Hillel does consider this sheaf to be forgotten and therefore it belongs to the poor.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
ב"ש אומרים אינו שכחה – The dispute of the Schools of Shammai and Hillel regarding sheaves that taken possession of to be brought into the city and he placed it at the side of the wall or on the side of the stack and forgot it there. For the School of Shammai states that it is not something forgotten, for he merited it. But the School of Hillel states that it is something forgotten. Another interpretation: The School of Shammai states that it is [not] something forgotten, even sheaves that were taken possession of as such at all, it is not something forgotten, for since he placed them at some specific thing that he would in the future remember it. But the School of Hillel states that it is something forgotten all the while that he didn’t take possession of them. But the School of Hillel admits that if he took possession of them and afterwards forgot it, it is not something forgotten
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
Questions for Further Thought: • From whose perspective is Beth Shammai lenient in these mishnayoth? Why does the editor of the Mishnah consider them lenient and Beth Hillel strict?
