Se o maço estava perto de um gappah [uma cerca de pedras colocada uma sobre a outra sem barro], uma pilha, gado ou implementos [arados], Beth Shammai diz que não é shikchah, e Beth Hillel diz que é shikchah. [A discussão entre Beth Shammai e Beth Hillel dizia respeito a um maço que ele segurava para levar à cidade e que colocava ao lado de uma gappah ou uma pilha, onde a esquecia. Beth Shammai diz que não é shikchah porque ele a segurou, e Beth Hillel diz que é shikchah. Outra interpretação: Beth Shammai diz que não é shikchah, nem mesmo com um feixe, que ele não se apossou. Pois desde que ele o colocou próximo a um objeto em particular, ele se lembrará dele; e Beth Hillel diz que é shikchah, desde que ele não a tenha segurado. E Beth Hillel admite que se ele a segurou e depois a esqueceu, não é shikchah.]
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?
