Comentário sobre Peah 6:1
בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, הֶבְקֵר לָעֲנִיִּים, הֶבְקֵר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ הֶפְקֵר, עַד שֶׁיֻּפְקַר אַף לָעֲשִׁירִים, כַּשְּׁמִטָּה. כָּל עָמְרֵי הַשָּׂדֶה שֶׁל קַב קַב וְאֶחָד שֶׁל אַרְבַּעַת קַבִּין וּשְׁכָחוֹ, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ שִׁכְחָה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, שִׁכְחָה:
Beit Shammai diz: Abandonar propriedades apenas para os pobres é abandono; Beit Hillel diz: Não é abandono até que também tenha sido abandonado para os ricos, como no ano sabático. Se todas as gavelas do campo são de um Kav [medição haláchica] e uma gavela é de quatro Kav e foi esquecida, Beit Shammai diz: Não está [sujeito a] Shikhechah [feixes individuais, esquecidos no campo, que devem ser deixado para os pobres coletarem]; Beit Hillel diz: É [sujeito a] Shikhechah .
Bartenura on Mishnah Peah
בית שמאי אומרים הבקר לעניים – Whomever declares something ownerless [only] for the poor but not for the rich, he has the law of ownerless, and is exempt from tithes, as it is written regarding gleaning and the corner of the field (Leviticus 19:10): “you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger.” What does the inference of “you shall leave them” teach us? It comes to teach on another kind of “leaving,” which is being ownerless, which is like this, just as this is for the poor but not the rich, even this, which is said in another place, is for the poor and not the rich.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Peah
Introduction
In this mishnah there are two debates between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel. Only the second one has to do with the laws of the forgotten sheaf.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Peah
אף לעשירים בשמטה – as it is written (Exodus 23:11): “But in the seventh you shall let it rest and lie fallow.” What does the word ונטשתה /”to be released” come to teach us? It teaches about another renunciation/resignation like this which is being ownerless, which is in the seventh year. Just as the seventh year is for both the poor and the rich, so also being ownerless is for the poor and the rich.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Peah
Bet Shammai says: [That which is] made ownerless only in regard to the poor is indeed ownerless. But Bet Hillel says: it is not ownerless unless ownership is renounced even for the rich, as in the case of the sabbatical year. If something is pronounced ownerless, in other words the owner renounces title over it, it is not liable for tithes. According to Bet Shammai if a land owner renounces ownership over part of his field or crop but only so that the poor can take it and not the rich, then it counts as renouncing ownership, and when the poor come and take it, they need not give tithes from it. In contrast according to Bet Hillel, this does not work. One who makes his field or crops ownerless just for the poor, has not exempted the crops from tithes. Something is not considered ownerless unless the owner completely renounces all ownership over it. He has to allow anyone, including the rich come and take it. Bet Hillel compares this to crops that grow on their own in the field during the Sabbatical year. Such crops are ownerless and anyone, including the rich, may come and take them.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Peah
[If] all of the sheaves in a field are a kav each, and one is four kavs and that one is forgotten: Bet Shammai says: it is not considered forgotten. But Bet Hillel says: it is considered forgotten. A sheaf that is a kav (about two liters) that is forgotten in a field is considered to be forgotten and belongs to the poor. However, there is a debate concerning a sheaf that is four times the size of the other sheaves. According to Bet Shammai, we look at this sheaf as if it is really four separate forgotten sheaves lying side by side and when four sheaves are left together, they are not considered to have been forgotten (we shall learn more about this in mishnah five). In other words, even though this is really one sheaf, we treat it as if it were four. According to Bet Hillel, we don’t consider this one sheaf as if it were really four sheaves, but rather it is simply one forgotten sheaf. Therefore, it belongs to the poor.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy