Comentário sobre Peah 6:12

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

לגפה – stone fence set up one on the other without plaster.

Introduction Our mishnah deals with a sheaf that was left lying near something specific. The question is, might the field owner have left it there intentionally so that he would know where to find it later? If he did, then the rules of the forgotten sheaf do not apply and the sheaf does not belong to the poor. This would mean that only a sheaf left lying in the middle of the field, or at least not near anything specific, would be considered to be forgotten.

ולכלים – utensil of the plough/strigil.

A sheaf left near a stone fence, or near a stack [of grain] or near oxen, or near equipment: Bet Shammai says: it is not considered “forgotten”; Bet Hillel says: it is considered “forgotten.” According to Bet Shammai we suspect that he may have left the sheaf there on purpose in which case it is not considered to be forgotten. In contrast, Bet Hillel says that it is considered forgotten.

בית שמאי אומרים אינו שכחה – the dispute of the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel regarding the Omer/quantity of grain in a sheaf that he took possession of to bring it to the city and placed it at the side of a stone fence or at the side of the pile and forgot it there.

ובית הלל אומרים שכחה – And it is taught later in our Mishnah (Tractate Peah, Chapter 6, Mishnah 3), that he picked it up to bring into the city and forgot it, the School of Hillel admits to the School of Shammai that it is not forgotten, this is when he did not place it near the stone fence or near the pile. Another explanation: The School of Shammai states that it is nit forgotten, even with Omer that he did not take pick it up, it is not forgotten, for since he had placed it next to a specific place, he would ultimately remember it, and the School of Hillel states that all the while that he did not pick it up, the School of Hillel admits that if he took possession of it and afterwards forgot it, that it is not forgotten, as we will say shortly.

ראשי שורות העומר שכנגדו מוכיח – Nearby ahead, it explains this (Tractate Peah, Chapter 6, Mishnah 4).

Introduction This mishnah continues to define when something is considered to be a forgotten sheaf.

[With regard to sheaves forgotten] at the end of the row, the sheaf lying across from it proves [that the first sheaf has not been forgotten.] This section deals with a sheaf that was forgotten at the beginning of a row. Tomorrow’s mishnah will define what exactly “the beginning of a row” means. The mishnah teaches that if there is another sheaf lying in the row across from it, it proves that the sheaf has not been forgotten. To illustrate this, let’s say that someone has ten rows of ten sheaves of wheat. He begins to go from north to south to gather the sheaves to bundle them up and make a pile. If he gets to the end of the row and leaves a sheaf there, it is not forgotten if the sheaf to its side is still there, because we can assume that his intention was to gather that sheaf when walking from east to west. The only way that something can be considered forgotten at the end of a row is if he left it lying and there is no other sheaf to the east or west.

[As for] a sheaf that [the owner] took to bring it to the city and forgot it, all agree that it is not considered a “forgotten sheaf.” A sheaf that has already begun to make its way to the city can no longer be considered forgotten. In this case, and in the case in section one above, even Bet Hillel, who held in yesterday’s mishnah that a sheaf left near a fence or other identifiable place is considered forgotten, in the two cases in our mishnah Bet Hillel agrees that it is not considered forgotten because there is something that “proves” that he intended to leave it there.

שנים שהתחילו מאמצע שורה – of sheaves, this one turned his face to the north and that one turned his face to the south.

Introduction This mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah, which said that something that was left at the end of a row was not considered “forgotten.”

ושכחו לפניהם – after they had started to bind and pile the sheaves, they skipped and forgot it, that is forgetting, as we call it (Deuteronomy 24:19): “Do not turn back to get it.”

These are to be considered ends of the rows:
If two men begin [to gather] from the middle of the row, one facing north and the other south and they forget [some sheaves] in front of them and behind them, those left in front of them are “forgotten,” but those left behind them are not “forgotten.” The mishnah will now explain two rules concerning when something is considered not to be forgotten because it was left at the end of a row. The first refers to a situation where two men begin in the middle of a row, one gathering sheaves while walking north and one gathering sheaves while walking south. In such a case any sheaves they leave in front of them are considered forgotten. Although these sheaves are at ends of rows, they are considered forgotten because when two people gather the sheaves in this way, they should complete their half of the field. There is no reason for the person walking north to leave a sheaf at the end of his row, and hence, if he does, it is considered forgotten. But if he leaves a sheaf behind him, then it is not forgotten because he may be assuming that the other person will collect it. For instance, let’s say that one person began at the seventh sheaf in a row and went south, and the other began at the fifth sheaf and went north. The sixth sheaf is not forgotten because each assumes that the other person will gather it.

ולאחריהם אינו שכחה – if when they turned their faces – this one to the north and that one to the south, and they began to bind and pile the sheaves, and there remained one sheaf between them that they had forgotten, that is not forgetting, because both of them relied upon each upon the other and through that it was forgotten.

If an individual begins from the end of the row and he forgets [some sheaves] in front of him and behind him, those in front of him are not “forgotten”, whereas those behind him are “forgotten,” for this comes under the category of “you shall not go back [to retrieve it].” The opposite rule applies if one person is gathering. Here the rule is simpler. That which he leaves in front of him is not forgotten. It is not covered by the prohibition of “do not go back to retrieve it” (Deuteronomy 24:19) because he hasn’t passed over it yet. However, that which he leaves behind is forgotten because to get to it, he would have to go back. It turns out that for an individual the beginning of a row that is not considered to be forgotten is really at the end of the row, whereas for two people it is the middle of the row that is not considered forgotten.

יחיד שהתחיל מראש השורה – Now it explains to that which is taught in the Mishnah above (Tractate Peah, Chapter 6, Mishnah 3), [as regards a sheaf at] the end of the row, [the presence of] a sheaf at the end of the row across from it proves [that the first sheaf has not been forgotten], such as there are ten rows here of ten by ten Omers set up by rows from the north to the south, and he began to bind and pile the sheaves at the end of one row and he forgot an Omer behind it, that is forgetting, since he passed it and an Omer stands near it, we call that (Deuteronomy 24:19): “Do not turn back to get it.” Bu if he forgot one Omer/sheaf or two at the end of the row, that is in front of him, and he placed them and return and began to bind and pile the sheaves from the beginning of the second row, that is not forgetting, for we don’t call it “Do not turn back” (ibid.), for I saw that it is his intention to work on another row from those which he left from east to west, and that is what is taught in the Mishnah (in Tractate Peah, Chapter 6, Mishnah 3), at the end of the row across from it proves the point, for the Omer sheaves of the other rows prove concerning those which he left that they were not forgotten and are fit to be considered with them in another row.

This is the general rule: anything that can be said to fall under the law “you shall not go back” is considered “forgotten,” but that to which the principle of “you shall not go back” cannot be applied is not considered “forgotten.” The mishnah now provides a general rule: if one has to go back to retrieve the sheaf then it is considered forgotten, provided we don’t assume that he may have left it there intentionally. If he doesn’t have to go back to retrieve it because he has not yet passed it, it is not forgotten and he may still collect it.

הוצני פשתן – like when the flax is uprooted from the field, it is called (hard) flax-stalks (before they are prepared for spinning), that stand like flax-stalks.

Two sheaves [left lying together] are “forgotten,” but three are not “forgotten.”
Two bundles of olives or carobs are “forgotten” but three are not “forgotten.”
Two flax-stalks are “forgotten”, but three are not “forgotten”.
Two grapes are considered “grape gleanings,” but three are not “grape gleanings.”
Two ears of grain are deemed “gleanings,” but three are not gleanings.”
All these [rulings] are according to Bet Hillel. And concerning them all Bet Shammai says that three [that are left] belong to the poor, and four belong to the owner.
The general rule of this mishnah is if that two things left lying together are considered to have been forgotten but three things left lying together are assumed to have been left there intentionally so that the owner could come back and collect them later. Hence they are not considered forgotten. This rule applies to two different types of gifts to the poor: “forgotten” and “gleanings.” The category of gleanings can be divided into two different types, each with its own Hebrew term: grain (leket) and grapes (peret).
In the sixth section of the mishnah we learn that the opinions found in the first five all belong to Bet Hillel. In contrast, Bet Shammai holds that if three things are left together in the field they are considered forgotten or gleanings. Only if four things are left together do they still belong to the owner.

שני גרגרים – grapes.

אלו כדברי ב"ה – And their reason is because it is written (Leviticus 19:10): “You shall leave them for the poor and the stranger,” one for the poor and one for the stranger/convert, that is two, and the School of Shammai states three for the poor and four for the owner of the house, as it is written (Deuteronomy 24:19): “it shall go to the stranger, the fatherless and the widow – [in order that the LORD your God may bless you in all your undertakings],” there is three for the poor.

העומר שיש בו סאתים אינו שכחה – as it is written (Deuteronomy 24:19): “Do not turn back to get it,” Omer that you can lift it all up as one and carry it on his shoulders, excluding this of two Se’ah that you are not able to life all of it as one.

Introduction Our mishnah talks about the how big a sheaf can be and still be considered “forgotten.”

אמרו לו יפה כחו – as we have said, two is forgotten; three is not forgotten.

A sheaf that has two seahs and he forgot it it is not considered “forgotten.” A sheaf that is so large that it is two seahs (about 24 liters) is not considered to be forgotten because, as we shall see below, at this size it is like a stack. Deuteronomy 22:19 says, “And you forget a sheaf” to the rabbis this implies that a sheaf was forgotten, and not a stack.

לא אם אמרת בעומר אחד שהוא בגדיש – the law is that one Omer that contains two Se’ah, there will not be any forgetting, because it is like a grain heap, and forgetting does not belong with a pile.

Two sheaves that together comprise two seahs: Rabban Gamaliel says: they belong to the owner; But the sages say: they belong to the poor. If two sheaves are left in the field and they have a total volume of two seahs between them, then there is a debate over whether they are to be considered forgotten. Rabban Gamaliel says they are not forgotten and that the owner still retains possession over them, whereas the other sages say that they are forgotten and they belong to the poor.

תאמר בשני עמרים – which are like the other small Omer piles.

Rabban Gamaliel said: “Are the rights of the owner strengthened or weakened according to the greater number of the sheaves?” They replied, “His rights are strengthened.” He said to them: “If in a case of one sheaf of two seahs it is not deemed “forgotten,” then how much more should be the case of two sheaves that together contain two seahs?” They replied: “No. If you argue in the case of one sheaf it is because it is large enough to be considered a stack. Are you going to argue likewise in the case of two sheaves which are like bundles?” The two sides now debate this issue. Rabban Gamaliel explains that when there are more sheaves left together, the owner’s rights to them are stronger. This was implied in yesterday’s mishnah, where we learned that if three sheaves are left together they are not considered forgotten. Therefore, he argues, in our case if one sheaf of two seahs is not considered forgotten, all the more so two sheaves of two seahs are not forgotten. The other rabbis respond that the reason that one sheaf of two seahs is not considered forgotten is that it is no longer a sheaf, but rather a stack. In contrast, two sheaves which add up together to two seahs are still considered to be sheaves, or small bundles, and hence the normal rules of forgotten sheaves applies to each of them individually and they are considered forgotten.

ככריכות – in small bundles.

קמה שיש בה סאתים ושכחה אינו שכחה – since we derived the forgotten standing crop from the forgotten Omer. Just as an Omer which contains two Se’ah is not forgotten, so also the standing crop which has two Se’ah is not forgotten, and the forgotten standing crop we derive it from the Biblical verse, as it is written (Deuteronomy 24:19): “[When you reap the harvest in your field] and overlook a sheaf in the field,” to include the forgotten standing crop.

Introduction In today’s mishnah we see that the rabbis extended the laws of forgotten sheaves to standing stalks of grain as well. The question then is, when is a stalk considered to have been forgotten?

טופח – a kind of very thin pulse, and we call it in Arabic “Gilba’an.” But in the standing barley grain, we are speaking of when they were emptied of grain/blasted and they became thin like an inferior kind of barley, and even so, we see them as if they are thick like the rest of the barley, and if when we consider them thick like other barley, there would be in them two Se’ah, even though that now they are blasted and don’t have two Se’ah, they are not forgotten. And we should not interpret that of the inferior barley explicitly that they should consider it as if they are like thick barley, but with barley that was blasted and became inferior, and this is what we say in the Jerusalem Talmud, we see the blasted [barley] as if they are full.

A standing stalk of grain that contains two seahs and he forgot it, it is not considered “forgotten.” Truth be told, I’m not really sure that one stalk of grain can actually produce two seahs of grain, but if it could, it would not be considered forgotten, just as a sheaf with two seahs is not considered forgotten.

ענוה של שעורים – the word ענוה /fertility with [the letter] ו' (Vav), like [the word] ענבה /stalk of grapes with a ב' (Bet), that is to say, a grain/berry of barley.

If it does not contain two seahs now, but is fit to yield two seahs, even if it was of an inferior kind of barley, it is regarded as full barley [grains]. If the stalk will yield two seahs, then we treat it as if it has two seahs and it is not considered forgotten. Indeed, this makes a lot of sense because if this stalk was going to produce a whole two seahs of grain, he probably left it in the field so that he could harvest it when it ripened. The mishnah adds that even if the barley was low quality barley such that it would not actually yield two seahs, we evaluate it as if each grain was of full barley and if the amount that this type of barley will yield equals two seahs, then it is not forgotten.

הקמה מצלת את העומר – a standing crop that was not forgotten that was at the side of Omer that had been forgotten, prevents/saves the Omer that it would be forgotten, as it is written (Deuteronomy 24:19): “When you reap [the harvest in your field] and overlook a sheaf in the field…” the Omer that is is around it that was harvested is forgotten, and not the Omer that is around it that is standing crop.

A standing stalk of grain can save a sheaf and another standing stalk [from being regarded as “forgotten”]. A standing stalk of grain that has not been forgotten prevents an adjacent sheaf or an adjacent standing stalk of grain from being considered forgotten. Commentators explain that is based on a midrash. Deuteronomy 24:19 says, “When you harvest…and you forget a sheaf.” From here the rabbis derive that a sheaf that is forgotten is one that is next to other harvested sheaves, and not one that is next to a standing stalk.

ואת הקמה – if he forgot a standing crop and the heads of its ears of corn are attached to another standing crop that was not forgotten, that standing crop that was not forgotten prevents/saves the forgotten standing crop that is attached to it, and it is not forgotten.

A sheaf cannot save either another sheaf or a standing stalk. However, a sheaf that has not been forgotten does not save another adjacent sheaf or standing stalk from being considered forgotten. This is because there is no midrash according to which forgotten sheaves must be next to other forgotten sheaves.

העומר אינו מציל – if the Omer was forgotten or the standing crop was forgotten at the side of the Omer that was not forgotten, the Omer that is not forgotten does not save either the forgotten Omer or the forgotten standing crop.

What is the standing stalk of grain that can save at sheaf? Anything which has not been forgotten, even though it is a single stalk. This section explains that even a single stalk of grain saves that which is next to it from being considered forgotten.

עקורה – detached, and is not uprooted, is attached to the ground, and does not combine to the two Se’ah and a fiber is not forgotten, but if he forgot them, it is forgotten, and especially if he forgotten both of them, for if he forgot the uprooted but did not forget that which was not uprooted, that which was not uprooted saves/prevents that which is uprooted that is next to it.

Introduction Above in mishnah seven we learned that if a stalk of grain has two seahs it is not considered forgotten. Our mishnah asks what happens if he forgets a stalk that has one seah and doesn’t forget some already harvested grain that is also one seah? Do the two add up causing the two-seah rule to still apply?

וכן באילן – A Se’ah of detached fruit next to an attached does not combine, and they are forgotten.

A seah of plucked grain and a seah of unplucked grain, and also trees; and garlic and to onions do not combine to count as two seahs, but rather they must be left to the poor. If the unforgotten plucked grain and the forgotten unplucked grain add up to two seahs, they do not combine, and they still must be left for the poor. The same holds true for a seah of unharvested fruit and a seah of harvested fruit if both are forgotten they do not combine together and both belong to the poor. In addition the mishnah notes that forgotten garlic and onions do not combine together to count as two seahs, even if both are harvested or both are unharvested. This is because garlic and onions are different species, even though they go together very well in many delicious dishes (yum I love garlic and onion).

והשום והבצלים – A Se’ah of standing crop of garlic and a Se’ah of standing crop of onions does not combine to two Se’ah of standing crop. Alternatively, a Se’ah of uprooted garlic and a Se’ah of garlic that is not uprooted, and similarly, a Se’ah of uprooted onions and a Se’ah of onions that are not uprooted do not combine.

Rabbi Yose says: if anything that belongs to the poor comes in between them, the two are not combined together; otherwise, they do combine. Rabbi Yose says that if there is between one seah and the other something that belongs to the poor, such as gleanings, then the two seahs do not join together. However, if they are lying right next to each other with nothing that belongs to the poor interrupting them, then they do join together to add up to two seahs and they do not belong to the poor.

אם באת – for example when there is leaning between one Se’ah and [another] Se’ah , and similarly, in a vineyard, there is the poor man’s share of grapes between a Se’ah and [another] Se’ah. But regarding fruit of a tree, there is not found the domain of the poor in the middle, for there is no gleaning or poor man’s share of grapes with a train. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yosi.

שנתנה לשחת – to reap while it is still moist to feed to cattle.

Introduction This mishnah continues to define what things the “laws of forgotten” apply to.

לאלומה – to reap in order to prohibit through it other sheaves, like (Genesis 37:7): “binding sheaves [in the field]…”

Grain used for fodder or [stalks] used for binding sheaves, and also garlic-stalks used for tying other bunches, or tied bunches of garlic and onions they [all are not subject to the laws of] forgotten. The laws of forgotten do not apply to grain used as animal food, nor to stalks or garlic-stalks that will be used for binding other sheaves or other bunches of garlic. While mentioning the rules of garlic, the mishnah mentions another rule. If a person ties small bunches of garlic or onions with the intent of coming back and putting them together into larger bunches, the small bunches are not subject to the laws of forgotten, because his intention is to go back and collect them.

אגודי השום – garlic that had been harvested/collected in order to bind to them other garlic.

Anything stored in the ground like arum, garlic and onions: Rabbi Judah says: they do not subject to the laws of “forgotten”; But the sages say: they are subject to the laws of “forgotten.” According to Rabbi Judah, the rules of forgotten do not apply to things that are stored in the ground after they are harvested. This seems to be derived from the verse, “And you forget a sheaf in the field” (Deuteronomy 24:19) the word “field” means that the “forgotten” stuff has to be above the field, and not buried in the field. This excludes arum (a type of onion), garlic and onions. The rabbis interpret “the field” to include things stored in the ground of the field, such that they too are subject to the laws of forgotten.

ואגודות השום והבצלים – if he forgot them, they are not forgotten, for it is manner of garlic and onions that we make of them small bundles and we go back and bundle them with five or six of the small ones to one bundle, and on those small ones it is stated that there is no forgetting, because it is like binding and piling sheaves to a place which is not the completion of the work, for we say about at the end of the chapter [of the Mishnah] הגדיש (chapter five) that it is not forgetting.

הלוף – Maimonides explains that it is a species from the kind of onions.

רבי יהודה אומר אין להם שכחה – for all of those that are hidden, as it is written (Leviticus 19:9): “your field,” just as a field is revealed/in the open, so all that is revealed, excluding that which is hidden.

וחכמים אומרים יש להם שכחה – as it is written, “your field” (ibid.), which implies revealed, and it is written (Leviticus 19:9): “your harvest,” that also implies revealed. This is a one limitation following another limitation, and a double limitation serves to widen the scope (i.e., it is an exemplification), and we include that which is hidden. And an explanation of the word טמון /hidden is something that is eaten from it which is hidden under the ground, such as radish, and onion and the garlic and the turnip and similar things to it. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

הקוצר בלילה והמעמר – at night.

One who harvests by night and binds sheaves [by night] or one who is blind [that which he leaves] is subject to the law of the “forgotten.” The laws of “forgotten” still apply to one who can’t see, either because he was harvesting or binding sheaves at night, or because he is blind. We don’t say that because he couldn’t see what he was doing he can’t forget anything.

והסומא – whether during the day and/or at night.

If he intends to remove large leaves first, then the law of “forgotten” does not apply. If a person intends to remove the large sheaves first, and then leaves some of them in the field mixed in with the smaller sheaves, none of the sheaves, neither the small ones nor the large ones, are deemed “forgotten.” The smaller sheaves are not forgotten because he was not intending to collect them. The larger sheaves are also not forgotten because we assume that since he left the smaller sheaves, his intention was to go back to the field and collect the larger ones later.

אם היה מתכוין ליטול הגס הגס – since he intended to take the large [sheaves] even the thin ones have no forgetting.

If he said: “Behold, I am reaping on the condition that I take afterwards that which I have forgotten,” the law of “forgotten” still applies. A person cannot make a blanket statement before he starts harvesting that anything that he leaves in the field he will come back and collect. This does not prevent that which he actually forgets from being considered “forgotten.” Such a person would be trying to make a stipulation to get around the Torah’s laws and such stipulations are usually invalid.

על מנת מה שאני שוכח אני נוטל יש לו שכחה – because he makes a condition against what is written in the Torah and his condition is null/void.