Yerushalmi Peah 5:2 ירושלמי פאה ה׳:ב׳

MISHNAH: ³¹Here start the laws of forgotten sheaves and other forgotten harvests.: A single ear on the field to be harvested and its head reaches to the grain that is still standing, if it can be cut together with standing grain, it belongs to the owner, otherwise it is for the poor³²If it can not be cut in one movement of the sickle together with some stalks of grain still standing in bunches, it is like a forgotten sheaf and one may not return to take it.. An ear of gleanings that was mixed up in a stack of grain, he gives tithes for one ear and gives it to him³³Since the farmer is required to give to the poor something that may be consumed right away, after it is mixed up in the stack it cannot be given away until at least the heave of the tithe has been given. Hence, one ear has to be given to the Cohen as heave, the other one to the poor in lieu of gleanings. In this sentence, “he” is the farmer and “him” refers to the poor.. Rebbi Eliezer said, how can the poor man exchange something that never was in his possession³⁴The procedure of the first Tanna does not work, since the poor man does not receive gleanings but grain in lieu of gleanings. But since the gleanings never were in the poor man’s possession, the poor person has no right to exchange his gleanings for the stalk which the owner gives to him and if the owner later uses that ear of gleanings in his stack he still robs the poor.? But he has to give the poor rights to the entire stack³⁵This is known as “a gift on condition that it must be returned,” which legally is a gift as long as it is with the recipient. In our case, the poor has to get possession of the stack only long enough to accept any other stalk in lieu of the gleaning he should be given; then the stack reverts to the owner and now the latter may give the heave of the tithe to the Cohen and a stalk to the poor.; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives it to him.

HALAKHAH: What is standing grain that saves standing grain³⁶In Mishnah 6:7 it is stated that standing grain saves other standing grain which the farmer forgot to cut. The question is, how far away may an entire uncut patch be from the main uncut field that it should not be forgotten? The answer is the same as in our Mishnah, that the head of one of the stalks of the forgotten patch may be bent, without breaking the stem, to touch the as yet uncut part of the field.? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the same as we have stated: a single ear on the field to be harvested and its head reaches to the standing grain. Rebbi Yose said, only if the harvested field surrounds it³⁷Otherwise, it never can be counted as forgotten. In contrast to the next two conditions which restrict the case in which it is not forgotten, this one restricts the possible applications of the rules of forgotten produce., and only if its head reaches the standing grain, and only if it can be cut together with standing grain. If it can be cut together with standing grain but standing grain cannot be cut with it³⁸If the angle of the sickle with the ground is too large when the harvester stands close to the unharvested grain, the harvester cannot start cutting the single stalk and reach the standing patch with one sweep of the sickle., it is saved. If there were two, the inner one can be cut together with the outermost standing grain, but the outer one cannot be cut with the standing grain; the inner one is saved and saves³⁹It saves the outer one if the outer one could be cut together with the inner one and the inner one could be cut together with standing grain. Hence, the notion of being saved is transitive for any row of stalks that could be cut in pairs..

Rebbi Hoshaia said, when I was mashing olives with the great Rebbi Ḥiyya, he said to me: Any olive that you can reach when stretching out your hand is not forgotten⁴⁰After shaking the olive tree you may go around over all branches you worked on and take the olives still on the tree. It is only when you move your ladder that the remainder becomes property of the poor.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he passed it over and forgot it, it is forgotten⁴¹If in his mind he is finished with one branch, he may not return to it.. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Hoshaia: A single ear on the field to be harvested and its head reaches to the grain. Can you not stretch out your hand and take a single ear on the harvested field⁴²The condition that the ear must touch the standing stalks is certainly much more restrictive than that a harvester, standing in front of the grain, cannot pluck by hand on the other side.? Rebbi Illai in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: They said that about the second row⁴³The Mishnah speaks of a stalk left over from cutting the first row. If in harvesting the second row one returns to the place of that ear, it is as when in plucking leftover olives one returns to a harvested spot after moving the ladder and then even R. Ḥiyya agrees that this is forgotten property..

Can something that is apt to be saved but was forgotten become legally forgotten? Let us hear from the following: “When he removed⁴⁵עימר as a verbal form “removing the sheaf” is defined by Rashi in Šabbat127a. R. S. Lieberman points out that this parallels Biblical דִּשֵּׁן “removed the ashes”, from the noun דשן “ashes.” the first, second, and third sheaves⁴⁶He not only bound them but he also removed them to a storage place or threshing floor. This statement puts the standard row of sheaves at three sheaves. Hence, the full second row would be sheaves 4,5,6. but forgot⁴⁷To remove the fourth after it was bound. the fourth, some state: If he took away the fifth one, it (the fourth) becomes legally forgotten, but some state: If he waited long enough that he could have taken away the fifth one, it becomes legally forgotten.” Rebbi Avin bar Ḥiyya said, he who says, “if he removed the fifth one,” (speaks of the case) where there is a sixth one⁴⁸Because sheaves in a row are saved by the next sheaf just as stalks in a row are saved by the next stalk. Hence, the fourth can become legally forgotten only if the fifth, which saves it from being legally forgotten, is removed., but he who says, “if he waited long enough that he could have removed the fifth one,” (speaks of the case) where there is no sixth one⁴⁹Since there is no row of three sheaves, they will be taken to be removed individually and not as a row. It suffices that the fifth could have been finished and removed.. Before he took away the fifth one, would not the fourth one be apt to be considered starting a row⁵⁰If there are six sheaves, the fourth does not become legally abandoned until the sheaf which saves it is removed.? That means that something that is apt to be saved but was forgotten can become legally forgotten.

Can something that is apt to save but was forgotten become legally forgotten? Let us hear from the following⁵²Mishnah 6:6 reads: “Standing grain in the volume on two seah (about .9 cubic feet) cannot be legally forgotten.” Then Mishnah 6:8 adds: “One seah of cut grain and one seah of uncut grain do not combine.” That means, both of them may become legally forgotten.: “One seah of cut grain and one seah of uncut grain.” Here the cut grain should save the uncut grain⁵³If they are contiguous and would combine. In Halakhah 6:8 it is pointed out that Mishnah 6:8 seems to follow the ruling of Rabban Gamliel in Mishnah 6:5 that sheaves which add up to a volume of 2 seah are exempt from the law of forgotten sheaves. Then there is no reason why cut and uncut grain should not be combined.. That means that something that is apt to save, but was forgotten, can become legally forgotten. Rebbi Jonah⁵⁴In Halakhah 6:8, “Rebbi Jonathan.” The reading here is the more likely one since Rebbi Jonathan is a very early Amora. said, explain it if he was cutting and removing the sheaves row by row⁵⁵The field contains much more than two rows of a seah each. Hence, the two do not have to be adjacent in space or time and the Mishnah has no implication for our question.. He already forgot the standing grain before he might forget the sheaves.

How does he do it⁵⁶Here starts the discussion of the second sentence of the Mishnah, the requirement that the farmer give tithes before he delivers the replacement for the gleanings to the poor. The problem is that heave and tithes can be given only from produce subject to the laws of heave and tithes. Gleanings are exempt from these laws and, therefore, cannot be used as either heave or tithes.? He brings two ears and says: If this one is gleanings, all is fine; but if not, then its tithes are contained in the other one, and he gives him⁵⁷The poor person. The other one is given to the priest. the first one. Do we not have to worry that the one used to contain tithes in it was gleanings? Rebbi Jonah said, he brings two ears and says: If this one is gleanings, all is fine; but if not, then its tithes are contained in the other one, and he gives him one of them⁵⁸He must treat the two ears equally and make the declaration twice. He then is restricted to give the ear only to a poor person who may eat tithes, i. e., a Levite or a Cohen. The other ear is then to be given as tithes, not necesarily to a poor person. [Interpretation of this elliptic statement given by R. David ben Zimra to Maimonides, Mattenot Aniïm 4:10.].

Rebbi Abbahu⁵⁹Here we discuss the last part of the Mishnah, the disagreement between the Sages and R. Eliezer on whether it is possible to transfer property of a single ear or whether it is necessary first to give the entire stack to the poor. in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this follows Rebbi Yose⁶⁰Bar Ḥalaphta, the Tanna., as we have stated there⁶¹The Mishnah Bekhorot 2:6 deals with a sheep whose first lambs are male twins of which it is unknown which one was the firstborn. It is then decreed that one of them be given to the Cohen, and the other one (who might be the firstborn and, if without blemish, should be brought as sacrifice) should graze until it develops a bodily defect and then can be eaten. The first Tanna (representing R. Meïr) insists that the second animal is subject to the rule of obligatory gifts to the Cohen as profane meat. Rebbi Yose disagrees, and in a baraita (also Babli Bekhorot18a) explains that every animal whose exchange is in the hand of the Cohen is freed from the rule of obligatory gifts. The Babli explains, in an apparent disagreement with the interpretation of the Yerushalmi, that this is not a general principle but it underlines the special status of the second animal which, as a potential sacrifice, may not be shorn or used for work.: “For Rebbi Yose says that everything whose replacement is in the hand of the Cohen is freed from the obligatory gifts, but Rebbi Meïr obligates him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest⁶²It is not enough to designate an ear as tithes; it must actually be delivered into the hand of the Cohen.. Rebbi Yose⁶³The later Amora. said, the statement of Rebbi Abba contradicts Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish since we have stated here: “He has to give the poor rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives to him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest, hence⁶⁴This is the Amora Rebbi Yose’s inference. this is not from the words of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Mana said, the Mishnah itself testifies that it is by Rebbi Yose⁶⁵Everybody agrees that transfer of property must take place, but not necessarily delivery; the Tanna R. Yose requires only transfer of property rights.. The first Tanna wants to say that he transfers as property to the poor not the entire stack but only one ear. The other Tanna wants to say that he transfers the entire stack as property to the poor. The first Tanna wants to say that this⁶⁶The symbolic transfer of the entire stack to the poor as a “gift on condition that it be returned” is considered a subterfuge without legal validity. is like the transfer of property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is no transfer. The other Tanna wants to say that it is not transferring property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is transfer⁶⁷And is legally valid..

Rebbi Zeïra stated⁶⁸These three words are not in the text of R. Simson of Sens and not in that of R. Solomon Cirillo. The text of R. Simson is certainly smoothed in the sense of standard Hebrew grammar; the text of R. S. Cirillo may be smoothed.: Rebbi Abbahu in the name of R. Joḥanan: The reasoning of Rebbi Eliezer is inverted! There⁶⁹In chapter 4, Mishnah 6, Rebbi Eliezer declares that any person can collect for a poor one, so that the second one is the immediate owner and the collector never has ownership. How can this be squared with the statement of R. Eliezer in the current Mishnah? he makes him acquire, and here he says thus? He answered “according to your reasoning⁷⁰A standard expression in both Talmudim. Rebbi Eliezer points out a logical flaw in the reasoning of his opponents; the objection is irrelevant for himself, by Mishnah 4:6.,” in your reasoning that you say it is by exchange⁷¹Since the Sages oppose R. Eliezer in Mishnah 4:6, holding that the non-poor X can never acquire gifts to the poor for the poor Y, how can the owner transfer ownership in gleanings by exchange? R. Eliezer’s procedure with the formal gift is needed only for his opponents in 4:6; for himself he will rule that the owner may acquire the gleanings for the poor recipient.. “How can the poor man exchange something that never was in his possession? But he has to give the poor man rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives to him.”