Pisqa’ 283¹

1

“And you forgot a sheaf” (Dt.24:19).

[This specifies a sheaf,] but not a stack.

Is it possible to say:

not even two [sheaves]?

The Teaching states:

“Let it be for the migrant, the widow, and the fatherless” (Dt.24:19).

On this basis they taught:

Two sheaves qualify as Forgotten-sheaves,

but three do not qualify;

two mounds of olives or carobs qualify as forgotten,

but three do not qualify;

two berries left on the ground qualify as abandoned,²

but three do not qualify.³

2

“In the field” (Dt.24:19).

This excludes [from the rule]

produce buried in the field:

Words of R. Judah.

But sages say:

“In the field” (Dt.24:19)—

this includes [under the rule]

produce buried in the field.⁴

3

“In the field” (Dt.24:19).

This includes [under the rule]

standing grain [which has been forgotten].

Now, we might reason otherwise.

For just as with a sheaf,

to which the claim of the poor is limited

[to that which has been forgotten],

we grant him the Forgotten-sheaf—

isn’t it only logical that

with standing grain,

to which the claim of the poor

is unlimited [including the Gleanings and the Corner-offering],

we should grant him the Forgotten-sheaf?

No!

If your example is a sheaf,

which cannot spare either

[another] sheaf or an [adjacent] field of standing grain

[from obligation for the Forgotten-sheaf],

will you make the same claim

about a field of standing grain,

which can indeed spare

an [unforgotten] sheaf or an [adjacent] field of standing grain

[from obligation for the Forgotten-sheaf]?⁵

The Teaching states:

“In the field” (Dt.24:19)—

including standing grain

[within the pauper’s claim to the Forgotten-sheaf].

4

“Do not turn back to retrieve it” (Dt.24:19)—

this excludes [from the rule]

a sheaf found at the head of a row

[because it is unlikely to have been abandoned].

On this basis they taught:

As for the heads of rows of grain—

the sheaf opposite them will prove that

[they have not been forgotten].

As for the sheaf which the owner grasped,

intending to bring it to town,

but then forgot it—

[the circles of Hillel and Shammai] agree that

it doesn’t qualify as a Forgotten-sheaf.⁶

“Do not turn back to retrieve it” (Dt.24:19)—

that is, not all of it at once.

And what should be the size of the sheaf?

Sages [say]—enough to yield two se’ahs [of produce].⁷

On this basis they taught:

A sheaf of two seahs which he forgot in the field—

it does not qualify as a Forgotten-sheaf.

Two sheaves which comprise two seahs between them—

Rabban Gamliel says:

this belongs to the householder.

But sages say:

To the poor.⁸

{Said Rabban Gamliel:

From an abundance of sheaves

should the householder take advantage

or should he lose advantage?

They replied:

He should take advantage!

He said to them:

But just as when he has a single sheaf of two se’ahs,

which he forgot in the field—

it does not qualify as a Forgotten-sheaf,

[and he keeps it for his own use,]

isn’t it reasonable to assume that

two sheaves which comprise two se’ahs between them

should not qualify as a Forgotten-sheaf?

They replied:

Not at all!

If you say that [at hand is]

a single sheaf the size of a stack,

What will you say about

Two sheaves which are like little bundles?}

5

“Do not turn back to retrieve it” (Dt.24:19)—

on this basis R. Ishmael said:

A kernel of grain [standing on its stalk] after the harvest,

and its tip reaches the [remaining] standing grain—

if the stalk could be harvested with the standing grain,

this, indeed belongs to the householder.

But if not, it belongs to the poor.⁹

A householder who would take from the poor,

the burden of proof is upon him.

For [the general principle is]:

One who would take from his companion,

the burden of proof is upon him.

Now, how do I know that

where there is doubt about Gleanings,

we consider the produce to be Gleanings;

and where there is doubt about the Forgotten-sheaf,

we consider the produce to be the Forgotten-sheaf;

and where there is doubt about the Corner-offering,

we consider the produce to be the Corner-offering?

The Teaching states:

“Let it be for the migrant, the widow, and the fatherless” (Dt.24:19)—

[even if its status is in doubt]¹⁰

6

Said R. Elazar b. Azariah:

How do I know that

if a person drops a sel`a from his hand,

and a poor man finds it and supports himself with it,

Scripture treats him as if he deserved a reward?

The Teaching states:

“Let it be for the migrant, the widow, and the fatherless . . .

so that HASHEM your God will bless you” (Dt.24:19).¹¹

 

Now, isn’t this a matter of simple logic?

If someone had no intention to earn merit,

yet his deed was meritorious,

Scripture considers him to have earned merit—

if he intended to earn merit,

shouldn’t we expect all the more so that

he be considered to have earned merit?¹²

1. H:273-274;JN2:232-234.
2. Heb: peret. See M. Pe’ah 7:3: “What is peret? That which drops off during the picking [and is considered to be abandoned for the poor].”
3. //M. Pe’ah 6:5.
4. Cf. M. Pe’ah 6:10.
5. //M.Pe’ah 6:8; cf. T. Pe’ah 3:6.
6. //M.Pe’ah 6:2-3.
7. The ­se’ah measures the amount of seed needed to yield a given amount of produce. Qahati ad M. Pe’ah. 3:6, lists proportions as follows: 2 se’ahs =12 qabs (6 qabs per se’ah). Thus the sheaf in question is one that will yield at the harvest 12 qabs of produce or, 2 dry liters at 6 qabs per liter.
8. =M.Pe’ah 6:6. The bracketed text to follow completes the portion of the Mishnah omitted by the text of F:300, l. 7.
9. = M.Pe’ah 5:2, M.`Edu. 2:4.
10. =Sifra, qodashim, per.3:7
11. //Sifra, dibbura’ dekhovah, par.12:13.
12. =T. Pe’ah 3:8. Cf. Pisqa’ 252.2