משנה: נָטַל מִקְּצַת הַפֵּיאָה וְזָרַק עַל הַשְּׁאָר אֵין לוֹ בָּהּ כְּלוּם. נָפַל לוֹ עָלֶיהָ וּפִירֵס טַלִּיתוֹ עָלֶיהָ מַעֲבִירִין אוֹתוֹ מִמֶּנָּהּ וְכֵן בְּלֶקֶט וְכֵן בְּעוֹמֶר הַשִּׁכְחָה. MISHNAH: If he23A poor man entitled to collect peah. took some of the peah and threw it on the rest24In order to claim possession. Since peah has the legal status of abandoned property, the slightest action of acquisition should be valid., he has nothing of it25As punishment, since all poor should have equal access to any produce left by the farmer. According to R. Simson of Sens, the Mishnah means that he retains what he already had but his action is invalid as acquisition.. If he fell on it or spread his talith on it, one removes him from it26For the reasons given above.. The same is valid for gleanings and the forgotten sheaf.
הלכה: תַּנִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי מֵאִיר קוֹנְסִין בּוֹ וּמוֹצִיאִין מִמֶּנּוּ אֶת הַתָּלוּשׁ וְאֶת הַמְּחוּבָּר. עַד כְּדוֹן מֵזִיד אֲפִילוּ שׁוֹגֵג וַאֲפִילוּ כְּרִיכוֹת. HALAKHAH: It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: “One punishes him and takes away from him both the cut and the standing produce.27Tosephta Peah 2:1 reads: “If he took some of the peah and threw it on the rest, he has no claim to it. Rebbi Meïr says, one punishes him and takes away from him both the cut and the standing produce.” This proves that the language of the Mishnah, the first sentence of the Tosephta, implies that he does not lose the peah he previously collected. Maimonides, who in his commentary to the Mishnah writes that he loses that peah also, explains the Halakhah, not the Mishnah.” That refers to intentional misconduct; does it apply even to action in error or even to small sheaves28If the poor collector already had made a small sheaf of his peah. The question is not answered; for practical purposes, it is answered in the negative.?
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָּקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם אַבָּא כֹהֵן בַּר דָּלָיָא אָדָם זוֹכֶה בִּמְצִיאָה בְּתוֹךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ מַה טַעַם וְהִנֵּה בְּעוֹנְיִי הֲכִינוֹתִי לְבֵית יי֨ זָהָב כִּכָּרִים מֵאָה אֶלֶף וְכֶסֶף אֶלֶף אֲלָפִים כִּכָּרִים וְלַנְּחוֹשֶׁת וְלַבַּרְזֶל אֵין מִשְׁקָל כִּי לָרוֹב הָיָה וְעֵצִים וַאֲבָנִים הֲכִינוֹתִי וַעֲלֵיהֶם תּוֹסִיף. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Abba Cohen Bar Dalaia30A Tanna of the first generations: Abba, a priest of the course of Dalaiahu, the 23rd of the 24 priestly divisions.: A person acquires a find within four cubits of himself31If somebody sees an abandoned object and intends to acquire it, it becomes his property when he is closer than 4 cubits to it, and nobody has the right to run past him and grab it. Since the Mishnah obviously declares that principle inoperative with regard to peah, there seems to be a contradiction between two rabbinic principles. The Babli (Baba Meẓi‘a 10a/b) resolves the problem by restricting the principle of Abba Cohen to the public domain; it does not apply to private property such as a field. The Yerushalmi disagrees; since peah is abandoned property, as proved in the preceding Halakhah, it must be assumed that the ground on which peah grows is temporarily also abandoned to the poor.
The expression “himself” will be given special importance in the following discussion.. What is the reason? (1Chr. 22:14) “Look, in my poverty32How can anybody (King David) who has the means of dedicating such enormous wealth, call himself “poor”? The explanation is that the wealth never actually came into his possession but that he dedicated it as soon as it became his property by intent and proximity. I prepared for the House of the Eternal 100’000 kikkar33One kikkar equals 3’000 sheqel, and, since the sheqel in the Talmud is defined as 2 drachmas, the kikkar is equal to the Greek talent of 6’000 drachmas. The 14 g silver sheqalim from the Jewish revolt were “sacred sheqalim” of double weight, or four civil denars. Honest silver denars or drachmae from the early principate weigh about 3.5 g. Taking civil sheqalim, one kikkar would be about 21 kg and David would have prepared 2 metric tons of gold and 20 metric tons of silver for the Temple. of gold, 1’000’000 kikkar of silver, bronze and iron unweighed because it was so much, I prepared wood and stones, and you34Solomon. should add to them.”
רִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא בְּעִי מַה נָן קַייָמִין אִם בְּתוֹךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת עָשִׁיר הוּא. אִם בְּחוּץ לְאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת וְיֵשׁ אָדָם מַקְדִּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ. וְקִייַמְּנוּהָ בְּמַקְדִּישׁ רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן. Rebbi Jonah said that Rebbi Hoshaiah asked: What are we talking about? If this was within four cubits from him, he was rich35After he dedicated all he had, he was poor. But if one has the means to dedicate billions, he cannot say that he is in poverty at the act of dedication.. If it was outside of four cubits, may anybody dedicate anything that is not his36If A says to B that he dedicated a piece of B’s property for charity or religious purposes, his words are null and void and have neither legal nor religious implications.? We confirmed it37The argument in the previous paragraph is still valid if David never came to possess a single piece of gold or silver worth more than 200 zuz; then he could assemble all this wealth for the Temple without ever ceasing to be legally poor. if he dedicated it piece by piece.
אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין מַהוּ בְעֳנְיִי שֶׁאֵין עֲשִׁירוּת לִפְנֵי מִי שֶׁאָמַר וְהָיָה הָעוֹלָם. דָּבָר אַחֵר בְּעוֹנְיִי בְּעִינּוּי שֶׁהָיָה מִתְעַנֶּה וּמַקְדִּישׁ סְעוּדָתוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם. Rebbi Abun said, what means “in my poverty?” That there is no wealth before Him Who commanded and the world came into existence38The expression “in my poverty” is homiletic and carries no legal meaning; the verse is inapplicable to our situation and the statement about the four cubits is a rabbinical institution without Biblical foundation.! Another explanation: בְּעוֹנְיִי “in my deprivation39The other uses of עוני in the Bible show that this is the usual meaning of the word. This also excludes the verse from being used as proof in our context.,” because he fasted and donated the price of his meal to Heaven.
הָתִיב רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִּי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ וְהָתַנֵּינָן רָאָה אֶת הַמְּצִיאָה וְנָפַל לוֹ עָלֶיהָ וּבָא אַחֵר וְהֶחֱזִיק בָּהּ זֶה שֶׁהֶחֱזִיק בָּהּ זָכָה בָהּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ תִּיפְתָּר בְּשֶׁלֹּא אָמַר יִזְכּוּ לִי אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת שֶׁלִּי. וְהָתַנִּי נָפַל לוֹ עָלֶיהָ פִירֵס טַלִּיתוֹ עָלֶיהָ מַעֲבִירִין אוֹתָהּ מִמֶּנָּהּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ עוֹד הִיא בְּשֶׁלֹּא אָמַר יִזְכּוּ לִי אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת שֶׁלִּי. וְהָתַנִּי רִבִּי חִייָא שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהָיוּ מִתְכַּתְּשִׁין עַל הָעוֹמֶר וּבָא עָנִי אַחֵר וַחֲטָפוֹ מִלִּפְנֵיהֶן זָכָה בּוֹ. אָמַר לֵיהּ עוֹד הִיא בְּשֶׁלֹּא אָמַר יִזְכּוּ לִי אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi objected before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Did we not state: (Mishnah Baba Meẓi‘a 1:4) “If somebody saw a find and fell on it, when another person came and grabbed it, he who grabbed it had the rights to it?” He answered him: Explain it if the first one did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him41The Babli (Baba Meẓi‘a 10b) explains that deeds speak louder than words and that by falling on the object the finder showed that he did not wish to acquire it by simple speech. In that case, it can be acquired only by grabbing, i. e., holding on to it and moving it. The Yerushalmi does not go so far; it only requires that an object should be within four cubits of the finder and that the latter should clearly express his intention of acquiring the object. Afterwards, he can do as he wishes.. But did we not state42In our Mishnah.: “If he fell on it or spread his talith on it, one removes him from it?” He said to him, that is the same, if he did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state43In our Tosephta, the statement is anonymous. The tradition that the Tosephta is originally from the school of Rebbi Ḥiyya seems to be an old Yerushalmi one.: (Tosephta Peah 2:2) “If two44In the Tosephta: “Two poor persons.” were pushing45Since כתש means “to hew to pieces”, probably the translation should be: “Thrash one another.” In any case, they quarrel by physical force rather than words; it may be assumed that neither of them intended to acquire the forgotten sheaf by speech. one another because of a sheaf and another poor person came and grabbed it from before them, he is entitled to it. He said to him, it is the same, he46Neither of the first two quarellers. did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him.
אָמַר רִבִי יָסָא אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן זוֹ בְגִיטִּין מַה שֶׁאֵין כֵּן בְּמַתָּנָה. רוּבָּהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרוּבָּהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. רוּבָּהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מַה אִם מְצִיאָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ זוֹכֶה בָּהּ מִדַּעַת אַחֵר הֲרֵי הוּא זוֹכֶה בָהּ בְּתוֹךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. מַתָּנָה שֶׁהוּא זוֹכֶה בָהּ מִדַּעַת אַחֵר לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן. רוּבָּהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ מַה אִם מַתָּנָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ זוֹכֶה בָּהּ בְּתוךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת הֲרֵי הוּא זוֹכֶה בָּהּ מִדַּעַת אַחֵר. מְצִיאָה שֶׁהוּא זוֹכֶה בָהּ בְּתוֹךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן. Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan47The entire discussion belongs to the parallel in Gittin 8:3:2-9" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.8.3.2-9">Giṭṭin 8:3 (fol. 49c), where it is stated in Mishnah 2 that a divorce document, of which it is written (Deuteronomy.24.1">Deut. 24:1): “He wrote her a divorce document and delivered it into her hands,” can be delivered by the husband’s throwing the document close to her (within four cubits) in the public domain, with the wife’s knowledge. Then Mishnah 3 adds: “The same rule applies to marriage and the settlement of debts,” meaning that if a woman agrees to marry a certain man and the groom, while declaring that the wedding gift is given for the purpose of marriage, instead of delivering it into the bride’s hand throws it close to her in the public domain in front of two witnesses, the marriage is valid. Similarly, if the creditor asks the debtor to throw to him the amount owed, if the debtor did that and it landed within the creditor’s four cubits in the public domain, the debtor has discharged all his obligations. On this, Rebbi Joḥanan comments that a gift can be acquired only by actual possession, not by four cubits in the public domain.: That refers to divorce documents, but it does not apply to a gift. Rebbi Joḥanan adds something48His statement about gifts is far from trivial., Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish adds something. Rebbi Joḥanan adds something. Since a find which cannot be acquired by the knowledge of another person49If two persons walk together, one sees a find and tells the second one to take it up for him, and the second one lifts it up with the intention of acting as the first person’s agent, the first one acquired it (Mishnah Baba Meẓi‘a 1:3). However, in that case the find must actually be taken up; the four cubits of the agent and his declaration are invalid. If the second person decides to take the find for himself, the four cubits and his declaration of intent of acquisition are valid and the find is his. can be acquired within four cubits, should this rule not apply a fortiori50Hence, his statement excluding gifts is necessary. to a gift that is acquired by the knowledge of another person51Without the donor’s intent of giving the gift, there is no gift and, hence, none can be acquired. [However, if A says to B: acquire the gift for C, the action of B is valid for C since one may let another person profit without the latter’s knowledge (explanation of R. Moses ben Ḥabib)].? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish adds something. Since a gift which cannot be acquired within four cubits52R. Simeon ben Laqish’s premise is R. Joḥanan’s conclusion and vice-versa. If the arguments were made by one person, they would be self-contradictory; for the position of two people they are acceptable. can be acquired by the knowledge of another person, should this not a fortiori apply to a find53Hence, the statement of R. Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Abba Cohen, that four cubits acquire for a person, is necessary insofar as it means acquisition for himself and not for another individual.?
הָתִיב רִבִּי זְעִירָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא וְהָתַנֵּינָן וְכֵן לְעִנְיָין הַקִּידּוּשִׁין. אָמַר לֵיהּ הִיא גִּיטִּין הִיא קִידּוּשִׁין. וְהָתַנֵּינָן וְכֵן לְעִנְיָין הַחוֹב. אָמַר לֵיהּ שֶׁכֵּן אִם אָמַר לֵיהּ זֹרְקֵיהוּ לַיָּם וִיהֵא מָחוּל לָךְ מָחוּל לוֹ. מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ קָרוֹב לְלוֶֹה זָכָה הַלֹּוֶה. וְתַנֵּינָן קָרוֹב לַלֹּוֶה הַלֹּוֶה חַייָב שֶׁכֵּן אִם אָמַר לַיהּ זֹרְקֵיהוּ עַד שֶׁיִּיכָּנֵס לִרְשׁוּתִי וַאֲדַיִין לֹא נִכְנַס בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ כָּל־אִילֵּין תֲתוּבָתָה דַּהֲוָה רִבִּי זְעִירָא מוֹתִיב קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא. וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ מוֹתִיב קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מְקַבֵּל מִינֵיהּ פָּתַר לֵיהּ בְּאִילֵּין פִּיתְרָיָא. Rebbi Zeïra objected before Rebbi Yasa: But did we not state54Gittin 8:3:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.8.3.1">Mishnah Giṭṭin 8:3.: The same applies to marriage? He answered him, divorce documents and marriage contracts have the same rules55The statement of R. Joḥanan about exclusion of gifts could as well have been formulated for marriage contracts.. But did we not state: The same applies to debt? He said to him, because if he56The creditor tells the debtor to throw the repayment into the sea. If the debtor follows instructions, he has discharged his obligations. said to him: Throw it into the sea and your debt will be forgiven, it would be forgiven. But if that is true, even if it fell down close to the debtor, the debtor should have the benefit! But we have stated57In the same Mishnah, speaking of the debtor throwing the money to the creditor. Nothing of four cubits was mentioned in the first explanation., if it falls down close to the debtor, the debtor is still obligated. For he said to him, throw it so that it will enter my domain, and it did not yet enter his domain58If the money fell outside the creditor’s four cubits in the public domain, the debt is not discharged since the condition was not satisfied. However, if the creditor stands on the seashore and the money falls close to him into the sea, the debtor has discharged his obligation. The problem raised in the return question is considered to be different and receives a different answer.. Rebbi Abbahu said, all those objections that Rebbi Zeïra raised before Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish raised before Rebbi Joḥanan. Did he accept them from him? He solved them with those same solutions.