משנה: קָמָה מַצֶּלֶת אֶת הָעוֹמֶר וְאֶת הַקָּמָה. וְהָעוֹמֶר אֵינוֹ מַצִּיל לֹא אֶת הָעוֹמֶר וְלֹא אֶת הַקָּמָה. אֵי זוּ הִיא קָמָה שֶׁהִיא מַצֶּלֶת אֶת הָעוֹמֶר כֹּל שֶׁאֵינָהּ שִׁכְחָה אֲפִילוּ קֶלַח אֶחָד. סְאָה תְּבוּאָה עֲקוּרָה וּסְאָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ עֲקוּרָה וְכֵן בְּאִילָן הַשּׁוּם וְהַבְּצָלִים אֵינָן מִצְטָֽרְפִין. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר אִם בָּאָת רְשׁוּת לְעָנִי בְאֶמְצָע אֵין מִצְטָֽרְפִין וְאִם לָאו הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מִצְטָֽרְפִין. MISHNAH: Standing produce saves sheaves and standing produce116Standing produce which was not forgotten protects produce nearby that was forgotten from becoming legally “forgotten.” “Nearby” was defined earlier as close so that the ears of one may touch the other.. But a sheaf117A sheaf which either is not forgotten or which itself is exempt from the laws of the “forgotten sheaf.” saves neither sheaves nor standing produce. What is standing produce that saves sheaves? Everything that is not forgotten, even if it is only one stalk.
A seah of uprooted grain and a seah of not uprooted grain131They do not combine to form the two seah that exempt from the laws of forgotten sheaves., also trees132Harvested and hanging fruits do not combine., garlic and onions do not combine133They belong to the same family but different species.. Rebbi Yose says, if a poor man’s right comes in the middle134If at any time after the cutting of the first part the poor had the right to collect peah, gleanings, or forgotten sheaves, the two parts cannot be combined. In vineyards, the poor have the right to collect the single berries that grow on the vines. But for other trees, the poor have no rights until the end of the harvest; for R. Yose, harvested and hanging fruits of other trees combine., they do not combine, otherwise they do combine.
הלכה: אָמַר רִבִּי אִילָּא כְּתִיב כִּי תִקְצוֹר קְצִירְךָ בְשָׂדֶךְ וְשָׁכַחְתָּ עוֹמֶר בַּשָּׂדֶה. עוֹמֶר שֶׁסְּבִיבוֹתָיו קְצִיר וְלֹא עוֹמֶר שֶׁסְּבִיבוֹתָיו קָמָה. וְלָמָּה עוֹמֶר שֶׁסְּבִיבוֹתָיו עוֹמָרִין וְלֹא עוֹמֶר שֶׁסְּבִיבוֹתָיו קָמָה עוֹמֶר שֶׁסְּבִיבוֹתָיו עוֹמָרִין מַה שֶׁתַּחְתָּיו שָׂדֶה. עוֹמֶר שֶׁסְּבִיבוֹתָיו קָמָה מַה שֶׁתַּחְתָּיו קַשִּׁין. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Illa said, it is written (Deuteronomy.24.19">Deut. 24:19): “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field and you forget a sheaf on the field,” a sheaf surrounded by harvest and not a sheaf surrounded by standing produce. And why a sheaf surrounded by harvest and not a sheaf surrounded by standing produce? Under a sheaf surrounded by harvest is the field119Since the harvest is not finished., under a sheaf surrounded by standing produce is straw.
תַּנָּא קָמַת חֲבֵירוֹ מַצֶּלֶת אֶת שֶׁלּוֹ. שֶׁל גוֹי מַצֶּלֶת אֶת שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל. שֶׁל חִיטִּין מַצֶּלֶת אֶת שֶׁל שְׂעוֹרִין דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אֵינָהּ מַצֶּלֶת אֶלָּא שֶׁלּוֹ אֵינָהּ מַצֶּלֶת אֶלָּא מִמִּינָהּ. It was stated120Tosephta Peah 3:5; there (and in the manuscript of R. S. Cirillo) the name of the first Tanna is R. Meïr.: “The standing produce of his neighbor saves his own121If his forgotten patch of produce is close to the neighbor’s field that was not yet harvested., the standing produce of a Gentile saves that of a Jew, the standing wheat saves barley, the words of Rebbi. But the Sages say, only his own produce saves and only its own kind.”
תַּנִּי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַקָּמָה מַצֶּלֶת אֶת הָעוֹמֶר כָּךְ הָעוֹמֶר מַצִּיל אֶת הַקָּמָה. וְדִין הוּא וּמַה אִם הַקָּמָה שֶׁיִּפֶּה בָהּ כֹּחַ הֶעָנִי וּשְׁכָחָהּ הֲרֵי הִיא מַצֶּלֶת. עוֹמֶר שֶׁהוֹרָע בּוֹ כֹחַ הֶעָנִי אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיַּצִּיל. אָמֵר לוֹ רִבִּי מַה אִם קָמָה שֶׁיִּפֶּה כֹּחַ הֶעָנִי בָהּ וּשְׁכָחָהּ הֲרֵי הִיא מַצֶּלֶת. עוֹמֶר שֶׁהוֹרָע כֹּחַ הֶעָנִי בּוֹ וּשְׁכָחוֹ אֵין דִין שֶׁיַּצִּיל. מִדִּבְרֵי שְׁנֵיהֶן נִלְמַד מַצִּילִין עוֹמֶר מֵעוֹמֶר וְאֵין מַצִּילִין קָמָה מִקָּמָה. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel stated122Tosephta Peah 3:6. In the edition of R. S. Lieberman, the punctuation and interpretation of the abbreviation are incorrect. The text of the Tosephta is garbled and the good text of the Yerushalmi was misunderstood by R. Simson and the other commentators.: Just as standing produce saves the sheaf, so the sheaf saves the standing produce. This is logical: If standing produce, on which the power of the poor is enhanced123Since he has the right to peah, gleanings, and forgotten sheaves., saves if any of it was forgotten, it is only logical that the sheaf should save, since on it the power of the poor is reduced124It is reduced to the forgotten sheaf.. Rebbi125The son of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. answered him: If standing produce, on which the power of the poor is enhanced, saves if any of it126The sheaf, on which the power of the poor is weak. was forgotten, is it logical that the sheaf, on which the power of the poor is reduced, if any of it was forgotten should save127The standing produce, to which the claim of the poor is much stronger!? From the words of both of them we infer that sheaf is saved by sheaf128If both sheaves are close together. For Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel it follows from his logical argument, for Rebbi it follows since the claim of the poor to the sheaf is reduced., but standing produce is not saved by standing produce129For neither of them is there an argument that anything should save standing produce to which the claim of the poor is enhanced..
הָא אִם שָׁכַח שִׁכְחָה. תִּיפְתָּר בְּשֶׁשָּׁכַח אֶת הַקָּמָה תְחִילָּה. Hence130This paragraph is part of the next Halakhah in the manuscripts and first prints. But it belongs here, as discussion of whether “even if it is only one stalk” means that if a single stalk is forgotten, nothing is saved. The answer is that it is enough if one stalk was not forgotten., if he forgot, is it “forgotten sheaf”? Explain it if he forgot the standing produce first.
הָא אִם הָיוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן עֲקוּרוֹת לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת. מַתְנִיתָא כְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. Hence, if all135Adding up to two seah. is cut it is for the proprietor. Our Mishnah follows Rabban Gamliel136Who asserted in Mishnah 5 that sheaves which together add up to 2 seah do not fall under the law of the forgotten sheaf. Since the Mishnah is formulated as anonymous statement, practice has to follow Rabban Gamliel..
וְתַצִּיל עֲקוּרָה שֶׁאֵינָה עֲקוּרָה. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְהַצִּיל וּשְׁכָחוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא שִׁכְחָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן תִּיפְתָּר בְּקוֹצֵר שׁוּרָה וּמְעַמֵּר שׁוּרָה וּכְבָר שָׁכַח אֶת הַקָּמָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא שָׁכַח אֶת הָעֳמָרִים. Then137If we follow Rabban Gamliel. The same text, with a different thrust, is found Chapter 5, Halakhah 2. the cut grain should save the uncut grain. This means that something that is apt to save, but was forgotten, can become legally forgotten. Rebbi Jonathan138There, R. Jonah. said, explain it if he was cutting and removing the sheaves row by row. He already forgot the standing grain before he might forget the sheaves139And Rabban Gamliel will not have the two combined if they are separated in space and time..
מַה עַד שֶׁתָּבוֹא מַמָּשׁ אוֹ אֲפִילוּ נִרְאֵית לְהָבִיא. נִשְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא כְּגוֹן תְּבוּאָה וְכֶרֶם. וְכֶרֶם לֹא עַל אֲתָר הוּא. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה אֲפִילוּ נִרְאֵית לָבוֹא. Does it mean that it really comes, or only that it is able to come141Does it mean that Rebbi Yose excludes combining only if the poor actually could exercise their rights, or even if there is only a theoretical possibility.? Let us hear from the following142Tosephta Peah 3:5: “According to R. Yose, Ḥananiah, the nephew of R. Joshua, said that whenever a poor man’s right comes in between, for example grain and vineyard, they do not combine. Whenever a poor man’s right does not come in between, for example fruits of trees, they do combine.”: “For example grain and vineyard.” And is the vineyard on the spot143It is true that there is no manual grain harvest without gleanings; the poor always have the right to enter after cutting and binding of the sheaves. But there are vines which do not produce single berries; in a vineyard, the right of the poor is conditional.? That means, even if it is able to come144It includes all vineyards and mechanical harvesting.!