משנה: זַיִת שֶׁנִּמְצָא עוֹמֵד בֵּין שָׁלֹשׁ שׁוּרוֹת שֶׁל שְׁנֵי מַלְבֵּנִים וּשְׁכָחוֹ אֵינוֹ שִׁכְחָה. זַיִת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ סְאָתַיִם וּשְׁכָחוֹ אֵינוֹ שִׁכְחָה. בְּמַה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁלֹּא̇ הִתְחִיל בּוֹ אֲבָל הִתְחִיל בּוֹ אֲפִילוּ כְזַיִת הַנְּטוּפָה בְשַׁעְתּוֹ וּשְׁכָחוֹ יֵשׁ לוֹ שִׁכְחָה. כָּל־זְמָן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ תַחְתָּיו יֵשׁ לוֹ בְרֹאשׁוֹ. רִבִי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר מִשֶׁתֵּלֵךְ הַמַּחְבָּא. MISHNAH: An olive tree standing between three rows of two rectangles, when forgotten, is not subject to the law of forgotten sheaves19Maimonides explains in his Mishnah commentary that the trees are planted in checkerboard fashion, that each “white” square has a tree while the “black” squares are planted with vegetables; we still say that the middle one is obscured by the surrounding trees, disregarding the vegetable beds. R. Isaac Simponti accepts this explanation but takes the rectangles to denote distance, not necessarily that they are planted. [However, in his Code (Mattenot Aniïm 3:25) Maimonides accepts the explanation, also given by R. Simson, that the olive tree is a single tree surrounded on three sides by three rows of trees, each row consisting of two trees, so that the surrounding trees hinder the access to the single tree. R. Simson rejects the idea that the tree should not be subject to the law because of difficulty of access.]. An olive tree which yields two seah20Olives, not oil., when forgotten, is not legally forgotten. When does this apply21This question does not refer to the tree yielding two seah but to the marked trees mentioned in Mishnah 1. After one started harvesting, these are not protected unless they yield two seah.? Only if he did not start with it, but if he started harvesting it, even a dripping olive tree in its time, when forgotten, is subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf. Whenever he22Maimonides, in his commentary and his Code (Mattenot Aniïm 1:12) refers “him” to the poor. Once they have permission to search for olives under the tree, they may take the olives that are still on the tree, but not before (even though ususally olives are not harvested by climbing the tree but by shaking it.) R. Simson and R. Abraham ben David (Mattenot Aniïm 1:12) refer “him” to the owner; as long as anything under the tree (the main harvest) is not legally forgotten, everything on the tree is his, independent of his state of mind regarding the olives remaining on the tree. has under it, he has at its crown. Rebbi Meïr says, from the moment that the maḥba is used23According to Maimonides, the maḥba is an instrument with which the branches of the olive tree are shaken to remove the olives still clinging to the branches. In all manuscripts of his tradition, the spelling is מחבה as a feminine, in accord with the feminine form of the verb. R. Simson and R. Abraham ben David explain maḥba as the leaves which hide olives and must be removed. Since Maimonides lived in olive growing societies, his explanation should be accepted. The root underlying מחבא seems to be Arabic ח̇בּא “to grow abundantly” (but cf. text at note 44)..
הלכה: אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָה שֶׁל שְׁנֵי מַלְבֵּנִים וּשְׁכָחוֹ. מַה נָן קַיָּמִין אִם מִשּׁוּם דָּבָר מְסוּייָם אֵין כַּאן זֵתִים. אִם מִשּׁוּם שׁוּרָה הוּא עַצְמוֹ נִידּוֹן כְּשׁוּרָה. אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי שׁוּרָה עַל יְדֵי שׁוּרוֹת. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, so says the Mishnah: “of two rectangles” and he forgot it24The last expression, “and he forgot it,” is missing in the Rome manuscript. (However, “and he forgot it” is in the parallel Tosephta Peah 3:10). Rebbi Eleazar wants to emphasize that the correct reading is two, not three as in Yalqut Shimoni 937. Other explanations by J. N. Epstein in מבוא לנוסח המשנה pp. 92–93 are unconvincing.. What are we dealing with? If it is because it is marked, are there not other olive trees25They also should be exempt since they are adjacent to a marked tree. Two is also the reading in Tosephta Peah 3:10, Sifri Deut. 284.? If it is because it is in a row26If it is aligned in a long row of seven trees and therefore not privileged, which is impossible since it may be considered the head of a row of four., it is considered a row in itself27Since it is not aligned with anything, it cannot be exempt from the law as a row.. It must be because of row and of rows28It is in the middle of a row and its row is the middle row, following the explanation of Maimonides in the commentary to the Mishnah. The central position marks it..
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּזַיִת נוּדְייָן הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר נוּדְייָן אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ שְאָר כָּל־הַזֵּתִים מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לִיבָּחֵן כְּנוּדְייָן אֲפִילוּ שְאָר כָּל־הַזֵּתִים אֵין לָהֶן שִׁכְחָה. Rebbi Yose said29It is unlikely that “R. Yose” here is correct, since the next paragraphs refer to R. Joḥanan. R. S. Cirillo has אמר ר׳ יוסי אמר ר׳ יוחנן but this clearly is Babli style (in the Yerushalmi it could be either אמר ר׳ יוסא ר׳ יוחנן or אמר ר׳ יוסי בשם ר׳ יוחנן) and, therefore, it is his interpolation., the Mishnah deals with an olive tree that can be shaken30I. e., the entire harvest can be done by shaking the tree; it is not necessary to climb up on a ladder to remove the olives still hanging.. Rebbi Yose31This is either R. Yose the late Amora giving a ruling that in practice asserts the position of R. Yose the Tanna, or it is a justification of the position of the Tanna R. Yose from a practical, rather than a theoretical, point of view. said, not only one that can be shaken; since olive trees usually are first checked by shaking, none can be under the law of forgotten sheaves.
אִית תַּנָּאֵי תַּנִּי שֶׁנִּמְצָא. אִית תַּנָּאֵי תַּנִּי שֶׁנִּמְצָא עוֹמֵד. מָאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁנִּמְצָא מְסַייֵעַ לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מָאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁנִּמְצָא עוֹמֵד מְסַייֵעַ לְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייְעָא לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּתַנִּי בְּמַה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים [בִּזְמָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ] מַכִּירוֹ. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה מַכִּירוֹ מְרַדֵּף אַחֲרָיו אֲפִילּוּ עַד מֵאָה. Some Tannaïm32These Tannaïm are not the Sages of the period known as tannaïtic but are scholars who memorized tannaïtic statements (which at this time were not written down) to produce them when asked about them. The different versions are those of our Mishnah. state: “it is found.” Some Tannaïm state: “It is found standing.” He who says “it is found” supports Rebbi Joḥanan33It turns out after the fact that the tree can be harvested simply by shaking.. He who says “it is found standing” supports Rebbi Eleazar34It is known beforehand that the tree is standing at a certain privileged place.. A baraita35Tosephta Peah 3:10. The text here follows the Rome manuscript which is identical with that of the Tosephta. The Venice print has the positions of “recognizes” and “does not recognize” switched. supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “When has this been said? If he does not recognize it. But if he recognizes it, he runs after it even 100 cubits36If the tree has a distinguishing mark, as in the case described by R. Eleazar, the entire Mishnah does not apply. Hence, we must deal with a particular property discovered after the fact..”
הָא אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ סְאָתַיִם וּשְׁכָחוֹ אֵינוֹ שִׁכְחָה. לֹא עַל הָדָא אִיתְאֲמָרַת אֶלָּא עַל הָדָא קַדְמִייָתָא כָּל־זַיִת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שֵׁם בַּשָּׂדֶה כְזַיִת נְטוּפָה בְשַׁעְתּוֹ וּשְׁכָחוֹ אֵינוֹ שִׁכְחָה עָלֶיהָ. הָא אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ סְאָתַיִם וּשְׁכָחוֹ. Hence37Here starts the discussion of the second sentence of the Mishnah., if it yields two seah, if it was forgotten it is not legally forgotten. It does not refer to this but to the first Mishnah: “Every olive tree that has a special name on the field, for example ‘a dripping olive tree’ in its time, if it was forgotten, it is not legally forgotten. Hence, if it yields two seah, if it was forgotten …”38Maimonides in his Mishnah commentary construes as follows: “Every olive tree that has a special name on the field, for example ‘a dripping olive tree’ in its time, when forgotten is not legally forgotten. When has this been said? Only if he did not start with it; but if he started harvesting it, even a dripping olive tree in its time, when forgotten is legally forgotten. But if it yields two seah, when forgotten it is not legally forgotten.”
כָּל־זְמָן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ תַחְתָּיו יֵשׁ לוֹ בְרֹאשׁוֹ. פָּתַר לָהּ תְּרֵין פִּיתְרִין. כָּל־זְמָן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ תַחְתָּיו יֵשׁ לוֹ בְרֹאשׁוֹ קוֹדֶם לָכֵן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ תַחְתָּיו יֵשׁ לוֹ בְרֹאשׁוֹ. פָּתַר חוֹרָן כָּל־זְמָן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ תַחְתָּיו אֵין לוֹ בְרֹאשׁוֹ הִילְכָא הַמַּחְבָּא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בְרֹאשׁוֹ יֵשׁ לוֹ תַחְתָּיו. “Whenever he has under it, he has at its crown.” One may explain this in two ways. Whenever he has under it, he has at its crown; hence, before that even if there is nothing under it, he has at its crown39The poor may take the olives remaining on the branches even though the owner is not finished with collecting all olives shaken from the tree (Maimonides Mattenot Aniïm 1:12).. Another explanation: Whenever he40The owner. has under it, he has nothing at its crown41Since he will not start collecting the olives that fell off the tree until he has removed the remaining ones from the tree mechanically.; by the time the maḥba was used, even though he has nothing at its crown he has under the tree42At that time, the poor may search the tree since the owner has completed his harvest..
תַּנִּי מִשּׁוּם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מִשֶׁיַּנִּיחַ אֶת הַכָּרְכַּר וּגְמָרוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה יֵשׁ לוֹ בְרֹאשׁוֹ. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בַּר כַּדָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבָּהוּ שֶׁהוּא מְשַׁייֵר אֶת הַמַּחְבּוּייִן. וּדְעוּ וּרְאוּ מִכָּל־הַמַּחֲבוֹאִים אֲשֶׁר יִתְחַבֵּא שָׁם. It was stated44Explaining the statement of R. Meïr and the word maḥba. in the name of the House of Shammai: When he puts away the knee cushion45Used to collect all the olives shaken from the tree. (Second explanation of Arukh.) and finishes, then he still has at the top. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The remainder46Arabic כִּדַּה “poor soil”, אַכִּדַּה “leftover pasture”. of the harvest. Rebbi Abbahu said, 47Maḥba is … that which takes care of the hidden ones: (1Sam. 23:23) “Find out and see all the hiding places where he could hide.”