משנה: הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁשְּׁכָחוּהוּ פוֹעֲלִים וְלֹא שְׁכָחוֹ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שְׁכָחוֹ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת וְלֹא שְׁכָחוּהוּ פוֹעֲלִים עָֽמְדוּ הָעֲנִייִם בְּפָנָיו אוֹ שֶׁחִיפּוּהוּ בְקַשׁ הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ שִׁכְחָה. MISHNAH: A sheaf forgotten by the workers but not by the owner, by the owner but not by the workers, or the poor stood before it or covered it with straw117Anything the poor hide in any way when the sheaves are loaded to be brought to the barn., is not a forgotten sheaf.
הלכה: הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁשְּׁכָחוּהוּ פוֹעֲלִין וְלֹא שְׁכָחוֹ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֵינוֹ שִׁכְחָה דִּכְתִיב קְצִירְךָ וְשָׁכַחְתָּ. שְׁכָחוֹ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת וְלֹא שְׁכָחוּהוּ פוֹעֲלִים אֵינוֹ שִׁכְחָה דִּכְתִיב כִּי תִקְצוֹר וְשָׁכַחְתָּ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשֵּׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֲפִילוּ חַמָּרִין שֶׁהֵן עוֹבְרִין בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְרָאוּ עוֹמֶר אֶחָד שֶׁשְּׁכָחוּהוּ פוֹעֲלִים וְלֹא שְׁכָחוֹ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֵינוֹ שִׁכְחָה עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁכְּחוּהוּ כָּל־אָדָם. HALAKHAH: A sheaf forgotten by the workers but not by the owner is not a forgotten sheaf since it is written (Deuteronomy.24.19">Deut. 24:19): “When you harvest and you forget118The verse reads: “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field and forget a sheaf on the field, you may not return to take it.” Since “harvesting a harvest” is redundant language, it is split into two. “Your harvest” refers to the owner, “harvesting” refers to the farmhands who do the actual work. Both have to forget. (This implies that the owner must have known of the sheaf.).” If the owner forgot but the workers did not, it is not a forgotten sheaf since it is written: “When you are harvesting and you forget.” Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah119A fifth generation Tanna, from Kefar Acco, student of R. Simeon (bar Ioḥai). His statement also appears in Tosephta Peah 3:1. says in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Even if donkey drivers120In the Tosephta and the original scribe (who usually is better than the corrector) of the Leyden manuscript: “others”. passing by on the road saw a sheaf forgotten by the workers but not by the owner121The language is difficult but is attested to by the Yerushalmi manuscripts and R. Simson of Sens. According to R. Saul Lieberman, it means that the owner never knew of the sheaf and he was not on the field during harvest. In our Tosephta manuscripts, “and not by the owner” is missing. R. Moshe Margalit writes that in his Tosephta manuscript, “by the workers” also is missing; there is only a reference to “them” who forgot. From the text of Maimonides (Mattenot Aniïm 5:1) it seems that he read: “was forgotten by the workers and by the owner.”, it is not a forgotten sheaf unless everybody forgot it.
הָיָה עוֹמֵד בָּעִיר וְאוֹמֵר יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁהַפּוֹעֲלִין שְׁכֵיחִין עוֹמָרִין שֶׁבְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וּשְׁכָחוּהוּ אֵינוֹ שִׁכְחָה. הָיָה עוֹמֵד בַּשָּׂדֶה וְאָמַר יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁהַפּוֹעֲלִין שְׁכֵיחִין עוֹמָרִין שֶׁבְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי הֲרֵי זוּ שִׁכְחָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּשָּׂדֶה וְשָׁכַחְתָּ וְלֹא בָּעִיר וְשָׁכַחְתָּ. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל אַף לְעִנְייָן מִצִיאָה כֵן. מַה נָן קַייָמִין אִם בְּיָכוֹל לִיגַּע בָּהֶן בְּתוֹךְ הָעִיר אֲפִילוּ בְּתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ. רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְהוּא שֶׁיָּכוֹל לִיגַּע בָּהֶן אֲפִילוּ בְּתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ. If he stood in town and said: I know that the workers are forgetting sheaves at place X; if they forgot it is not a forgotten sheaf123Tosephta Peah 3:1, reading of the Vienna manuscript. The Erfurt manuscript and printed editions have “this is a forgotten sheaf;” this is the Babylonian version (Baba Meẓi‘a 11a). The parallel in the Babli in every case adopts a position opposite to that taken by the Yerushalmi. The explanation given here follows the analysis in Tosephta Kifshutah 1, p. 159–160.. If he stood on the field and said: I know that the workers are forgetting sheaves at place X; [if they forgot] it is a forgotten sheaf, since it says (Deuteronomy.24.19">Deut. 24:19): “On your field and you forget a sheaf.” On the field you forget, but in town you do not forget. Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Samuel124In the Rome manuscript, “Rebbi Zeïra, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel.” Since Rav Jehudah was Samuel’s student and R. Zeïra’s teacher, the formula of indirect quote “in the name of” there is superfluous. The Babli (Baba Meẓi‘a 11a) has: “Rav Jehudah said, Samuel said,” as direct transmission.: The same holds in regard to found objects125This refers to the Bava Metzia 1:4:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bava_Metzia.1.4.1">Mishnah Baba Meẓi‘a 1:4: “If he saw them running after a lost object, a deer with broken bones, pigeon chicks not yet able to fly, and he said: My field should acquire this for me, it acquires for him” (on condition that the field be either fenced in or that something is growing which makes it inaccessible to the public.) In the case of sheaves, if he is not standing on the field and wants the field to acquire the sheaf, it is valid. However, if he stands in or near the field, the field cannot acquire for him since the sheaf is his and nobody can acquire anything he already owns. Hence, if he stands in his field and claims that sheaf but later forgets it, the earlier remembrance will not help him since, in that case, the field will not acquire for him. In our case he must be able to go and reach the slowly moving animals before they leave his field.. Where are we holding? If he may touch it, in the city, even inside his field126Does he acquire only if the deer is so severely injured that he still will find it inside his field when he goes there from town? In the name of R. Joḥanan, the answer given confirms the questioner’s opinion.. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if he can touch them, even inside his field.
הָיָה כּוּלּוֹ מְחוּפֶּה בְקַשׁ. נִשְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא וְכֵן הַסּוּמָא שֶׁשָּׁכַח יֵשׁ לוֹ שִׁכְחָה. וְסוּמָא לֹא כְּמִי שֶׁכּוּלּוֹ בְקַשׁ מְחוּפֶּה הוּא. רִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר בְּזוֹכֵר אֶת הַקַּשִּׁים. אֲתָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹנָה כְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא כְּמַה דְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא אָמַר בְּזוֹכֵר אֶת הָעֶלְיוֹן כֵּן רִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר בְּזוֹכֵר אֶת הַקַּשִּׁים. If it was completely covered by straw127Not intentionally covered by the poor, but a sheaf lying covered under straw, which nobody noticed when the sheaves were taken in.? Let us hear from the following: “The blind128If the farmer is blind, his disability does not change the laws. who forgot makes a forgotten sheaf.” Is a blind person not like a sheaf completely covered by straw? Rebbi Jonah said, if he remembered the straw129Since he will come back to collect the straw, he must stumble upon the sheaf. The sheaf is not forgotten since he will be returning to it.. Rebbi Jonah’s position is parallel to Rebbi Zeïra’s; just as Rebbi Zeïra said130Chapter 6, Halakhah 3, speaking about two sheaves to be taken by one of the workers and forgotten by the farmer. The farmer personally lifted the upper one; by lifting he acquired it permanently. The lower one was covered and, therefore, cannot be a forgotten sheaf. Rebbi Zeïra explains that the lower, covered sheaf is forgotten unless the farmer remembered the upper, already acquired one., if he remembers the upper one, so Rebbi Jonah said, if he remembered the straw.