משנה: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִין הֶבְקֵר לָעֲנִייִם הֶבְקֵר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִין אֵינוֹ הֶבְקֵר עַד שֶׁיַּבְקִיר אַף לָעֲשִׁירִים כִּשְׁמִיטָּה. כָּל־עוֹמְרֵי הַשָּׂדֶה שֶׁל קַב קַב וְאֶחָד שֶׁל אַרְבַּעַת קַבִּין וְשָֽׁכְחוּ בוֹ. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ שִׁכְחָה וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִין שִׁכְחָה. MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor is abandoned1It is free from any obligation of heave and tithes., but the House of Hillel say, it is not abandoned unless it is abandoned also to the rich, as in a Sabbatical year2I. e., what grows on the fields in a Sabbatical year without being planted or sown, which is exempt from heave and tithes.. If all sheaves of a field are of one qab each, except one which is of four qab and they forgot about that one, the House of Shammai say, it cannot be a forgotten sheaf3Because it may be unbundled into several sheaves and, therefore, is not a final sheaf as required by the preceding Mishnah., but the House of Hillel say, it can be a forgotten sheaf.
הלכה: רִבִּי חִייָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן טַעֲמַיְהוּ דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי לֶעָנִי וְלַגֵּר מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר תַּעֲזוֹב אוֹתָם יֵשׁ לָךְ עֲזִיבָה אֲחֶרֶת כְּזוּ. מַה זוּ לָעֲנִייִם וְלֹא לָעֲשִׁירִים. אַף מַה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר לָעֲנִייִם וְלֹא לָעֲשִׁירִים. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya4Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of the House of Shammai (Leviticus.19.10">Lev. 19:10, Leviticus.23.22">23:22)5“Do not go over your vineyard a second time, nor pick up the single berries of your vineyard; to the poor and the sojourner relinquish them.” Why does it say “relinquish,” and not “give”? “for the poor and the sojourner.” Why does the verse say, “relinquish them”? There is another relinquishing like this one. Just as this one is for the poor and not the rich, also what is spoken of elsewhere6Any meaning of עזב must conform with this paradigm. is for the poor and not for the rich.
אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ טַעֲמַייְהוּ דְּבֵית הִלֵּל תִּשְׁמְטֶנָּה וּמַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר וּנְטַשְׁתָּהּ יֵשׁ לְךָ נְטִישָׁה אֲחֶרֶת כְּזוּ. מַה זוּ בֵּין לָעֲנִייִם בֵּין לָעֲשִׁירִים. אַף מַה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר בֵּין לָעֲנִייִם בֵּין לָעֲשִׁירִים. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the reason of the House of Hillel, (Exodus.23.11">Ex.23:11)7Speaking of the produce of the Sabbatical year. “let drop,” why does the verse say, “and abandon it”? There is another abandoning like this one. Just as this one is for poor and rich alike, also what is spoken of elsewhere8Any meaning of נטש must conform with this paradigm. is for poor and rich alike.
מַה מְקַייְמִין בֵּית הִלֵּל טַעֲמֵהוֹן דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי. תַּעֲזוֹב אוֹתָם מִיעוּט זוּ לָעֲנִייִם וְלֹא לָעֲשִׁירִים. אֲבָל מַה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר בֵּין לָעֲנִייִם בֵּין לָעֲשִׁירִים. מַה מְקַייְמִין בֵּית שַׁמַּאי טַעֲמֵהוֹן דְּבֵית הִלֵּל. תִּשְׁמְטֶנָּה וּנְטַשְׁתָּהּ נְטִישָׁה מִיעוּט זֶה בֵּין לָעֲנִייִם בֵּין לָעֲשִׁירִים. אֲבָל מַה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר לָעֲנִייִם אֲבָל לֹא לָעֲשִׁירִים. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין לִישָׁן מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייְעָא לְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ עַד שֶׁיַּבְקִיר אַף לָעֲשִׁירִים כִּשְׁמִיטָּה. How9As in most Talmudic discussions, if themes 1–2 are introduced in order, they will be discussed as 2–1. The verse whose interpretation is ascribed to the House of Shammai is also the base of R. Joḥanan’s interpretation for the House of Hillel. do the House of Hillel deal with the reason of the House of Shammai? “Relinquish them” is a restriction, these are for the poor, not for the rich, but what is spoken of elsewhere10Where עזב is used, it does not have to conform to the paradigm. is for poor and rich alike. How do the House of Shammai deal with the reason of the House of Hillel? “Let it drop and abandon it” is a restriction, this abandoning is for poor and rich alike, but what is spoken of elsewhere11Where נטש is used, it does not have to conform to the paradigm. is for the poor but not for the rich. Rebbi Avin said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish12Since the House of Shammai disappeared soon after the destruction of the Temple and R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish lived almost 200 years later, their deductions are intellectual exercises which moreover have been shown here to be contradictory, as the same principles applied to two different verses lead to contradictory results. But R. Simeon ben Laqish’s argument very likely is historically true.: “Abandoned also to the rich, as in the Sabbatical year.”
הֶבְקֵר לִבְהֵמָה אֲבָל לֹא לְאָדָם לְגוֹיִם אֲבָל לֹא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל. לָעֲשִׁירִם אֲבָל לֹא לָעֲנִייִם דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵין הֶבְקֵירוֹ הֶבְקֵר. לְאָדָם אֲבָל לֹא לִבְהֵמָה. לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֲבָל לֹא לְגוֹיִם. לַעֲנִיֵּי אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר אֲבָל לֹא לַעֲנִיֵּי עִיר אַחֶרֶת. פְּלוּגְתָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וּדְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הֶבְקֵירוֹ הֶבְקֵר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אֵין הֶבְקֵירוֹ הֶבְקֵר. אָמַר רִבִי לָא בְּפֵירוּשׁ פְּלִיגִין רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר הֶבְקֵירוֹ הֶבְקֵר. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר אֵין הֶבְקֵירוֹ הֶבְקֵר. Property abandoned to animals but not to humans, to Gentiles but not to Jews, to rich but not to poor, everybody agrees that it does not have the status of abandoned property13And is subject to the laws of heave and tithes.. For humans but not for animals, for Jews but not for Gentiles, for the poor of one town but not for the poor of any other town14This shows that the entire discussion is about the opinion of the House of Shammai. However, in Tosephta Peah 3:1 it is stated that “the House of Shammai agree with the House of Hillel that if he abandoned property for humans but not for animals, for Jews but not for Gentiles, it is legally abandoned.” This, then, must be taken as the Babylonian position. is a disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, this abandoning is legal abandoning15In his opinion, restrictive abandoning is permitted.. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this abandoning is not legal abandoning16Since he deduces the rules from the Sabbatical year, and there animals and the stranger are explicitly mentioned as beneficiaries.. Rebbi Lia said, they disagree explicitly: Rebbi Joḥanan said, this abandoning is legal abandoning. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this abandoning is not legal abandoning.
אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין בַּר חִייָא הָדָא דְאָֽמְרָה הֶבְקֵר לָעֲנִייִם וְזָכוּ בָהֶן עֲשִׁירִין תַּפְלוּגָתָא דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִי מֵאִיר דּוּ אָמַר כֵּיוָן שֶׁאָדָם מַבְקִיר דָּבָר מֵרְשׁוּתוֹ הֶבְקֵירוֹ הֶבְקֵר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִי יוֹסֵי דּוּ אָמַר אֵין הֶבְקֵר יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי הַבְּעָלִים אֶלָּא בִּזְכִייָה אֵין הֶבְקֵירוֹ הֶבְקֵר. Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, that which was said, if it was abandoned to the poor but grabbed by the rich is a difference between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Yose17The main source is Nedarim, Babli 43a ff., Yerushalmi 4:10. The Mishnah speaks of a person A who made a vow not to use anything belonging to another person B. According to R. Meïr, B may abandon some property which A may take, but according to R. Yose, the abandoned property still belongs to B (who is also responsible for any damage caused by or on this property) until someone picked it up; hence, A may not take up the abandoned property.. According to Rebbi Meïr, who asserts that [it is legally abandoned] as soon as a person abandons anything from his property, [in our case] it is legally abandoned18The rich person, while acting in an improper way, nevertheless acquired the abandoned article.. According to Rebbi Yose, who says that nothing may leave the hands of its owners except if it is taken up [by another person, in our case] it is not legally abandoned19Since under the terms of the abandonment, the rich person will not acquire it even if he picks it up..
עַד כְּדוֹן בְּשֶׁהִבְקִירָהּ לִזְמָן מְרוּבָּה. אֲבָל הִבְקִירָהּ לִזְמָן מוּעָט. נִישְמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא הִבְקִיר אֶת שָׂדֵהוּ שְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים חוֹזֵר בּוֹ. תַּנִּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דימא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא אֲפִילוּ לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשָׁה חוֹזֵר בּוֹ. אָמַר לֵיהּ מִכֵּיוָן דְּאַתְּ אָמַר אֲפִילוּ לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים הִיא לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשָׁה הִיא לְאַחַר כַּמָּה. לִישָׁן מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייֵעַ לְרִבִּי זְעִירָא בְּמַה דְּבָרִים אָמוּרִים בְּשֶׁהִבְקִיר סְתָם. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר שָׂדִי מוּבְקֶרֶת יוֹם אֶחָד שַׁבָּת אַחַת חֹדֶשׁ אֶחָד שָׁנָה אַחַת שָׁבוּעַ אֶחָד אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא זָכָה בֵּין הוּא בֵּין אַחֵר הוּא יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ. אֲבָל מִשֶׁזָּכָה בָּהּ בֵּין הוּא בֵּין אַחֵר אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה הוּא זְמָן מְרוּבָּה הוּא זְמָן מוּעָט. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה לֹא חָשׁוּ עַל הַעֲרָמָה. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה שֶׁאָדָם מַבְקִיר וְחוֹזֵר וְזוֹכֶה. הָדָא פְשִׁיטָא שְׁאִילְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא. דְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא אָמַר הוּא זְמָן מְרוּבָּה הוּא זְמָן מוּעָט. So far23These two words belong to Nedarim, not here. The question is, whether a person may abandon real property on condition that it automatically revert to the previous owner unless picked up by another person in a certain interval of time. In order to avoid declarations of abandonment simply for the purpose of evading heave, tithes, and taxes, restrictions might have been placed by the Rabbinic Court on the right of reversal., if he abandoned it for a longer period of time. But if he abandoned only for a short time? Let us hear from the following24The two passages in quotation marks are from a text close to Tosephta Ma‘serot 3:11; see also Nedarim.43b-44a">Babli Nedarim 43b–44a.: “If he abandoned his field, he may cancel his action during two or three days25But after that, the renunciation becomes absolute..” Rebbi Simeon Dima stated before Rebbi Zeïra: Even after three he may cancel his action. He said to him, since you say after three days, is it the same after three or after many? The language of a baraitha supports Rebbi Zeïra: “About when is this said26That after two days the act becomes irrevocable.? If he abandoned in an unspecified way. But if he said: My field shall be abandoned one day, one week, one month, one year, a sabbatical period, as long as nobody took it over, either he or another person, he may cancel. But after somebody acquired it, either he or somebody else, he cannot cancel.” This means that short or long periods are the same. It also means that they were not worried about dishonesty27Since the probability that nobody else took the property is very small.. That obviously answers Rebbi Zeïra’s question, since Rebbi Zeïra had said, are short and long times the same?
מַה נָן קַייָמִין. אִם מִשּׁוּם דָּבָר מְסוּייָם דַּיּוֹ שְׁנַיִם. אִם מִשּׁוּם שׁוּרָה דַייוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה. חַד בַּר בֵּי רַב אָמַר הָדָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן קוֹמֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ כָּל־שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לְחוֹלְקוֹ וְלַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ שׁוּרָה כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי. רִבִּי יוֹנָה וְהוּא בָּעֵי שֵׁיעוּרָא כָּל־עוֹמְרֵי הַשָּׂדֶה שֶׁל קַב קַב וְאֶחָד שֶׁל אַרְבַּעַת קַבִּין וּשָׁכְחוּ כָּל־עוֹמְרֵי הַשָּׂדֶה שֶׁל שְׁנֵי קַבִּין וְאֶחָד שֶׁל שְׁמוֹנַת קַבִּין. What are we discussing29This deals with the last part of the Mishnah, quoted by R. Jonah, that an outsize sheaf left on the field is not “forgotten” for the House of Shammai.? If it should be recognizable, two would be enough. If for a row30This refers to Mishnah 4, which states that two sheaves constitute forgotten sheaves, but three sheaves do not. On this, the Halakhah specifies that the three sheaves must form a row in order to escape the law of forgotten sheaves., three would be enough. One scholar quoted this statement by Rebbi Joḥanan before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Anything he can split and make into a row following the House of Shammai31At the end of Mishnah 4, the House of Shammai is quoted as giving three sheaves to the poor, four sheaves to the farmer.. Rebbi Jonah: That goes by proportionality; “if all sheaves of a field are of one qab each, except one which is of four qab and they forgot about that one,” if all sheaves of a field are of two qab each, except one which is of eight qab.