Peah 57

Chapter 57

א <big>הלכה:</big> וְקַשְׁיָא עַל דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי בְּגָפָה וּבְגָדִישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מְסוּיָים וְאִינּוּן אָמְרֵי אֵינָן שִׁכְחָה. וְקַשְׁיָא עַל דְּבֵית הִלֵּל בְּבָקָר וְּבְכֵלִים דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְסוּיָים וְאִינּוּן אָמְרִין הוּא שִׁכְחָה.

1 HALAKHAH: It is difficult about the House of Shammai; closure and stack are definite things, and they say it is not a forgotten sheaf. It is difficult about the House of Hillel; cattle and vessels are not definite things, and they say it is a forgotten sheaf.

ב בִּמְקוֹמוֹ הוּא עוֹמֵד בְּצַד הַגַּת אוֹ בְצַד פִּירְצָה מַתְנִיתָא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי אָמְרִין אֵינוֹ שִׁכְחָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא. תַּמָּן דָּבָר מְחוּבָּר בְּצַד דָּבָר מְחוּבָּר בְּרַם הָכָא דָבָר תָּלוּשׁ בְּצַד דָּבָר מְחוּבָּר.

2 “By its place, if it was standing beside the wine press or beside a breach in the fence.” This Mishnah follows the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, it is not a forgotten sheaf. Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion. There a stationary object is beside a stationary one, but here a movable object is beside a stationary one.

ג אָמַר רִבִּי אִילְעַאי שָׁאַלְתִי אֶת רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּאֵילוּ עוֹמָרִין חֲלוּקִין בֵּית שַׁמַאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל אָמַר לִי בַּתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת עוֹמֶר הַסָּמוּךְ לְגָפָה וּלְגָדִישׁ וּלְבָקָר וּלְכֵלִים וּשְׁכָחוֹ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים שִׁכְחָה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ שִׁכְחָה. וּכְשֶׁבָּאתִי אֵצֶל רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אָמַר לִי לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ בֵית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל עַל הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁהוּא סָמוּךְ לְגָפָה וּלְגָדִישׁ וּלְבָקָר וְּלכֵלִים וּשְׁכָחוֹ שֶׁהוּא שִׁכְחָה. וְעַל מַה נֶחְלְקוּ עַל הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁנְּטָלוֹ וּנְתָנוֹ בְּצַד הַגָּפָה בְּצַד הַגָּדִישׁ בְּצַד הַבָּקָר בְּצַד הַכֵּלִים וּשְׁכָחוֹ שֶׁבֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ שִׁכְחָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁזָּכָה בוֹ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים שִׁכְחָה. וּכְשֶׁבָּאתִי וְהִרְצֵיתִי אֶת הַדְּבָרִים לִפְנֵי רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אָמַר לִי הַבְּרִית הֵן הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמְרוּ לוֹ לְמֹשֶׁה בְּחוֹרֵב.

3 Rebbi Ilaï said: I asked Rebbi Joshua, about which sheaves do the Houses of Shammai and Hillel disagree? He said to me, this is the teaching: The sheaf which was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten, the House of Shammai say it is a forgotten sheaf, but the House of Hillel say it is not a forgotten sheaf. But when I came to Rebbi Eliezer, he told me that the Houses of Shammai and Hillel did not disagree that a sheaf near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten, was a forgotten sheaf. What did they disagree about? About a sheaf he took up and put beside a closure, beside a stack, beside cattle, beside vessels, and forgot about it; in that case the House of Shammai say it is not a forgotten sheaf because he already acquired rights to it. But the House of Hillel say it is a forgotten sheaf. And when I came and lectured about these things before Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, he said to me, by the Covenant, these are the words that had been spoken to Moses on Horeb.

ד תַּמָּן תַּנֵּינָן הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לָהּ נְכָסִים עַד שֶׁלֹּא תִּתְאָרֵס מוֹדִים בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל שֶׁהִיא מוֹכֶרֶת וְנוֹתֶנֶת וְקַיָים. נָפְלוּ לָהּ מִשֶּׁנִּתְאָרְסָה בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים תִּימְכּוֹר וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים לֹא תִמְכּוֹר. רִבִּי פִּינְחָס בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְלָמָּה לֹא תַנֵּינָתָהּ מִקּוּלֵּי בֵית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחוּמְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. אֲמַר לֵיהּ לָא אֲתִינָן מַתְנִיָּתָא אֶלָּא דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא חוֹמֶר מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִין וְקַל מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִין. בְּרַם הָכָא חוֹמֶר הוּא מִצַּד אֶחָד וְקַל מִצַּד אֶחָד. וְהָתַנֵּינָן בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִין הֶבְקֵר לָעֲנִיִים הֶבְקֵר הֲרֵי הוּא קַל לָעֲנִיִים וְחוֹמֶר הוּא לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת וְתַנִּיתָהּ. קַל הוּא לָעֲנִיִים וְאֵינוֹ חוֹמֶר לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁמִּדַּעְתּוֹ הוּבְקְרוּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ וְהָתַנֵּינָן עוֹמֶר שֶׁהוּא סָמוּךְ לְגָפָה וּלְגָדִישׁ וּלְבָקָר וְּלכֵלִים וּשְׁכָחוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא קַל לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת וְחוֹמֶר הוּא לָעֲנִיִים וְתַנִּיתָהּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ קַל הוּא לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת וְאֵינוֹ חוֹמֶר לָעֲנִיִים שֶׁאַדָּיִין לֹא זָכוּ בָהֶן וֶאֱמוֹר אוּף הָכָא קַל הוּא לָאִשָּׁה וְאֵינוֹ חוֹמֶר לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁאַדָּיִין לֹא זָכָה בָהּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁקִּידְּשָׁהּ לִזְכוּתָהּ וְלִזְכוּתוֹ נָפְלוּ.

4 There we have stated: “A woman who inherited property before she was betrothed, the Houses of Shammai and Hillel both are of the opinion that she may sell or give away and her actions are valid. If she inherited after she was betrothed, the House of Shammai say, she may sell, but the House of Hillel say, she may not sell.” Rebbi Phineas asked before Rebbi Yose, why did we not state it with the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel? He said to him, the Mishnaiot come only for circumstances that are either stringent on both sides or lenient on both sides. But here it is a stringency on one side and a leniency on the other side. But did we not state: “The House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor is abandoned?” Is this not lenient for the poor and stringent for the householder, and it was stated! It is lenient for the poor and not stringent for the householder, since it was abandoned by his intent. He said to him, did we not state: “The sheaf that was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten,” is this not lenient for the householder and stringent for the poor, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the householder but not stringent for the poor, because they did not acquire it yet. You may also say here, it is lenient for the woman and not stringent for the husband since he did not yet acquire property rights to it. He said to him, since he became betrothed to her, the inheritance fell to both of them.

ה אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה אָמְרוּ לִפְנֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הוֹאִיל וְהָאֲרוּסָה אִשְׁתּוֹ וְהַנְּשׂוּאָה אִשְׁתּוֹ מַה זוּ מִכְרָהּ בָּטֵל אַף זוּ מִכְרָהּ בָּטֵל. אָמַר לָהֶן בַּחֲדָשִׁים אָנוּ בוֹשִׁין אֶלָּא שֶׁאַתֶּם מְגַלְגְּלִין עִמָּנוּ הַיְּשָׁנִים. אֵילּוּ הֵן הַחֲדָשִׁים מִשֶּׁנִּישְׂאֵת. וְאֵלוּ הֵן הַיְּשָׁנִים עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִישְׂאֵת וְנִישְׂאֵת.

5 Rebbi Jehudah said, they argued before Rabban Gamliel: Because betrothed she is his wife and married she is his wife; just as the sale by the latter is void, the sale by the former also should be void. He said to them, we are ashamed of the new ones, now you want to roll old ones over us! The new ones, after nissuïn, the old ones before nissuïn, when she was married in the second ceremony.

ו <big>משנה:</big> רָאשֵׁי הַשּׁוּרוֹת עוֹמֶר שֶׁכֶּנֶּגְדּוֹ מוֹכִיחַ. הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁהֶחֱזִיק בּוֹ לְהוֹלִיכוֹ אֶל הָעִיר וְשָׁכַח מוֹדִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ שִׁכְחָה. אֵלּוּ הֵן רָאשֵׁי הַשּׁוּרוֹת שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהִתְחִילוּ בְאֶמְצַע הַשּׁוּרָה זֶה פָנָה לְצָפוֹן וְזֶה פָנָה לְדָרוֹם וְשָׁכְחוּ לִפְנֵיהֶן וּלְאַחֲרֵיהֶן. שֶׁלִּפְנֵיהֶן שִׁכְחָה וְשֶׁל אַחֲרֵיהֶן אֵינוֹ שִׁכְחָה. הַיָּחִיד שֶׁהִתְחִיל מֵרֹאשׁ הַשּׁוּרָה וְשָׁכַח לְפָנָיו וּלְאַחֲרָיו. שֶׁלְּפָנָיו אֵינוֹ שִׁכְחָה וְשֶׁלְּאַחֲרָיו שִׁכְחָה. שֶׁהוּא בְּבַל תָּשׁוּב. זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל שֶׁהוּא בְּבַל תָּשׁוּב שִׁכְחָה וְכָּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּבַל תָּשׁוּב אֵינוֹ שִׁכְחָה.

6 MISHNAH: Heads of rows, the sheaf next to it proves, and a sheaf that was taken up to be brought to town and then was forgotten, they all agree that they never are forgotten sheaves. The following describe heads of rows: Two who started in the middle of the row, one turned North and the other turned South, and they forgot before them or after them. The one before them is a forgotten sheaf, the one after them is not a forgotten sheaf. A single person who started at the head of a row and forgot before and after himself. The one before him is not a forgotten sheaf, but the one after him is a forgotten sheaf because it falls under (Deut. 24:19) “do not return to take it.” This is the principle: Anything that falls under “do not return to take it,” is a forgotten sheaf, but anything that does not fall under “do not return to take it,” is not a forgotten sheaf.

Previous Chapter Next Chapter