My LORD’s Biblerebbi
39436 occurrences across the corpus
The Jerusalem Talmud
Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: That is only before Rebbi permitted the importation of vegetables from outside the Land. But after Rebbi permitted the importation of vegetables from outside the Land, the Sabbatical year is as any other year. It was stated: One does not intercalate in the Sabbatical Year but only in other years of a Sabbatical period, but if they did intercalate it is intercalated. Rebbi Mana said, that refers to earlier times when years were in order, but now that years are not in order, the Sabbatical year is like any other year.
Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: That is only before Rebbi permitted the importation of vegetables from outside the Land. But after Rebbi permitted the importation of vegetables from outside the Land, the Sabbatical year is as any other year. It was stated: One does not intercalate in the Sabbatical Year but only in other years of a Sabbatical period, but if they did intercalate it is intercalated. Rebbi Mana said, that refers to earlier times when years were in order, but now that years are not in order, the Sabbatical year is like any other year.
It was stated: The house of Rabban Gamliel intercalated immediately after the end of the Sabbatical year. Rebbi Avin said, from this you do not infer anything. (Deut. 16:1) “Watch the spring month.” Watch it that it should come in its renewal.
What text implies this? “For a grain stack under which gleanings were not collected, …” Rebbi Mana in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is from the House of Shammai. Rebbi Yasa said to him: We understand that according to everybody, this is a fine. Following the House of Hillel, the poor give tithes and eat.
What text implies this? “For a grain stack under which gleanings were not collected, …” Rebbi Mana in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is from the House of Shammai. Rebbi Yasa said to him: We understand that according to everybody, this is a fine. Following the House of Hillel, the poor give tithes and eat.
What text implies this? “For a grain stack under which gleanings were not collected, …” Rebbi Mana in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is from the House of Shammai. Rebbi Yasa said to him: We understand that according to everybody, this is a fine. Following the House of Hillel, the poor give tithes and eat.
Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Four kab per kor. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Four qab per kor or per bet kor? He said to him, per bet kor. There, we have stated: “What is the definition of a heap? Rather, if it is enough to let it fall. Rebbi Abbahu said, enough to let it fall as seed.” And here, he says so!
Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Four kab per kor. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Four qab per kor or per bet kor? He said to him, per bet kor. There, we have stated: “What is the definition of a heap? Rather, if it is enough to let it fall. Rebbi Abbahu said, enough to let it fall as seed.” And here, he says so!
Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Four kab per kor. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Four qab per kor or per bet kor? He said to him, per bet kor. There, we have stated: “What is the definition of a heap? Rather, if it is enough to let it fall. Rebbi Abbahu said, enough to let it fall as seed.” And here, he says so!
Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Four kab per kor. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Four qab per kor or per bet kor? He said to him, per bet kor. There, we have stated: “What is the definition of a heap? Rather, if it is enough to let it fall. Rebbi Abbahu said, enough to let it fall as seed.” And here, he says so!
Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Four kab per kor. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Four qab per kor or per bet kor? He said to him, per bet kor. There, we have stated: “What is the definition of a heap? Rather, if it is enough to let it fall. Rebbi Abbahu said, enough to let it fall as seed.” And here, he says so!
Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Four kab per kor. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Four qab per kor or per bet kor? He said to him, per bet kor. There, we have stated: “What is the definition of a heap? Rather, if it is enough to let it fall. Rebbi Abbahu said, enough to let it fall as seed.” And here, he says so!
MISHNAH: : A single ear on the field to be harvested and its head reaches to the grain that is still standing, if it can be cut together with standing grain, it belongs to the owner, otherwise it is for the poor. An ear of gleanings that was mixed up in a stack of grain, he gives tithes for one ear and gives it to him. Rebbi Eliezer said, how can the poor man exchange something that never was in his possession? But he has to give the poor rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives it to him.
HALAKHAH: What is standing grain that saves standing grain? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the same as we have stated: a single ear on the field to be harvested and its head reaches to the standing grain. Rebbi Yose said, only if the harvested field surrounds it, and only if its head reaches the standing grain, and only if it can be cut together with standing grain. If it can be cut together with standing grain but standing grain cannot be cut with it, it is saved. If there were two, the inner one can be cut together with the outermost standing grain, but the outer one cannot be cut with the standing grain; the inner one is saved and saves.
HALAKHAH: What is standing grain that saves standing grain? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the same as we have stated: a single ear on the field to be harvested and its head reaches to the standing grain. Rebbi Yose said, only if the harvested field surrounds it, and only if its head reaches the standing grain, and only if it can be cut together with standing grain. If it can be cut together with standing grain but standing grain cannot be cut with it, it is saved. If there were two, the inner one can be cut together with the outermost standing grain, but the outer one cannot be cut with the standing grain; the inner one is saved and saves.
Rebbi Hoshaia said, when I was mashing olives with the great Rebbi Ḥiyya, he said to me: Any olive that you can reach when stretching out your hand is not forgotten. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he passed it over and forgot it, it is forgotten. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Hoshaia: A single ear on the field to be harvested and its head reaches to the grain. Can you not stretch out your hand and take a single ear on the harvested field? Rebbi Illai in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: They said that about the second row.
Rebbi Hoshaia said, when I was mashing olives with the great Rebbi Ḥiyya, he said to me: Any olive that you can reach when stretching out your hand is not forgotten. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he passed it over and forgot it, it is forgotten. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Hoshaia: A single ear on the field to be harvested and its head reaches to the grain. Can you not stretch out your hand and take a single ear on the harvested field? Rebbi Illai in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: They said that about the second row.
Rebbi Hoshaia said, when I was mashing olives with the great Rebbi Ḥiyya, he said to me: Any olive that you can reach when stretching out your hand is not forgotten. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he passed it over and forgot it, it is forgotten. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Hoshaia: A single ear on the field to be harvested and its head reaches to the grain. Can you not stretch out your hand and take a single ear on the harvested field? Rebbi Illai in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: They said that about the second row.
Rebbi Hoshaia said, when I was mashing olives with the great Rebbi Ḥiyya, he said to me: Any olive that you can reach when stretching out your hand is not forgotten. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he passed it over and forgot it, it is forgotten. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Hoshaia: A single ear on the field to be harvested and its head reaches to the grain. Can you not stretch out your hand and take a single ear on the harvested field? Rebbi Illai in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: They said that about the second row.
Rebbi Hoshaia said, when I was mashing olives with the great Rebbi Ḥiyya, he said to me: Any olive that you can reach when stretching out your hand is not forgotten. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he passed it over and forgot it, it is forgotten. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Hoshaia: A single ear on the field to be harvested and its head reaches to the grain. Can you not stretch out your hand and take a single ear on the harvested field? Rebbi Illai in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: They said that about the second row.
Rebbi Hoshaia said, when I was mashing olives with the great Rebbi Ḥiyya, he said to me: Any olive that you can reach when stretching out your hand is not forgotten. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he passed it over and forgot it, it is forgotten. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Hoshaia: A single ear on the field to be harvested and its head reaches to the grain. Can you not stretch out your hand and take a single ear on the harvested field? Rebbi Illai in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: They said that about the second row.
Can something that is apt to be saved but was forgotten become legally forgotten? Let us hear from the following: “When he removed the first, second, and third sheaves but forgot the fourth, some state: If he took away the fifth one, it (the fourth) becomes legally forgotten, but some state: If he waited long enough that he could have taken away the fifth one, it becomes legally forgotten.” Rebbi Avin bar Ḥiyya said, he who says, “if he removed the fifth one,” (speaks of the case) where there is a sixth one, but he who says, “if he waited long enough that he could have removed the fifth one,” (speaks of the case) where there is no sixth one. Before he took away the fifth one, would not the fourth one be apt to be considered starting a row? That means that something that is apt to be saved but was forgotten can become legally forgotten.
Can something that is apt to save but was forgotten become legally forgotten? Let us hear from the following: “One seah of cut grain and one seah of uncut grain.” Here the cut grain should save the uncut grain. That means that something that is apt to save, but was forgotten, can become legally forgotten. Rebbi 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 sheaves.
How does he do it? He brings two ears and says: If this one is gleanings, all is fine; but if not, then its tithes are contained in the other one, and he gives him the first one. Do we not have to worry that the one used to contain tithes in it was gleanings? Rebbi Jonah said, he brings two ears and says: If this one is gleanings, all is fine; but if not, then its tithes are contained in the other one, and he gives him one of them.
Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this follows Rebbi Yose, as we have stated there: “For Rebbi Yose says that everything whose replacement is in the hand of the Cohen is freed from the obligatory gifts, but Rebbi Meïr obligates him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Abba contradicts Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish since we have stated here: “He has to give the poor rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives to him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest, hence this is not from the words of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Mana said, the Mishnah itself testifies that it is by Rebbi Yose. The first Tanna wants to say that he transfers as property to the poor not the entire stack but only one ear. The other Tanna wants to say that he transfers the entire stack as property to the poor. The first Tanna wants to say that this is like the transfer of property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is no transfer. The other Tanna wants to say that it is not transferring property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is transfer.
Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this follows Rebbi Yose, as we have stated there: “For Rebbi Yose says that everything whose replacement is in the hand of the Cohen is freed from the obligatory gifts, but Rebbi Meïr obligates him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Abba contradicts Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish since we have stated here: “He has to give the poor rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives to him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest, hence this is not from the words of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Mana said, the Mishnah itself testifies that it is by Rebbi Yose. The first Tanna wants to say that he transfers as property to the poor not the entire stack but only one ear. The other Tanna wants to say that he transfers the entire stack as property to the poor. The first Tanna wants to say that this is like the transfer of property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is no transfer. The other Tanna wants to say that it is not transferring property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is transfer.
Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this follows Rebbi Yose, as we have stated there: “For Rebbi Yose says that everything whose replacement is in the hand of the Cohen is freed from the obligatory gifts, but Rebbi Meïr obligates him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Abba contradicts Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish since we have stated here: “He has to give the poor rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives to him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest, hence this is not from the words of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Mana said, the Mishnah itself testifies that it is by Rebbi Yose. The first Tanna wants to say that he transfers as property to the poor not the entire stack but only one ear. The other Tanna wants to say that he transfers the entire stack as property to the poor. The first Tanna wants to say that this is like the transfer of property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is no transfer. The other Tanna wants to say that it is not transferring property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is transfer.
Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this follows Rebbi Yose, as we have stated there: “For Rebbi Yose says that everything whose replacement is in the hand of the Cohen is freed from the obligatory gifts, but Rebbi Meïr obligates him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Abba contradicts Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish since we have stated here: “He has to give the poor rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives to him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest, hence this is not from the words of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Mana said, the Mishnah itself testifies that it is by Rebbi Yose. The first Tanna wants to say that he transfers as property to the poor not the entire stack but only one ear. The other Tanna wants to say that he transfers the entire stack as property to the poor. The first Tanna wants to say that this is like the transfer of property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is no transfer. The other Tanna wants to say that it is not transferring property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is transfer.
Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this follows Rebbi Yose, as we have stated there: “For Rebbi Yose says that everything whose replacement is in the hand of the Cohen is freed from the obligatory gifts, but Rebbi Meïr obligates him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Abba contradicts Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish since we have stated here: “He has to give the poor rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives to him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest, hence this is not from the words of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Mana said, the Mishnah itself testifies that it is by Rebbi Yose. The first Tanna wants to say that he transfers as property to the poor not the entire stack but only one ear. The other Tanna wants to say that he transfers the entire stack as property to the poor. The first Tanna wants to say that this is like the transfer of property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is no transfer. The other Tanna wants to say that it is not transferring property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is transfer.
Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this follows Rebbi Yose, as we have stated there: “For Rebbi Yose says that everything whose replacement is in the hand of the Cohen is freed from the obligatory gifts, but Rebbi Meïr obligates him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Abba contradicts Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish since we have stated here: “He has to give the poor rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives to him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest, hence this is not from the words of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Mana said, the Mishnah itself testifies that it is by Rebbi Yose. The first Tanna wants to say that he transfers as property to the poor not the entire stack but only one ear. The other Tanna wants to say that he transfers the entire stack as property to the poor. The first Tanna wants to say that this is like the transfer of property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is no transfer. The other Tanna wants to say that it is not transferring property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is transfer.
Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this follows Rebbi Yose, as we have stated there: “For Rebbi Yose says that everything whose replacement is in the hand of the Cohen is freed from the obligatory gifts, but Rebbi Meïr obligates him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Abba contradicts Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish since we have stated here: “He has to give the poor rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives to him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest, hence this is not from the words of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Mana said, the Mishnah itself testifies that it is by Rebbi Yose. The first Tanna wants to say that he transfers as property to the poor not the entire stack but only one ear. The other Tanna wants to say that he transfers the entire stack as property to the poor. The first Tanna wants to say that this is like the transfer of property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is no transfer. The other Tanna wants to say that it is not transferring property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is transfer.
Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this follows Rebbi Yose, as we have stated there: “For Rebbi Yose says that everything whose replacement is in the hand of the Cohen is freed from the obligatory gifts, but Rebbi Meïr obligates him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Abba contradicts Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish since we have stated here: “He has to give the poor rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives to him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest, hence this is not from the words of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Mana said, the Mishnah itself testifies that it is by Rebbi Yose. The first Tanna wants to say that he transfers as property to the poor not the entire stack but only one ear. The other Tanna wants to say that he transfers the entire stack as property to the poor. The first Tanna wants to say that this is like the transfer of property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is no transfer. The other Tanna wants to say that it is not transferring property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is transfer.
Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this follows Rebbi Yose, as we have stated there: “For Rebbi Yose says that everything whose replacement is in the hand of the Cohen is freed from the obligatory gifts, but Rebbi Meïr obligates him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Abba contradicts Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish since we have stated here: “He has to give the poor rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives to him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest, hence this is not from the words of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Mana said, the Mishnah itself testifies that it is by Rebbi Yose. The first Tanna wants to say that he transfers as property to the poor not the entire stack but only one ear. The other Tanna wants to say that he transfers the entire stack as property to the poor. The first Tanna wants to say that this is like the transfer of property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is no transfer. The other Tanna wants to say that it is not transferring property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is transfer.
Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this follows Rebbi Yose, as we have stated there: “For Rebbi Yose says that everything whose replacement is in the hand of the Cohen is freed from the obligatory gifts, but Rebbi Meïr obligates him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Abba contradicts Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish since we have stated here: “He has to give the poor rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives to him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest, hence this is not from the words of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Mana said, the Mishnah itself testifies that it is by Rebbi Yose. The first Tanna wants to say that he transfers as property to the poor not the entire stack but only one ear. The other Tanna wants to say that he transfers the entire stack as property to the poor. The first Tanna wants to say that this is like the transfer of property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is no transfer. The other Tanna wants to say that it is not transferring property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is transfer.
Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this follows Rebbi Yose, as we have stated there: “For Rebbi Yose says that everything whose replacement is in the hand of the Cohen is freed from the obligatory gifts, but Rebbi Meïr obligates him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Abba contradicts Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish since we have stated here: “He has to give the poor rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives to him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest, hence this is not from the words of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Mana said, the Mishnah itself testifies that it is by Rebbi Yose. The first Tanna wants to say that he transfers as property to the poor not the entire stack but only one ear. The other Tanna wants to say that he transfers the entire stack as property to the poor. The first Tanna wants to say that this is like the transfer of property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is no transfer. The other Tanna wants to say that it is not transferring property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is transfer.
Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this follows Rebbi Yose, as we have stated there: “For Rebbi Yose says that everything whose replacement is in the hand of the Cohen is freed from the obligatory gifts, but Rebbi Meïr obligates him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Abba contradicts Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish since we have stated here: “He has to give the poor rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives to him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest, hence this is not from the words of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Mana said, the Mishnah itself testifies that it is by Rebbi Yose. The first Tanna wants to say that he transfers as property to the poor not the entire stack but only one ear. The other Tanna wants to say that he transfers the entire stack as property to the poor. The first Tanna wants to say that this is like the transfer of property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is no transfer. The other Tanna wants to say that it is not transferring property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is transfer.
Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this follows Rebbi Yose, as we have stated there: “For Rebbi Yose says that everything whose replacement is in the hand of the Cohen is freed from the obligatory gifts, but Rebbi Meïr obligates him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Abba contradicts Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish since we have stated here: “He has to give the poor rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives to him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest, hence this is not from the words of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Mana said, the Mishnah itself testifies that it is by Rebbi Yose. The first Tanna wants to say that he transfers as property to the poor not the entire stack but only one ear. The other Tanna wants to say that he transfers the entire stack as property to the poor. The first Tanna wants to say that this is like the transfer of property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is no transfer. The other Tanna wants to say that it is not transferring property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is transfer.
Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this follows Rebbi Yose, as we have stated there: “For Rebbi Yose says that everything whose replacement is in the hand of the Cohen is freed from the obligatory gifts, but Rebbi Meïr obligates him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Abba contradicts Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish since we have stated here: “He has to give the poor rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives to him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest, hence this is not from the words of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Mana said, the Mishnah itself testifies that it is by Rebbi Yose. The first Tanna wants to say that he transfers as property to the poor not the entire stack but only one ear. The other Tanna wants to say that he transfers the entire stack as property to the poor. The first Tanna wants to say that this is like the transfer of property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is no transfer. The other Tanna wants to say that it is not transferring property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is transfer.
Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this follows Rebbi Yose, as we have stated there: “For Rebbi Yose says that everything whose replacement is in the hand of the Cohen is freed from the obligatory gifts, but Rebbi Meïr obligates him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Abba contradicts Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish since we have stated here: “He has to give the poor rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives to him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest, hence this is not from the words of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Mana said, the Mishnah itself testifies that it is by Rebbi Yose. The first Tanna wants to say that he transfers as property to the poor not the entire stack but only one ear. The other Tanna wants to say that he transfers the entire stack as property to the poor. The first Tanna wants to say that this is like the transfer of property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is no transfer. The other Tanna wants to say that it is not transferring property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is transfer.
Rebbi Zeïra stated: Rebbi Abbahu in the name of R. Joḥanan: The reasoning of Rebbi Eliezer is inverted! There he makes him acquire, and here he says thus? He answered “according to your reasoning,” in your reasoning that you say it is by exchange. “How can the poor man exchange something that never was in his possession? But he has to give the poor man rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives to him.”
Rebbi Zeïra stated: Rebbi Abbahu in the name of R. Joḥanan: The reasoning of Rebbi Eliezer is inverted! There he makes him acquire, and here he says thus? He answered “according to your reasoning,” in your reasoning that you say it is by exchange. “How can the poor man exchange something that never was in his possession? But he has to give the poor man rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives to him.”
Rebbi Zeïra stated: Rebbi Abbahu in the name of R. Joḥanan: The reasoning of Rebbi Eliezer is inverted! There he makes him acquire, and here he says thus? He answered “according to your reasoning,” in your reasoning that you say it is by exchange. “How can the poor man exchange something that never was in his possession? But he has to give the poor man rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives to him.”
MISHNAH: One does not use a waterwheel with buckets, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages do permit it, because it is impossible. A householder wandering from one place to another who was in need of taking gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and tithes of the poor should repay them once he comes home, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, he was poor at that moment.
MISHNAH: One does not use a waterwheel with buckets, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages do permit it, because it is impossible. A householder wandering from one place to another who was in need of taking gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and tithes of the poor should repay them once he comes home, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, he was poor at that moment.
HALAKHAH: It was stated: He who waters his field before a poor person had entered it, if his potential loss is greater than the poor man’s, it is permitted, but if the poor man’s loss is greater than his, it is prohibited. Rebbi Jehudah says, in both cases he deposits them on the fence and the poor man comes and takes what is his.
The reasoning of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted: There, he says that just as he prunes for himself, so he prunes for the poor; but here he says thus! There, they caused it for themselves since they did not come, but here they came.
Now Rebbi Meïr says, one does not use the water wheel, and one estimates the loss to the owner. Now the rabbis say, one uses the water wheel and estimates the loss to the poor. To whom does he pay? Rebbi Jonah said, to the poor of his place, because otherwise, what could we say? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, it is needed for the measure of justice.
Now Rebbi Meïr says, one does not use the water wheel, and one estimates the loss to the owner. Now the rabbis say, one uses the water wheel and estimates the loss to the poor. To whom does he pay? Rebbi Jonah said, to the poor of his place, because otherwise, what could we say? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, it is needed for the measure of justice.
Now Rebbi Meïr says, one does not use the water wheel, and one estimates the loss to the owner. Now the rabbis say, one uses the water wheel and estimates the loss to the poor. To whom does he pay? Rebbi Jonah said, to the poor of his place, because otherwise, what could we say? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, it is needed for the measure of justice.
MISHNAH: If he switches with the poor, what he receives is exempt but what the poor get is obligated. If two persons received a field as sharecroppers, one gives his part and his tithes of the poor to the other one, and vice-versa. He who receives a field to harvest is barred from its gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah. Rebbi Jehudah said, when is this so? When he received it for one-half, one third, or one quarter; but if he told him, one third of what you will harvest will be yours, he may take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah but not the tithes of the poor.
HALAKHAH: It is stated: A father and his son, a man and his relative, two brothers, two associates redeem Second Tithe for one another and give tithe of the poor to one another. Rebbi Jehudah said, a curse should come upon him who gives tithe of the poor to his father. He said, why? If they were both poor!
What is the difference between this and the first case? It must be “if you cut it, a third will be yours.” Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, that implies that the seller may get the peah which permits the sheaves. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there the obligation of the field did come during his ownership, but here the obligation of the field did not come during his ownership.
What is the difference between this and the first case? It must be “if you cut it, a third will be yours.” Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, that implies that the seller may get the peah which permits the sheaves. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there the obligation of the field did come during his ownership, but here the obligation of the field did not come during his ownership.
What is the difference between this and the first case? It must be “if you cut it, a third will be yours.” Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, that implies that the seller may get the peah which permits the sheaves. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there the obligation of the field did come during his ownership, but here the obligation of the field did not come during his ownership.
Rebbi Abbahu bar Naggari said, there is a difference for gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah because they have to be abandoned.
Rav Jeremiah and Rav Joseph, one said these are the ones who came up from Egypt, the other said these are the ones who lost their property; a blind man is called “plenty of light.” Rebbi Isaac said, (Is. 58:7) “degraded poor you shall bring to your house.” Rebbi Abin said, if you do this, I will credit it to you as if you had presented First Fruits in the Temple. It says here, “you shall bring,” and it says there (Ex. 23:19): “The first fruits of your land you shall bring to the Eternal’s Temple.”
Rav Jeremiah and Rav Joseph, one said these are the ones who came up from Egypt, the other said these are the ones who lost their property; a blind man is called “plenty of light.” Rebbi Isaac said, (Is. 58:7) “degraded poor you shall bring to your house.” Rebbi Abin said, if you do this, I will credit it to you as if you had presented First Fruits in the Temple. It says here, “you shall bring,” and it says there (Ex. 23:19): “The first fruits of your land you shall bring to the Eternal’s Temple.”
HALAKHAH: A sheaf forgotten by the workers but not by the owner is not a forgotten sheaf since it is written (Deut. 24:19): “When you harvest and you forget.” 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 Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Even if donkey drivers passing by on the road saw a sheaf forgotten by the workers but not by the owner, it is not a forgotten sheaf unless everybody forgot it.
HALAKHAH: A sheaf forgotten by the workers but not by the owner is not a forgotten sheaf since it is written (Deut. 24:19): “When you harvest and you forget.” 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 Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Even if donkey drivers passing by on the road saw a sheaf forgotten by the workers but not by the owner, it is not a forgotten sheaf unless everybody forgot it.
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 sheaf. 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 (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 Samuel: The same holds in regard to found objects. Where are we holding? If he may touch it, in the city, even inside his field. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if he can touch them, even inside his field.
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 sheaf. 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 (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 Samuel: The same holds in regard to found objects. Where are we holding? If he may touch it, in the city, even inside his field. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if he can touch them, even inside his field.
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 sheaf. 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 (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 Samuel: The same holds in regard to found objects. Where are we holding? If he may touch it, in the city, even inside his field. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if he can touch them, even inside his field.
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 sheaf. 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 (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 Samuel: The same holds in regard to found objects. Where are we holding? If he may touch it, in the city, even inside his field. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if he can touch them, even inside his field.
If it was completely covered by straw? Let us hear from the following: “The blind 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 straw. Rebbi Jonah’s position is parallel to Rebbi Zeïra’s; just as Rebbi Zeïra said, if he remembers the upper one, so Rebbi Jonah said, if he remembered the straw.
If it was completely covered by straw? Let us hear from the following: “The blind 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 straw. Rebbi Jonah’s position is parallel to Rebbi Zeïra’s; just as Rebbi Zeïra said, if he remembers the upper one, so Rebbi Jonah said, if he remembered the straw.
If it was completely covered by straw? Let us hear from the following: “The blind 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 straw. Rebbi Jonah’s position is parallel to Rebbi Zeïra’s; just as Rebbi Zeïra said, if he remembers the upper one, so Rebbi Jonah said, if he remembered the straw.
If it was completely covered by straw? Let us hear from the following: “The blind 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 straw. Rebbi Jonah’s position is parallel to Rebbi Zeïra’s; just as Rebbi Zeïra said, if he remembers the upper one, so Rebbi Jonah said, if he remembered the straw.
If it was completely covered by straw? Let us hear from the following: “The blind 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 straw. Rebbi Jonah’s position is parallel to Rebbi Zeïra’s; just as Rebbi Zeïra said, if he remembers the upper one, so Rebbi Jonah said, if he remembered the straw.
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah says, from the top, as you say (1Sam. 17:5): “A brass helmet on his head.” Round bundles, Rebbi Avinah said, from the bottom, as you say (Deut. 32:34): “It is hidden with me.” חֲרָרָה a wheel. Small sheaves, Rebbi Joḥanan said (Deut. 24:19): “When you will be harvesting the harvest of your field and you forget a sheaf on the field,” just as harvest has no other harvest after it, so too a sheaf, which has no other sheaf-making after it.
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah says, from the top, as you say (1Sam. 17:5): “A brass helmet on his head.” Round bundles, Rebbi Avinah said, from the bottom, as you say (Deut. 32:34): “It is hidden with me.” חֲרָרָה a wheel. Small sheaves, Rebbi Joḥanan said (Deut. 24:19): “When you will be harvesting the harvest of your field and you forget a sheaf on the field,” just as harvest has no other harvest after it, so too a sheaf, which has no other sheaf-making after it.
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah says, from the top, as you say (1Sam. 17:5): “A brass helmet on his head.” Round bundles, Rebbi Avinah said, from the bottom, as you say (Deut. 32:34): “It is hidden with me.” חֲרָרָה a wheel. Small sheaves, Rebbi Joḥanan said (Deut. 24:19): “When you will be harvesting the harvest of your field and you forget a sheaf on the field,” just as harvest has no other harvest after it, so too a sheaf, which has no other sheaf-making after it.
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of the House of Shammai (Lev. 19:10, 23:22) “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 elsewhere is for the poor and not for the rich.
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of the House of Shammai (Lev. 19:10, 23:22) “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 elsewhere is for the poor and not for the rich.
Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the reason of the House of Hillel, (Ex.23:11) “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 elsewhere is for poor and rich alike.
How 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 elsewhere 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 elsewhere is for the poor but not for the rich. Rebbi Avin said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “Abandoned also to the rich, as in the Sabbatical year.”
How 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 elsewhere 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 elsewhere is for the poor but not for the rich. Rebbi Avin said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “Abandoned also to the rich, as in the Sabbatical year.”
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 property. 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 town is a disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, this abandoning is legal abandoning. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this abandoning is not legal abandoning. 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.
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 property. 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 town is a disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, this abandoning is legal abandoning. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this abandoning is not legal abandoning. 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.
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 property. 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 town is a disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, this abandoning is legal abandoning. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this abandoning is not legal abandoning. 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.
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 property. 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 town is a disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, this abandoning is legal abandoning. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this abandoning is not legal abandoning. 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.
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 property. 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 town is a disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, this abandoning is legal abandoning. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this abandoning is not legal abandoning. 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.
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 property. 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 town is a disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, this abandoning is legal abandoning. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this abandoning is not legal abandoning. 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.
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 property. 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 town is a disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, this abandoning is legal abandoning. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this abandoning is not legal abandoning. 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.
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 Yose. 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 abandoned. 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 abandoned.
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 Yose. 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 abandoned. 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 abandoned.
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 Yose. 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 abandoned. 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 abandoned.
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 Yose. 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 abandoned. 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 abandoned.
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 Yose. 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 abandoned. 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 abandoned.
So far, if he abandoned it for a longer period of time. But if he abandoned only for a short time? Let us hear from the following: “If he abandoned his field, he may cancel his action during two or three days.” 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 said? 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 dishonesty. That obviously answers Rebbi Zeïra’s question, since Rebbi Zeïra had said, are short and long times the same?
So far, if he abandoned it for a longer period of time. But if he abandoned only for a short time? Let us hear from the following: “If he abandoned his field, he may cancel his action during two or three days.” 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 said? 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 dishonesty. That obviously answers Rebbi Zeïra’s question, since Rebbi Zeïra had said, are short and long times the same?
So far, if he abandoned it for a longer period of time. But if he abandoned only for a short time? Let us hear from the following: “If he abandoned his field, he may cancel his action during two or three days.” 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 said? 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 dishonesty. That obviously answers Rebbi Zeïra’s question, since Rebbi Zeïra had said, are short and long times the same?
So far, if he abandoned it for a longer period of time. But if he abandoned only for a short time? Let us hear from the following: “If he abandoned his field, he may cancel his action during two or three days.” 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 said? 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 dishonesty. That obviously answers Rebbi Zeïra’s question, since Rebbi Zeïra had said, are short and long times the same?
So far, if he abandoned it for a longer period of time. But if he abandoned only for a short time? Let us hear from the following: “If he abandoned his field, he may cancel his action during two or three days.” 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 said? 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 dishonesty. That obviously answers Rebbi Zeïra’s question, since Rebbi Zeïra had said, are short and long times the same?
What are we discussing? If it should be recognizable, two would be enough. If for a row, 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 Shammai. 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.
What are we discussing? If it should be recognizable, two would be enough. If for a row, 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 Shammai. 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.
What are we discussing? If it should be recognizable, two would be enough. If for a row, 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 Shammai. 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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.