sheaf

“ A sheaf he took to bring to town, put it on another one, and forgot about both, the lower one is a forgotten sheaf but the upper one is not a forgotten sheaf. Rebbi Simeon said, neither of them is a forgotten sheaf; not the lower one because it is covered and not the upper one because he already had acquired it.” Rebbi Zeïra said, if he remembers. Rebbi Zeïra parallels Rebbi Jonah, just as Rebbi Jonah said, if he remembers the straws, so Rebbi Zeïra said, if he remembers the upper one.

(Tosephta Peah 3:4) “A field whose sheaves are mixed up, if one was forgotten it is not a forgotten sheaf until he removes all around it.”

MISHNAH: A sheaf containing two seah that was forgotten is not a “forgotten sheaf.” Two sheaves that together are two seah, Rabban Gamliel says, they are for the proprietor, but the Sages say, they are for the poor. Rabban Gamliel said to them: Does large size of the sheaves increase or decrease the power of the proprietor? They said to him, it increases it. He said to them: Since a sheaf containing two seah that was forgotten is not “forgotten sheaf,” it is only logical that two sheaves that together are two seah should not be “forgotten sheaf” either. They said to him, if they said that about one sheaf that is like a stack, do you want to say the same about two sheaves that are like bundles? Standing produce of two seah which was forgotten is not “forgotten sheaf.” If it does not have two seah but it might bring two seah, even if it were oats it is considered like barley grains.

MISHNAH: A sheaf containing two seah that was forgotten is not a “forgotten sheaf.” Two sheaves that together are two seah, Rabban Gamliel says, they are for the proprietor, but the Sages say, they are for the poor. Rabban Gamliel said to them: Does large size of the sheaves increase or decrease the power of the proprietor? They said to him, it increases it. He said to them: Since a sheaf containing two seah that was forgotten is not “forgotten sheaf,” it is only logical that two sheaves that together are two seah should not be “forgotten sheaf” either. They said to him, if they said that about one sheaf that is like a stack, do you want to say the same about two sheaves that are like bundles? Standing produce of two seah which was forgotten is not “forgotten sheaf.” If it does not have two seah but it might bring two seah, even if it were oats it is considered like barley grains.

MISHNAH: A sheaf containing two seah that was forgotten is not a “forgotten sheaf.” Two sheaves that together are two seah, Rabban Gamliel says, they are for the proprietor, but the Sages say, they are for the poor. Rabban Gamliel said to them: Does large size of the sheaves increase or decrease the power of the proprietor? They said to him, it increases it. He said to them: Since a sheaf containing two seah that was forgotten is not “forgotten sheaf,” it is only logical that two sheaves that together are two seah should not be “forgotten sheaf” either. They said to him, if they said that about one sheaf that is like a stack, do you want to say the same about two sheaves that are like bundles? Standing produce of two seah which was forgotten is not “forgotten sheaf.” If it does not have two seah but it might bring two seah, even if it were oats it is considered like barley grains.

MISHNAH: A sheaf containing two seah that was forgotten is not a “forgotten sheaf.” Two sheaves that together are two seah, Rabban Gamliel says, they are for the proprietor, but the Sages say, they are for the poor. Rabban Gamliel said to them: Does large size of the sheaves increase or decrease the power of the proprietor? They said to him, it increases it. He said to them: Since a sheaf containing two seah that was forgotten is not “forgotten sheaf,” it is only logical that two sheaves that together are two seah should not be “forgotten sheaf” either. They said to him, if they said that about one sheaf that is like a stack, do you want to say the same about two sheaves that are like bundles? Standing produce of two seah which was forgotten is not “forgotten sheaf.” If it does not have two seah but it might bring two seah, even if it were oats it is considered like barley grains.

MISHNAH: A sheaf containing two seah that was forgotten is not a “forgotten sheaf.” Two sheaves that together are two seah, Rabban Gamliel says, they are for the proprietor, but the Sages say, they are for the poor. Rabban Gamliel said to them: Does large size of the sheaves increase or decrease the power of the proprietor? They said to him, it increases it. He said to them: Since a sheaf containing two seah that was forgotten is not “forgotten sheaf,” it is only logical that two sheaves that together are two seah should not be “forgotten sheaf” either. They said to him, if they said that about one sheaf that is like a stack, do you want to say the same about two sheaves that are like bundles? Standing produce of two seah which was forgotten is not “forgotten sheaf.” If it does not have two seah but it might bring two seah, even if it were oats it is considered like barley grains.

MISHNAH: A sheaf containing two seah that was forgotten is not a “forgotten sheaf.” Two sheaves that together are two seah, Rabban Gamliel says, they are for the proprietor, but the Sages say, they are for the poor. Rabban Gamliel said to them: Does large size of the sheaves increase or decrease the power of the proprietor? They said to him, it increases it. He said to them: Since a sheaf containing two seah that was forgotten is not “forgotten sheaf,” it is only logical that two sheaves that together are two seah should not be “forgotten sheaf” either. They said to him, if they said that about one sheaf that is like a stack, do you want to say the same about two sheaves that are like bundles? Standing produce of two seah which was forgotten is not “forgotten sheaf.” If it does not have two seah but it might bring two seah, even if it were oats it is considered like barley grains.

MISHNAH: A sheaf containing two seah that was forgotten is not a “forgotten sheaf.” Two sheaves that together are two seah, Rabban Gamliel says, they are for the proprietor, but the Sages say, they are for the poor. Rabban Gamliel said to them: Does large size of the sheaves increase or decrease the power of the proprietor? They said to him, it increases it. He said to them: Since a sheaf containing two seah that was forgotten is not “forgotten sheaf,” it is only logical that two sheaves that together are two seah should not be “forgotten sheaf” either. They said to him, if they said that about one sheaf that is like a stack, do you want to say the same about two sheaves that are like bundles? Standing produce of two seah which was forgotten is not “forgotten sheaf.” If it does not have two seah but it might bring two seah, even if it were oats it is considered like barley grains.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, it is written (Deut. 24:19): “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field and you forget a sheaf on the field,” a sheaf to which you may stretch out your hand and take it. Some Tannaïm stated: “And you forget a sheaf,” but not a stack.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, it is written (Deut. 24:19): “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field and you forget a sheaf on the field,” a sheaf to which you may stretch out your hand and take it. Some Tannaïm stated: “And you forget a sheaf,” but not a stack.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, it is written (Deut. 24:19): “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field and you forget a sheaf on the field,” a sheaf to which you may stretch out your hand and take it. Some Tannaïm stated: “And you forget a sheaf,” but not a stack.

How does it work out? If he forgot one sheaf next to it, if you make it a sheaf, everybody agrees that it is “forgotten sheaf.” If you make it a stack, a difference between Shammai and Hillel. If he forgot two sheaves, if you make it sheaves, a difference between the Houses of Shammai and Hillel; if you make it a stack it will not be considered a row.

How does it work out? If he forgot one sheaf next to it, if you make it a sheaf, everybody agrees that it is “forgotten sheaf.” If you make it a stack, a difference between Shammai and Hillel. If he forgot two sheaves, if you make it sheaves, a difference between the Houses of Shammai and Hillel; if you make it a stack it will not be considered a row.

How does it work out? If he forgot one sheaf next to it, if you make it a sheaf, everybody agrees that it is “forgotten sheaf.” If you make it a stack, a difference between Shammai and Hillel. If he forgot two sheaves, if you make it sheaves, a difference between the Houses of Shammai and Hillel; if you make it a stack it will not be considered a row.

Rebbi Jonah said (Deut. 24:19): “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field and you forget a sheaf on the field,” a sheaf containing two seah that was forgotten is not “forgotten sheaf.” Standing produce containing two seah that was forgotten is not “forgotten sheaf.” Rebbi Yose said, considering only the ears. If they were thin, one looks at them as if they were long, if they were scorched, one looks at them as if they were full.

Rebbi Jonah said (Deut. 24:19): “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field and you forget a sheaf on the field,” a sheaf containing two seah that was forgotten is not “forgotten sheaf.” Standing produce containing two seah that was forgotten is not “forgotten sheaf.” Rebbi Yose said, considering only the ears. If they were thin, one looks at them as if they were long, if they were scorched, one looks at them as if they were full.

Rebbi Jonah said (Deut. 24:19): “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field and you forget a sheaf on the field,” a sheaf containing two seah that was forgotten is not “forgotten sheaf.” Standing produce containing two seah that was forgotten is not “forgotten sheaf.” Rebbi Yose said, considering only the ears. If they were thin, one looks at them as if they were long, if they were scorched, one looks at them as if they were full.

Rebbi Jonah said (Deut. 24:19): “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field and you forget a sheaf on the field,” a sheaf containing two seah that was forgotten is not “forgotten sheaf.” Standing produce containing two seah that was forgotten is not “forgotten sheaf.” Rebbi Yose said, considering only the ears. If they were thin, one looks at them as if they were long, if they were scorched, one looks at them as if they were full.

MISHNAH: Standing produce saves sheaves and standing produce. But a sheaf saves neither sheaves nor standing produce. What is standing produce that saves sheaves? Everything that is not forgotten, even if it is only one stalk. A seah of uprooted grain and a seah of not uprooted grain, also trees, garlic and onions do not combine. Rebbi Yose says, if a poor man’s right comes in the middle, they do not combine, otherwise they do combine.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Illa said, it is written (Deut. 24:19): “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field and you forget a sheaf on the field,” a sheaf surrounded by harvest and not a sheaf surrounded by standing produce. And why a sheaf surrounded by harvest and not a sheaf surrounded by standing produce? Under a sheaf surrounded by harvest is the field, under a sheaf surrounded by standing produce is straw.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Illa said, it is written (Deut. 24:19): “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field and you forget a sheaf on the field,” a sheaf surrounded by harvest and not a sheaf surrounded by standing produce. And why a sheaf surrounded by harvest and not a sheaf surrounded by standing produce? Under a sheaf surrounded by harvest is the field, under a sheaf surrounded by standing produce is straw.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Illa said, it is written (Deut. 24:19): “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field and you forget a sheaf on the field,” a sheaf surrounded by harvest and not a sheaf surrounded by standing produce. And why a sheaf surrounded by harvest and not a sheaf surrounded by standing produce? Under a sheaf surrounded by harvest is the field, under a sheaf surrounded by standing produce is straw.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Illa said, it is written (Deut. 24:19): “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field and you forget a sheaf on the field,” a sheaf surrounded by harvest and not a sheaf surrounded by standing produce. And why a sheaf surrounded by harvest and not a sheaf surrounded by standing produce? Under a sheaf surrounded by harvest is the field, under a sheaf surrounded by standing produce is straw.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Illa said, it is written (Deut. 24:19): “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field and you forget a sheaf on the field,” a sheaf surrounded by harvest and not a sheaf surrounded by standing produce. And why a sheaf surrounded by harvest and not a sheaf surrounded by standing produce? Under a sheaf surrounded by harvest is the field, under a sheaf surrounded by standing produce is straw.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Illa said, it is written (Deut. 24:19): “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field and you forget a sheaf on the field,” a sheaf surrounded by harvest and not a sheaf surrounded by standing produce. And why a sheaf surrounded by harvest and not a sheaf surrounded by standing produce? Under a sheaf surrounded by harvest is the field, under a sheaf surrounded by standing produce is straw.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Illa said, it is written (Deut. 24:19): “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field and you forget a sheaf on the field,” a sheaf surrounded by harvest and not a sheaf surrounded by standing produce. And why a sheaf surrounded by harvest and not a sheaf surrounded by standing produce? Under a sheaf surrounded by harvest is the field, under a sheaf surrounded by standing produce is straw.

Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel stated: Just as standing produce saves the sheaf, so the sheaf saves the standing produce. This is logical: If standing produce, on which the power of the poor is enhanced, saves if any of it was forgotten, it is only logical that the sheaf should save, since on it the power of the poor is reduced. Rebbi answered him: If standing produce, on which the power of the poor is enhanced, saves if any of it was forgotten, is it logical that the sheaf, on which the power of the poor is reduced, if any of it was forgotten should save? From the words of both of them we infer that sheaf is saved by sheaf, but standing produce is not saved by standing produce.

Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel stated: Just as standing produce saves the sheaf, so the sheaf saves the standing produce. This is logical: If standing produce, on which the power of the poor is enhanced, saves if any of it was forgotten, it is only logical that the sheaf should save, since on it the power of the poor is reduced. Rebbi answered him: If standing produce, on which the power of the poor is enhanced, saves if any of it was forgotten, is it logical that the sheaf, on which the power of the poor is reduced, if any of it was forgotten should save? From the words of both of them we infer that sheaf is saved by sheaf, but standing produce is not saved by standing produce.

Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel stated: Just as standing produce saves the sheaf, so the sheaf saves the standing produce. This is logical: If standing produce, on which the power of the poor is enhanced, saves if any of it was forgotten, it is only logical that the sheaf should save, since on it the power of the poor is reduced. Rebbi answered him: If standing produce, on which the power of the poor is enhanced, saves if any of it was forgotten, is it logical that the sheaf, on which the power of the poor is reduced, if any of it was forgotten should save? From the words of both of them we infer that sheaf is saved by sheaf, but standing produce is not saved by standing produce.

Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel stated: Just as standing produce saves the sheaf, so the sheaf saves the standing produce. This is logical: If standing produce, on which the power of the poor is enhanced, saves if any of it was forgotten, it is only logical that the sheaf should save, since on it the power of the poor is reduced. Rebbi answered him: If standing produce, on which the power of the poor is enhanced, saves if any of it was forgotten, is it logical that the sheaf, on which the power of the poor is reduced, if any of it was forgotten should save? From the words of both of them we infer that sheaf is saved by sheaf, but standing produce is not saved by standing produce.

Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel stated: Just as standing produce saves the sheaf, so the sheaf saves the standing produce. This is logical: If standing produce, on which the power of the poor is enhanced, saves if any of it was forgotten, it is only logical that the sheaf should save, since on it the power of the poor is reduced. Rebbi answered him: If standing produce, on which the power of the poor is enhanced, saves if any of it was forgotten, is it logical that the sheaf, on which the power of the poor is reduced, if any of it was forgotten should save? From the words of both of them we infer that sheaf is saved by sheaf, but standing produce is not saved by standing produce.

Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel stated: Just as standing produce saves the sheaf, so the sheaf saves the standing produce. This is logical: If standing produce, on which the power of the poor is enhanced, saves if any of it was forgotten, it is only logical that the sheaf should save, since on it the power of the poor is reduced. Rebbi answered him: If standing produce, on which the power of the poor is enhanced, saves if any of it was forgotten, is it logical that the sheaf, on which the power of the poor is reduced, if any of it was forgotten should save? From the words of both of them we infer that sheaf is saved by sheaf, but standing produce is not saved by standing produce.

Hence, if he forgot, is it “forgotten sheaf”? Explain it if he forgot the standing produce 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, is not subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf. When does this apply? For its name, its production, and its place. By its name, if it was dripping or from Beth Shean. By its production, if it produced much. By its place, if it stood next to the wine-press or near a hole in the wall. For all other olive trees, two are subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf, three are not. Rebbi Yose says, there is no law of the forgotten sheaf for olive trees.

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, is not subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf. When does this apply? For its name, its production, and its place. By its name, if it was dripping or from Beth Shean. By its production, if it produced much. By its place, if it stood next to the wine-press or near a hole in the wall. For all other olive trees, two are subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf, three are not. Rebbi Yose says, there is no law of the forgotten sheaf for olive trees.

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, is not subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf. When does this apply? For its name, its production, and its place. By its name, if it was dripping or from Beth Shean. By its production, if it produced much. By its place, if it stood next to the wine-press or near a hole in the wall. For all other olive trees, two are subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf, three are not. Rebbi Yose says, there is no law of the forgotten sheaf for olive trees.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi La said, it is written (Deut. 24:19): “You will forget a sheaf on the field,” a sheaf you forget forever; this excludes one you certainly will remember after some time.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi La said, it is written (Deut. 24:19): “You will forget a sheaf on the field,” a sheaf you forget forever; this excludes one you certainly will remember after some time.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If it was marked in his mind, is it as if it were marked? If it stood in the shadow of a date palm, the date palm marks it. If two of them were dripping, each of them marks the other. If the entire field was of dripping olive trees? Let us hear from the following: “Rebbi Yose says, there is no law of the forgotten sheaf for olives.” Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim said, Rebbi Yose said this only in former times when olives were scarce because Hadrian, the evil one, had come and devastated the entire land. But today when olive trees are everywhere, they are under the law of the forgotten sheaf.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If it was marked in his mind, is it as if it were marked? If it stood in the shadow of a date palm, the date palm marks it. If two of them were dripping, each of them marks the other. If the entire field was of dripping olive trees? Let us hear from the following: “Rebbi Yose says, there is no law of the forgotten sheaf for olives.” Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim said, Rebbi Yose said this only in former times when olives were scarce because Hadrian, the evil one, had come and devastated the entire land. But today when olive trees are everywhere, they are under the law of the forgotten sheaf.

“ Rebbi Yose says, there is no law of the forgotten sheaf for olives.” Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim said, Rebbi Yose said this only in former times when olives were scarce because Hadrian, the evil one, had come and devastated the entire land. But today when olive trees are everywhere, they are under the law of the forgotten sheaf.

“ Rebbi Yose says, there is no law of the forgotten sheaf for olives.” Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim said, Rebbi Yose said this only in former times when olives were scarce because Hadrian, the evil one, had come and devastated the entire land. But today when olive trees are everywhere, they are under the law of the forgotten sheaf.

Rebbi Yose said, nobody applied the law of forgotten sheaves to olive trees except Rebbi Aqiba, for he drew inferences from “behind you, behind you.” Then there should be no “forgotten sheaf” for olive trees following Rebbi Yose who does not draw inferences from “behind you.” They objected, is not a sheaf subject to “forgotten sheaves”, and there it is not written “behind you.” Since it is written (Deut. 24:19): “Do not return to take it,” it is as if “behind you” were written there.

Rebbi Yose said, nobody applied the law of forgotten sheaves to olive trees except Rebbi Aqiba, for he drew inferences from “behind you, behind you.” Then there should be no “forgotten sheaf” for olive trees following Rebbi Yose who does not draw inferences from “behind you.” They objected, is not a sheaf subject to “forgotten sheaves”, and there it is not written “behind you.” Since it is written (Deut. 24:19): “Do not return to take it,” it is as if “behind you” were written there.

MISHNAH: An olive tree standing between three rows of two rectangles, when forgotten, is not subject to the law of forgotten sheaves. An olive tree which yields two seah, when forgotten, is not legally forgotten. When does this apply? 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 he has under it, he has at its crown. Rebbi Meïr says, from the moment that the maḥba is used.

If it rolled away by itself, can he bring it back as you say there, may he bring them back to their intended place and eat? Is it the same here? There, he brings it back to an exempt place but here he brings it back to a place of obligation. To what do you compare if he stood in the crown of a fig tree, to one who stands in town or in a field? It refers to the following: If he stood in town and said: I know that the workers are forgetting a sheaf at place X; if they forgot it is not a forgotten sheaf. If he stood in a field and said: I know that the workers are forgetting a sheaf at place X; [if they forgot] it is a forgotten sheaf, since it says (Deut. 24:19): “In your field and you forget a sheaf.” In the field you forget, but in town you do not forget.

If it rolled away by itself, can he bring it back as you say there, may he bring them back to their intended place and eat? Is it the same here? There, he brings it back to an exempt place but here he brings it back to a place of obligation. To what do you compare if he stood in the crown of a fig tree, to one who stands in town or in a field? It refers to the following: If he stood in town and said: I know that the workers are forgetting a sheaf at place X; if they forgot it is not a forgotten sheaf. If he stood in a field and said: I know that the workers are forgetting a sheaf at place X; [if they forgot] it is a forgotten sheaf, since it says (Deut. 24:19): “In your field and you forget a sheaf.” In the field you forget, but in town you do not forget.

If it rolled away by itself, can he bring it back as you say there, may he bring them back to their intended place and eat? Is it the same here? There, he brings it back to an exempt place but here he brings it back to a place of obligation. To what do you compare if he stood in the crown of a fig tree, to one who stands in town or in a field? It refers to the following: If he stood in town and said: I know that the workers are forgetting a sheaf at place X; if they forgot it is not a forgotten sheaf. If he stood in a field and said: I know that the workers are forgetting a sheaf at place X; [if they forgot] it is a forgotten sheaf, since it says (Deut. 24:19): “In your field and you forget a sheaf.” In the field you forget, but in town you do not forget.

If it rolled away by itself, can he bring it back as you say there, may he bring them back to their intended place and eat? Is it the same here? There, he brings it back to an exempt place but here he brings it back to a place of obligation. To what do you compare if he stood in the crown of a fig tree, to one who stands in town or in a field? It refers to the following: If he stood in town and said: I know that the workers are forgetting a sheaf at place X; if they forgot it is not a forgotten sheaf. If he stood in a field and said: I know that the workers are forgetting a sheaf at place X; [if they forgot] it is a forgotten sheaf, since it says (Deut. 24:19): “In your field and you forget a sheaf.” In the field you forget, but in town you do not forget.

If it rolled away by itself, can he bring it back as you say there, may he bring them back to their intended place and eat? Is it the same here? There, he brings it back to an exempt place but here he brings it back to a place of obligation. To what do you compare if he stood in the crown of a fig tree, to one who stands in town or in a field? It refers to the following: If he stood in town and said: I know that the workers are forgetting a sheaf at place X; if they forgot it is not a forgotten sheaf. If he stood in a field and said: I know that the workers are forgetting a sheaf at place X; [if they forgot] it is a forgotten sheaf, since it says (Deut. 24:19): “In your field and you forget a sheaf.” In the field you forget, but in town you do not forget.

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 apply only to 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! He said to him, it is lenient for the poor and not stringent for the householder, since he intentionally abandoned it. He said to him, did we not state: “If the sheaf that was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels 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.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi objected before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Did we not state: (Mishnah Baba Meẓi‘a 1:4) “If somebody saw a find and fell on it, when another person came and grabbed it, he who grabbed it had the rights to it?” He answered him: Explain it if the first one did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did we not state: “If he fell on it or spread his talith on it, one removes him from it?” He said to him, that is the same, if he did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: (Tosephta Peah 2:2) “If two were pushing one another because of a sheaf and another person came and grabbed it from before them, the one who grabbed is entitled to it. He said to him, it is the same, they did not say that our four cubits should acquire it for us.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody saw a find” etc. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said [in the name of] Abba Cohen bar Delaiah: A person acquires a find within four cubits from himself. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if it fell into his hand. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “If he took some of the peah and threw it on the rest, he has nothing of it.” He answered: Explain it if the did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But does it not say afterwards: “If he fell on it or spread his talith on it, one removes him from it?” That is the same, if he did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “If two were pushing one another because of a sheaf and another poor person came and grabbed it from before them, he is entitled to it.” It is the same; he did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did we not state: “If somebody saw a find and fell upon it when another person grabbed it, the one who grabbed it acquired it.” It is the same, he did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did we not state: “If it landed close to her it is a bill of divorce, close to him it is no bill of divorce, half and half she is divorced and not divorced.” Ḥizqiah said, the Mishnah speaks of the scribe’s fee. They objected: Is it not written: “I in my poverty did prepare”? How is that? If it was in his possession, he was rich. If it was not in his possession, how can a person dedicate what is not his? It must be that it was within four cubits from him. Rebbi Abin said, what means “in my poverty?” That there is no wealth before Him Who commanded and the world came into existence! Another explanation: he fasted and donated the price of his meal to Heaven.

And for waving: as it is written, “And on the day when you wave the sheaf” (Leviticus 23:12).