Matnot Aniyim - Chapter 5

Note, however, the qualification in the following halachah.

I.e., individuals who had no connection to the field.

This addition is made on the basis of the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh. The Radbaz
offers an alternate explanation.

I.e., the owner forgot it before the workers did.

But if one was conscious of it at the outset, it is not shichichah even if it was forgotten afterwards. The rationale is that the owner retains possession of it, because it was located in his field with his knowledge. Hence, to release it from his possession, he would have to consciously absolve himself from ownership. Forgetting it is not sufficient.

Bava Metzia I la derives this from the exegesis of the verse cited above. The Kessef Mishneh explains that since the owner is not near his field, his field cannot acquire it on his behalf.

I.e., they blocked him from seeing it and in that way caused him to forget it.

If, however, he also forgets the straw, it is Shichecha.

Even though he did not remove it from the field, since he picked it up with the intent of taking it to the city, he acquires it.

There is a difference of opinion regarding this issue in Pe’ah 6:3. The School of Shaimnai maintain that as soon as the person picks it up, he acquires it and the fact that he forgets it afterwards does not cause it to become shichichah. The School of Hillel maintain that as long as he did not have the intent of removing it from the field, it is shichichah.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe’ah, foe. cit.),

I.e., plowing utensils (ibid.).

And thus that sheaf will never be shichichah as stated in the previous halachah.

This law is also dependent on the previous halachah. Since the bottom sheaf was covered by the top one, the owner could not see it and hence, forgot it. Therefore it is not shichichah.
The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam’s ruling. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify the Rambam’s view.

I.e., this verse, which serves as the source for the command to leave shichichah, speaks only of “your field,” and not a field belonging to a colleague.

For that is a clear sign that he forgot the fourth. Until he picks it up, we might think that he was planning to divide his work in halt: first picking up the first three sheaves and then picking up the second three. See Kessef Mishneh.

Skipping the fourth sheaf is an obvious sign that he has forgotten it.

Our translation follows authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah and also conforms to the wording of the Tosefta, Pe’ah, ch. 3, which is the Rambam’s source. The standard published text has a slightly different version. The intent is that rather than have the sheaves placed neatly at the end of the field’s rows, they are placed irregularly throughout the field.

The gloss of the P ‘nei Moshe to the Jerusalem Talmud, Pe’ah 6:3, explains that the laws of shichichah do not apply because the irregular pattern in which the sheaves were left caused him to forget the sheaf. It did not slip his mind without cause.

The fact that it is the earth - i.e., an outside factor - that prevents them from being seen is not significant, as in Halachah I.

Although it can be said that these persons forgot the produce because they did not see it, the laws of shichichah are not suspended. The darkness or the person’s inability to see are not considered an external cause - like those mentioned in Halachah 3 - for since he decided to harvest in this circumstance, it is his responsibility to search harder for the produce.

Since he was not planning to collect all the sheaves, the fact that he left some unintentionally is not significant (Radbaz).

This is a general principle, applicable in all contexts of Torah Law with the exception of financial matters.

The verse mentions “forget[ting] a sheaf in the field.” Since this grain will not be collected as sheaves, the mitzvah of shichichah does not apply.

For these smaller bundles are also not considered as sheaves.

Because he has already passed it while harvesting and would have to go back to harvest it.

Because he has not begun harvesting in that area and would not have to go back to harvest it.

And he is forbidden to go back and take it. The rationale is that the harvesting of the field and the collection of the sheaves is incumbent on both of them together. Hence if one would collect what his colleague left, he would have to turn back and this would be forbidden (Kessef Mishneh).

The Ra’avad questions the Rambam’s wording, noting that he begins speaking about harvesting a field and concludes by speaking about gathering sheaves. The Radbaz notes this difficulty and also mentions that if this were the case, then the Rambam’s text would be redundant, because the second clause is merely a repetition of the first. Hence, hemaintains that the subject of the first clause should be “standing grain” and not sheaves. We, however, have not accepted his emendation, because all the authoritative manuscripts and early printings speak of sheaves. The Ra’avad also differs with the Rambam’s interpretation of Pe’ah 6:3, the source for this halachah, and offers an alternate understanding. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh substantiate the Rambam’s position.

And only in that midpoint.

Since it is in line with the sheaves that run east to west, it does not appear as a separate entity.

As the Rambam explains in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe’ah 5:8), it was common for people to store grain in several types of intermediate storing areas until it was bound into larger sheaves and taken to the threshing floor.

This term is defined in the following halachah.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit. 5:8), the Rambam explains that just as with regard to harvesting, the obligation of shichichah applies only when one is completing the harvest, so too, with regard to moving sheaves, the obligation of shichichah applies when one is completing the task.

I.e., smaller collections of grain than sheaves.

I.e., we consider them as separate entities and they both may be taken.

For they are considered as too substantial a quantity to be forgotten. We assume that the owner had not completed gathering the sheaves from the field and was intending to return and collect them. The Radbaz explains that the halachah is speaking about three sheaves that are separate from each other. If, however, they are collected in one place, they arc considered as a single entity and the laws of shichichah do apply. There are, however, other opinions that do not follow this understanding.

The Kessef Mishneh states that we are speaking about an instance where the flax is being grown for its seeds which are to be eaten. If it is being grown to be used for making fabrics, the laws of shichichah do not apply.

The Radbaz explains that the Rambam is emphasizing that the laws of Shichecha apply even if the two trees have a substantial amount of fruit and thus could be likened to the sheaf containing two se'ah mentioned in Halachah 18.

Although this verse mentions peret and olelot and not shichichah, our Sages understand that these mitzvot are interrelated.

A kab is approximately 1382 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 2400 cc according to Chazon Ish.

Even though it is larger than the others, it is not large enough to be considered a significant entity like the. oversized sheaf mentioned in the following halachah.

For its size causes it to be considered a significant entity.

A se'ah is six kabbim.

I.e., because of its size, it is significant and it is not relevant to speak of it being forgotten.

For as above, they produce a quantity of grain too significant to be ignored.

Our translation follows the text of authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text follows a slightly different version.

To be considered as two se’ah.

Since the standing grain is not forgotten and the owner can return and collect it, he can also return and collect any forgotten standing grain or sheaves that are in its surroundings.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe’ah 6:8), the Rambam explains that the two areas of standing grain must be close enough to each other that if one is bent over, it will reach the other.

And thus the laws of shichichah do not apply to it, as stated in Halachah 18. Even so, it cannot rescue the other sheaves.

In contrast to the sheaf mentioned in Halachah 18 and the standing grain
mentioned in Halachah 19. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the reason for the distinction is that a sheaf of two se’ah of grain or that amount of standing grain is considered significant, but one tree even if it contains a large quantity of fruit - is not significant in an entire orchard. In other words, the issue is relative: “When one has already begun focusing on a particular tree, two se’ah is considered a significant amount, but when one considers one tree as part of an entire orchard, its significance pales.
The Radbaz supports this differentiation, noting that Pe’ah 7:1 (quoted in Halachah 23) speaks of an olive tree with a specific name or distinction, but not one that is set apart by the fact that it produces a specific quantity of fruit. See also Halachah 24.

As in Halachot 14-16.

The Rambam’s words are based on Pe’ah 7:1. Although the mishnah speaks of olives. The same principles apply with regard to other trees as well.

Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text has a slightly different version. The Rambam follows the understanding of the mishnah cited above found in the Jerusalem Talmud. In · his Commentary to the Mishnah, however, he defines Netufah as being the name of a place.

It was given this name because it did not produce much oil.

For he will remember it afterwards.

For it then has a specific location, like the tree next to the vat or next to the opening mentioned in the previous halachah.

For there is nothing that distinguishes these olive trees from the others in that grove.

When viewed in relation to the orchard as a whole, the tree is distinct and leaving it unharvested does not mean it is no longer in mind. Once, however, one has begun harvesting the produce of that tree, the laws of shichichah apply to it.

Based on his interpretation of Pe’ah 7:2, the Ra’avad maintains that this principle should apply to all trees, even those that are not distinguished by a particular quality. When one ceased harvesting their produce in the middle, if two se’ah of produce remain, it is significant and the laws of shichichah do not apply. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh, however, provide explanations that indicate that this concept applies only with regard to a. distinguished tree.

As stated in Halachot 18 and 19.

In Halachah 22.

Thus it is considered as something forgotten due to an external cause.

The Roman Caesar Adrian had many of the olive trees in Eretz Yisrael destroyed and hence, all those that remained were important. For this reason, in many instances, the laws of Shichecha were suspended. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe’ah 7:1).

Or from the ladder on which he ascends.

According to this explanation, all of the above clauses have to be reinterpreted to mean that he was harvesting fruit on the surrounding vines or trees. The Kessef Mishneh mentions a view that maintains that there is a printing error and the text should read: “When does the above apply? When he began [harvesting its fruit]. If, however, he did not begin harvesting its fruit....” According to that version, the Rambam’s words can be understood with more ease.

I.e., these obligations apply only with regard to a field that one owns and not one that he acquires after the crops have already grown. Nevertheless, an exception is made in this instance, for as the Rambam explains, there is no reason to free the owner of responsibility. The commentaries note that the Rambam cites a different prooftext than Rashi (Niddah 5 la) and other traditional sources.

See Hilchot Terumot 2:9, 11-12.