The Jerusalem Talmud Jerusalem Talmud Peah 6.1

English · Heinrich W. Guggenheimer

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor is abandoned, but the House of Hillel say, it is not abandoned unless it is abandoned also to the rich, as in a Sabbatical year. If all sheaves of a field are of one qab each, except one which is of four qab and they forgot about that one, the House of Shammai say, it cannot be a forgotten sheaf, but the House of Hillel say, it can be a forgotten sheaf.

2

English · Heinrich W. Guggenheimer

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.

3

English · Heinrich W. Guggenheimer

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.

4

English · Heinrich W. Guggenheimer

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.”

5

English · Heinrich W. Guggenheimer

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.

6

English · Heinrich W. Guggenheimer

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.

7

English · Heinrich W. Guggenheimer

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?

8

English · Heinrich W. Guggenheimer

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.

Jerusalem Talmud Peah 6.1

Find your chapter.

Make yourself comfortable.

Choose your edition.

Finding your place.