פרשת כי תצא תשכ"א - מתנות עניים

ושכחת עמר [WHEN THOU REAPEST THY HARVEST IN THY FIELD] AND HAST FORGOT A SHEAF … [THOU SHALT NOT RETURN TO TAKE IT] — a sheaf, but not a stack of corn (Sifrei Devarim 283:1). Hence they (the Rabbis) said, “A sheaf that contains two Seahs of grain which one has forgotten in the field, does not come under the term of שכחה (a forgotten sheaf)” (Mishnah Peah 6:6).

This is the thing which the LORD hath commanded: Gather ye of it every man according to his eating; an omer a head, according to the number of your persons, shall ye take it, every man for them that are in his tent.’

And when they did mete it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; they gathered every man according to his eating.

Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them: When ye are come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring the sheaf of the first-fruits of your harvest unto the priest.

And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the day of rest, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the waving; seven weeks shall there be complete;

When thou reapest thy harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go back to fetch it; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thy hands.

and she said: Let me glean, I pray you, and gather after the reapers among the sheaves; so she came, and hath continued even from the morning until now, save that she tarried a little in the house.’

So that they go about naked without clothing, And being hungry they carry the sheaves;

בשדה [AND HAST FORGOT …] IN THE FIELD — This apparently redundant word (it has just stated בשדך) is intended to include under this law forgotten “standing corn” (קמה) — that one has forgotten to cut down part of it (Sifrei Devarim 283:2).

לא תפאר — This means: thou shalt not entirely remove its (the olive tree’s) glory (תפארת) from it, i.e., its fruit (Chullin 131b). Hence they (the Rabbis) derived the law that one must leave פאה (some quantity of fruit) also on fruit-trees for the poor (cf. Mishnah Peah 4:1).

לא תעולל [WHEN THOU GATHEREST THE GRAPES OF THY VINEYARD] THOU SHALT NOT GLEAN IT — i.e., if you find tender grapes in it, thou shalt not take them away. And what are עוללות? Clusters which have neither כתף, “arms” nor נטף “drippings” If, however, they have one of these, then it belongs to the owner of the vineyard (not to the poor) (Mishnah Peah 7:4). (Cf. Rashi on Leviticus 19:10 and our translation and Note thereon). — I have seen the following in the Talmud Yerushalmi Peah 7:4: What is כתף? Where the branches lie one upon the other: whilst נטף are those which hang down directly from the central stem.

When thou reapest thy harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go back to fetch it; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thy hands.

למען יברכך THAT [THE LORD THY GOD] BLESS THEE — although it came into his (the stranger’s or the orphan’s) hand without him (the owner) intending this; it follows logically that he will certainly receive a blessing if he does this intentionally! — You must therefore admit that if a Sela fell out of one’s hand and a poor man found it and supports himself by it, then he will surely be blessed on that account (Sifrei Devarim 283:6; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 5:17 end).

When thou reapest thy harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go back to fetch it; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thy hands.

[If a poor worker] received [a one time job] to harvest a field, [then] his son cannot glean [the gifts to the poor right] after him [before other poor people will have a chance to glean that field]. Rebbi Yossi says, “His son may glean after him.” But sharecroppers, and [regular] tenants, and a person who sells his standing crops to his friend in order [that his friend should] harvest them, [in all of these cases] his (i.e. the sharecropper’s, or tenant’s, or friend’s) son can glean [the gifts to the poor right] after him [before other poor people will have a chance to glean that field]. If there were [in the field] poor people who are not fitting [to be allowed] to glean [the gifts to the poor, then] if the owner of the field can prevent them [from gleaning], he is allowed to do so, but if [he is] not [able to prevent them from gleaning, then] he should leave them alone [and let them glean anyway] because of peaceful relations [between people]. We do not hire Non-Jewish workers [to harvest the fields], because they are not well versed in [leaving] Leket (fallen stalks), [Shikcha (forgotten sheaves), and Peah (corners of the field)]. We do not give Maaser Ani (Tithe of the Poor) to Non-Jewish poor people, but we do give them Chulin (ordinary) [food], which has been tithed [instead of the Maaser Ani] as a nice gesture. [If] the owner [of the field] was standing in the city and he said, “I know that [my] workers are forgetting a sheaf in such and such a place [in the field],” and they (i.e. workers) [really] forgot it [there, then] it is not [considered to be] Shikcha (forgotten sheaves), [because the owner still knows about it and did not forget it]. Rebbi Shimon Ben Yehuda says in the name of Rebbi Shimon, “Even if other people were passing by on the road [next to the field] and they saw the sheaf that they (i.e. workers) have forgotten, it is not [considered to be] Shikcha until it gets forgotten by all people, [including the passersby.]” Rebbi Yehuda says, “A person who made his whole field into sheaves [in order to later] stook them [into stooks, which in turn will be taken to the final stack] is [considered to be] like someone who bundles [sheaves] in [order to put them in a] stack [of sheaves, which makes the sheaves inside the stooks eligible to become Shikcha (forgotten sheaves),] and [then] rounded it (i.e. the stack) out [as if he has completed the stack] and [then brought more sheaves and] pressed [them] into the stack [after the stack seemed to be already finished, which is still considered to be the final act of bundling, which makes these sheaves eligible to become Shikcha].” Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel agree that if [a person] proclaimed [his produce to be] ownerless [only] to people, but not to animals, [or only] to Jews, but not to Non-Jews, [it is still considered to be] ownerless [and anyone can come and take it]. Rebbi Ilai said, “I asked Rebbi Yehoshua, ‘Regarding which sheaves Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel argue [whether they are considered to be Shikcha (forgotten sheaves) or not]?’ He said to me, ‘[I swear] by this Torah [that they argue]’ regarding a sheaf [that is left in the field] next to a hedge, or [next to] a stack, [or next to] cattle [used for plowing], or [next to plowing] tools, and it was forgotten [there by the farmer].’ And when I came and asked Rebbi Eliezer, he said to me, ‘They agree by all of these [cases that Rebbi Yehoshua mentioned] that it is not [considered to be] Shikcha. [So] what [case] do they argue about? Regarding a sheaf that [the farmer] took [with him] to bring to the city and put it on the side of a stone fence or on the side of a hedge [in order to take a break], and forgot it [there], that Bet Shammai say that it is not [considered to be] Shikcha, because he [already] acquired it [for himself], and Bet Hillel say [that it is considered to be] Shikcha.’ And when I came and proclaimed [these] words [of Rebbi Eliezer] in front of Rebbi Elazar Ben Azaryah he said to me, ‘[I swear] by the Torah, these are the words that were spoken to Moshe on Sinai.’” [If a farmer] took a sheaf in order to take it to the city, and [then] he put [this sheaf] down [on the ground] on top of his friend (i.e. another sheaf) [while still in the field] and [then] he forgot both of them [in the field where he put them down], then the bottom [sheaf] is [considered to be] Shikcha (forgotten sheaf), and the top [sheaf] is not [considered to be] Shikcha. Rebbi Shimon says, “Both of them are not [considered to be] Shikcha. The bottom [sheaf is not considered to be Shikcha], because it is covered [by the top sheaf], and the top [sheaf is not considered to be Shikcha], because [the farmer] acquired it [for himself].” [If a farmer] stooked [some] sheaves in a field in which sheaves have been [laid out in a] mixed [fashion], and forgot one [of the sheaves, then this sheaf] is not [considered to be] Shikcha (forgotten sheaves), until he stooks all of the [other sheaves] around it. What is [the case mentioned in the Mishna titled as] “a sheaf that is in front of it proves [that it is not considered to be Shikcha”]? Someone who had 10 rows [of sheaves with] 10 sheaves in each row, and he stooked one of [the rows in the direction] from North to South, and [then] forgot [the last sheaf in that row.] It is not [considered to be] Shikcha (forgotten sheaf), because [that sheaf] can be counted [as a part of the last row that goes] from East to West. Two gavels separated from one another are [considered to be] Shikcha (forgotten sheaves), [but] three [gavels] are not [considered to be] Shikcha. Two sheaves separated from one another are [considered to be] Shikcha (forgotten sheaves), [but] three [sheaves] are not [considered to be] Shikcha. Two grapevines separated from one another (i.e. from separate tree trunks) are [considered to be] Shikcha (forgotten sheaves), [but] three [grapevines] are not [considered to be] Shikcha. Two [grape] berries [lying next to each other on the ground] are [considered to be] Peret (individual fallen grapes), [but] three [grape berries lying next to each other on the ground] are not [considered to be] Peret. Two stalks [of grain] separated from one another in the usual fashion are [considered to be] Leket (fallen stalks), [but] three [stalks of grain] are not [considered to be] Leket. These are the words of Bet Hillel. Rebbi Yossi says, “Chananyah, the son of the brother of Rebbi Yehoshua says, ‘Any [type of produce] where the property of the poor person (i.e. some kind of gift to the poor) can come in the middle [of two sets of produce, one standing and one detached, both of which are one Seah in volume], for example grain and vineyard, does not combine [to form two Seahs and therefore both parts are still considered to be Shikcha]. However, any [produce] where the property of the poor person (i.e. some kind of gift to the poor) cannot come in the middle [of two sets of produce, one standing and one detached, both of which are one Seah in volume], for example fruits of a tree, does combine [to form two Seahs and therefore both parts are not considered to be Shikcha].’” When did they (i.e. the Rabbis) say [that] standing crops [that have not been forgotten] disqualify a sheaf [that was forgotten next to those standing crops from being considered Shikcha (forgotten sheaves)]? At the time when [the standing crops] were not taken in the middle (i.e. between the time when the sheaf was forgotten and remembered by the farmer), but if [the standing crops] were taken in the middle (i.e. prior to the farmer remembering that he forgot that sheaf) then it does not disqualify [that sheaf from being considered Shikcha, and the farmer cannot go back and take it for himself]. “The standing crops of his (i.e. the farmer’s) friend [that were not forgotten] disqualify his (i.e. the farmer’s) [own standing crops that were forgotten from being considered Shikcha], [the standing crops] of wheat [that were not forgotten disqualify the standing crops] of barley [that were forgotten from being considered Shikcha], [the standing crops] of a non-Jew [that were not forgotten disqualify the standing crops] of a Jew [that were forgotten from being considered Shikcha].” These are the words of Rebbi Meir. But the Chachamim (Sages) say, “[Standing crops that were not forgotten] do not disqualify [other standing crops that were forgotten], unless they were his (i.e. the farmer’s and not someone else’s) [own] and [they were] of the same kind [of crops].” Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel says, “Just like standing crops [that were not forgotten] disqualify a sheaf [that was forgotten from being considered Shikcha], so too the sheaf [that was not forgotten] disqualifies standing crops [that were forgotten from being considered Shikcha]. And [the reason for this law] is a Kal Vechomer (derivation from minor to major) [which goes as follows]. Since standing crops by which the power of the poor person is weak [have the capability to] disqualify a sheaf [from being considered Shikcha], then for sure a sheaf by which the power of the poor person is strong should [have the capability to] disqualify standing crops.” They (i.e. the Chachamim) said [back] to him (i.e. Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel), “Rebbi! [That is not correct, because the reverse argument can be made as well, as follows.] Just like standing crops can disqualify a sheaf by which the power of the poor person is strong [from being considered Shikcha], so too the sheaf should disqualify the standing crops by which the power of the poor person is [also] strong [for a different reason as explained in the next Tosefta] [from being considered Shikcha].” The power of the poor person is stronger with regards to standing crops than with regards to a sheaf. And [yet at the same time the power of the poor person] is stronger with regards to a sheaf than with regards to standing crops. Because [all three gifts to the poor:] Leket (fallen stalks), Shikcha (forgotten sheaves) and Peah (corners of the field) apply to standing crops, but it is not so with regards to a sheaf, [to which only Shikcha and Peah apply, but Leket does not.] And [yet the opposite is true as well since] the sheaf that is two Seahs [in size by volume] and has been forgotten, is not considered to be Shikcha, unless it is smaller than two Seahs, [whereas standing crops are not considered Shikcha even if they are smaller than two Seahs in size, as long as they have the potential of being two Seahs in size in a different year due to better growth.] [A person] who is cutting gavels [of grain, with intention] to bundle them into sheaves later [and not right away], and also [a person who is piling up] heaps of garlic [with intention to make from the heaps] bundles of garlic, or [spread out] onions, [later and not right away, if any of these gavels of grain or heaps of garlic, or spread out onions, have been forgotten in the field, the law of] Shikcha (forgotten sheaves) does not apply to them, [and therefore they still belong to the owner, who can go back and retrieve them.] [A person] who is binding sheaves, because of [an approaching] fire or because of an irrigation canal [that broke through and is about to flood the field, if any of these sheaves have been forgotten in the field the law of] Shikcha does not apply to them, [and therefore they still belong to the owner, who can go back and retrieve them,] because he (i.e. the farmer) will check [the field for any forgotten sheaves, since he is not harvesting them, but rather moving them out of the way of the fire or flooding water.] It happened with a certain pious person that he forgot a sheaf in his field [during harvest,] and he said to his son, “Go [to the Temple in Jerusalem] and sacrifice in my name a bull for Korban Olah (burnt-offering) and a bull for Korban Shlamim (peace-offering).” He (i.e. his son) said [back] to him (i.e. the father), “Father! What have you seen in this commandment [of Shikcha that caused you] to rejoice [about it] more than all [other] commandments that are mentioned in the Torah?” He (i.e. the father) said [back] to him (i.e. the son), “All [other] commandments [that are mentioned] in the Torah have been given to us by God [to be executed] consciously (i.e. on purpose with intent). [But] this [commandment of Shikcha was given to us by God to be executed] unconsciously (i.e. accidentally due to forgetfulness), because if we would have done it willingly (i.e. left the sheaf in the field on purpose for the poor to take) in front of God, this commandment would not be counted for us [as a fulfilled commandment of Shikcha, but rather as a random act of kindness.]” He (i.e. the son) said [back] to him (i.e. the father), “It says [in the Torah], ‘When you will harvest your harvest in your field and you will forget a sheaf in the field, do not go back to take it. It shall be [left there] for the Non-Jewish resident, for the orphan, and for the widow, in order that Hashem, your God, will bless you with all the deeds of your hand.’ (Devarim 24:19) The verse has granted him (i.e. the farmer who left the sheaf in the field) a blessing. [But why did the verse need to say explicitly that the farmer will get a blessing?] Is not it a Kal Vechomer (derivation from minor to major) [which can be concluded by us logically without the need of an explicit verse]? Just like someone who did not intend to do something good, but he [ended up] doing something good [anyway], the verse considers him as if he has done something good, so for sure someone who intended to do something good, and [ended up] doing something good [that he meant to do] how much more so [should get a blessing]?” Similarly, [it says in the Torah:] “If a soul from the common people sins by accident by doing one of the negative commandments of Hashem, and becomes guilty of it. When his sin which he sinned will become known to him … (the verses go on to describe the sacrifice that the sinner should bring) … and the priest will atone for him, and he will be forgiven.” (Vayikra 4:27-31) And it is a Kal Vechomer [which can be concluded by us logically]! Just like someone who did not intend to sin, but sinned [anyway], we consider him as if he sinned. So someone who intended to sin and [then] sinned, how much more so [should be considered as if he sinned. And therefore will for sure get punished.]

in order that He will bless you for you gave of what you only imagine to be yours; but God will give to you of that which is truly His.

When thou beatest thine olive-tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow.