(Devarim 24:19) "if you forget a sheaf in the field": and not a heap of sheaves. I might think (that shikchah obtains) even if he forgot more than two sheaves; it is, therefore, written "to the stranger, (one), to the orphan and to the widow shall it be," (orphan and widow being regarded as one unit). From here they ruled: Two sheaves are shikchah; three are not shikchah. Two piles of olives and carobs are shikchah; three are not shikchah. Two berries (fallen at a time) are peret (viz. Vayikra 19:10); three are not peret.
"in the field": to exclude (from shikchah) what is hidden (in the ground). These are the words of R. Yehudah. The sages say: "in the field": to include (as shikchah) what is hidden. "in the field": to include standing grain. For (if it were not written "in the field") it would follow (that standing grain was not shikchah), viz.: If a sheaf, where the "power" of the poor man is wanting (i.e., he does not receive a sheaf), he does receive shikchah (i.e., if it is forgotten, it belongs to the poor man), then standing grain, where the "power" of the poor man is strong, (i.e., he does receive leket and peah from it), how much more so should he receive shikchah from it! — (No,) this (i.e., that it is subject to shikchah) may be so with a (remembered) sheaf, which does not "save" (from shikchah) a (forgotten) sheaf (lying near it) or (forgotten) standing grain. But would you say the same (that it is subject to shikchah) for (remembered) standing grain, which does "save" (from shikchah) a (forgotten) sheaf and forgotten standing grain (that are near it)? (It must, therefore, be written "in the field" to include standing grain as subject to shikchah.)
"do not return to take it": to exclude (from shikchah) the heads of rows. From here they ruled: The heads of rows — the sheaf adjoining it indicates their status (vis-à-vis shikchah). And if he forgot a sheaf that he had taken hold of to take to the city, they agree that this is not shikchah. If a sheaf were forgotten by the owner, but not by the workers, or vice versa; or if the poor stood before it or covered it with straw, it is not shikchah.
"do not return to take it": all as one. And what capacity must it have (to render it subject to shikchah)? The sages estimated: less than two sa'ah. From here they ruled: If they forgot a sheaf of two sa'ah, this is not shikchah. (If they forgot), two sheaves containing two sa'ah between them, R. Gamliel said: They are the owner's; the sages say they belong to the poor. R. Gamliel asked them: If there are more sheaves, is the power of the owner increased or decreased? They: It is increased. R. Gamliel: If they forgot one sheaf containing two sa'ah, it is not shikchah, how much more so, if they forgot two sheaves containing two sa'ah! They: No, this is so for one sa'ah, which is like a pile. Would you say the same for two, which are like bunches!
"do not return to take it": From here R. Yishmael ruled: An ear of the harvest whose head reaches up to the standing grain — If it were harvested together with the standing grain, it belongs to the owner, (the fact of its being thus harvested indicating it not to have been forgotten), and if not, it belongs to the poor (as shikchah). And if it is in doubt (safek [as to whether it was harvested together with the standing grain]), it belongs to the owner. For the burden of the proof is upon him who would remove it from the owner's domain. And whence is it derived that a safek of leket is leket, a safek of shikchah is shikchah, a safek of peah is peah? From "to the stranger, to the orphan, and to the widow shall it be."
R. Elazar b. Azaryah said: Whence is it derived that if one dropped a sela from his hand and a poor man found it and fed himself with it, it is accounted by Scripture as if he had given it to him? From "to the stranger, to the orphan, and to the widow shall it be, so that the L-rd your G-d will bless you." Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If one did not give, but gave (through shikchah), Scripture accounts it to him as if he had (intentionally) given, (to wit: "so that the L-rd your G-d will bless you"), then one who intends to give and does give, how great must be his reward!
וְשָׁכַחְתָּ עֹמֶר, וְלֹא הַגָּדִישׁ. יָכוֹל אַף לֹא שְׁנַיִם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לַגֵּר וְלַיָּתוֹם וְלָאַלְמָנָה יִהְיֶה. מִכָּן אָמְרוּ: שְׁנֵי עֳמָרִים שִׁכְחָה, שְׁלֹשָׁה אֵינָם שִׁכְחָה; שְׁנֵי צִבּוּרֵי זֵיתִים וְחָרוּבִים שִׁכְחָה, שְׁלֹשָׁה אֵינָם שִׁכְחָה; שְׁנֵי גַּרְגְּרִים פֶּרֶט, שְׁלֹשָׁה אֵינָם פֶּרֶט.
(Devarim 24:19) "if you forget a sheaf in the field": and not a heap of sheaves. I might think (that shikchah obtains) even if he forgot more than two sheaves; it is, therefore, written "to the stranger, (one), to the orphan and to the widow shall it be," (orphan and widow being regarded as one unit). From here they ruled: Two sheaves are shikchah; three are not shikchah. Two piles of olives and carobs are shikchah; three are not shikchah. Two berries (fallen at a time) are peret (viz. Vayikra 19:10); three are not peret.
בַּשָּׂדֶה, פְּרָט לַטְּמוּנִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בַּשָּׂדֶה לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַטְּמוּנִים. בַּשָּׂדֶה, לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַקָּמָה, שֶׁהָיָה בַדִּין: וּמָה עֹמֶר שֶׁהוּרַע כֹּחַ עָנִי בּוֹ יֵשׁ לוֹ שִׁכְחָה, קָמָה שֶׁיָּפֶה כֹּחַ עָנִי בָּהּ אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שִׁכְחָה? לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בָּעֹמֶר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַצִּיל לֹא אֶת הָעֹמֶר וְאֶת הַקָּמָה, תֹּאמַר בַּקָּמָה שֶׁהִיא מַצֶּלֶת אֶת הָעֹמֶר וְאֶת הַקָּמָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: בַּשָּׂדֶה לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַקָּמָה.
"in the field": to exclude (from shikchah) what is hidden (in the ground). These are the words of R. Yehudah. The sages say: "in the field": to include (as shikchah) what is hidden. "in the field": to include standing grain. For (if it were not written "in the field") it would follow (that standing grain was not shikchah), viz.: If a sheaf, where the "power" of the poor man is wanting (i.e., he does not receive a sheaf), he does receive shikchah (i.e., if it is forgotten, it belongs to the poor man), then standing grain, where the "power" of the poor man is strong, (i.e., he does receive leket and peah from it), how much more so should he receive shikchah from it! — (No,) this (i.e., that it is subject to shikchah) may be so with a (remembered) sheaf, which does not "save" (from shikchah) a (forgotten) sheaf (lying near it) or (forgotten) standing grain. But would you say the same (that it is subject to shikchah) for (remembered) standing grain, which does "save" (from shikchah) a (forgotten) sheaf and forgotten standing grain (that are near it)? (It must, therefore, be written "in the field" to include standing grain as subject to shikchah.)
לֹא תָשׁוּב לְקַחְתּוֹ, פְּרָט לְרָאשֵׁי שׁוּרוֹת. מִכָּן אָמְרוּ: רָאשֵׁי שׁוּרוֹת – הָעֹמֶר שֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ מוֹכִיחַ, וְהָעֹמֶר שֶׁהֶחֱזִיק בּוֹ לְהוֹלִיכוֹ לָעִיר וּשְׁכָחוֹ – מוֹדִים שֶׁאֵין שִׁכְחָה.
"do not return to take it": to exclude (from shikchah) the heads of rows. From here they ruled: The heads of rows — the sheaf adjoining it indicates their status (vis-à-vis shikchah). And if he forgot a sheaf that he had taken hold of to take to the city, they agree that this is not shikchah. If a sheaf were forgotten by the owner, but not by the workers, or vice versa; or if the poor stood before it or covered it with straw, it is not shikchah.
לֹא תָשׁוּב לְקַחְתּוֹ, כֻּלּוֹ כְּאֶחָד. וְכַמָּה יְהֵא בוֹ? שִׁעֲרוּ חֲכָמִים בְּעוֹשֶׂה סָאתַיִם. מִכָּן אָמְרוּ: הָעֹמֶר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ סָאתַיִם וּשְׁכָחוֹ, אֵינוֹ שִׁכְחָה. שְׁנֵי עֳמָרִים וּבָהֶם סָאתַיִם, רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לָעֲנִיִּים. כּוּלַּ׳ מַתְנִי׳.
"do not return to take it": all as one. And what capacity must it have (to render it subject to shikchah)? The sages estimated: less than two sa'ah. From here they ruled: If they forgot a sheaf of two sa'ah, this is not shikchah. (If they forgot), two sheaves containing two sa'ah between them, R. Gamliel said: They are the owner's; the sages say they belong to the poor. R. Gamliel asked them: If there are more sheaves, is the power of the owner increased or decreased? They: It is increased. R. Gamliel: If they forgot one sheaf containing two sa'ah, it is not shikchah, how much more so, if they forgot two sheaves containing two sa'ah! They: No, this is so for one sa'ah, which is like a pile. Would you say the same for two, which are like bunches!
לֹא תָשׁוּב לְקַחְתּוֹ, מִכָּן אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: שִׁבֹּלֶת שֶׁבַּקָּצִיר וְרֹאשָׁהּ מַגִּיעַ לַקָּמָה, אִם נִקְצֶרֶת עִם הַקָּמָה הֲרֵי הִיא שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, וְאִם לָאו הֲרֵי הִיא שֶׁל עֲנִיִּים. בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הַמּוֹצִיא מֵעֲנִיִּים עָלָיו לְהָבִיא הָרְאָיָה, שֶׁהַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁסְּפֵק לֶקֶט לֶקֶט, סְפֵק שִׁכְחָה שִׁכְחָה, סְפֵק פֵּאָה פֵּאָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: לַגֵּר לַיָּתוֹם וְלָאַלְמָנָה יִהְיֶה.
"do not return to take it": From here R. Yishmael ruled: An ear of the harvest whose head reaches up to the standing grain — If it were harvested together with the standing grain, it belongs to the owner, (the fact of its being thus harvested indicating it not to have been forgotten), and if not, it belongs to the poor (as shikchah). And if it is in doubt (safek [as to whether it was harvested together with the standing grain]), it belongs to the owner. For the burden of the proof is upon him who would remove it from the owner's domain. And whence is it derived that a safek of leket is leket, a safek of shikchah is shikchah, a safek of peah is peah? From "to the stranger, to the orphan, and to the widow shall it be."
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה: מִנַּיִן לִמְאַבֵּד סֶלַע מִתּוֹךְ יָדוֹ וּמְצָאָהּ עָנִי וְהָלַךְ וְנִתְפַּרְנֵס בָּהּ, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ זָכָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: לַגֵּר לַיָּתוֹם וְלָאַלְמָנָה יִהְיֶה, וַהֲלֹא דְּבָרִים קַל וָחֹמֶר: אִם מִי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְכַּוֵּן לִזְכּוֹת וְזָכָה מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ זָכָה, הַמִּתְכַּוֵּן לִזְכּוֹת וְזָכָה עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה.
R. Elazar b. Azaryah said: Whence is it derived that if one dropped a sela from his hand and a poor man found it and fed himself with it, it is accounted by Scripture as if he had given it to him? From "to the stranger, to the orphan, and to the widow shall it be, so that the L-rd your G-d will bless you." Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If one did not give, but gave (through shikchah), Scripture accounts it to him as if he had (intentionally) given, (to wit: "so that the L-rd your G-d will bless you"), then one who intends to give and does give, how great must be his reward!