1)

PROXIMITY TO OTHER THINGS (Yerushalmi Peah Halachah 2 Daf 29a)

[ ] [] " " :

(a)

(Mishnah): If a sheaf is left near a stone fence or a stack or near cattle or utensils and he forgot it - Beis Shammai say that it is not Shichechah; Beis Hillel say that it is Shichechah.

()[] ()[] (")["] ()[]

(b)

(Gemara) Question: According to Beis Hillel, why would a stone fence or a stack, that are fixed things, allow Shichechah to apply? And according to Beis Shammai, why would cattle or utensils, that are not fixed things, not allow Shichechah to apply? (These questions remain unanswered.)

(c)

(Mishnah in Perek 7 Mishnah 1): (Any olive tree that is distinguished in the field by its name, its produce or its location, it is not Shichechah.) What is meant by its location? If it is standing near the winepress or near a breach in a wall.

'

(d)

Question: Doesn't the Mishnah follow Beis Shammai who say here that it is not Shichechah?!

" '

(e)

Answer (R. Yosi): Our Mishnah is even Beis Hillel - there (Mishnah in Perek 7) it is referring to an attached thing (olive tree) near an attached thing (winepress/wall); here is referring to a detached thing (sheaf) near an attached thing (stone fence).

"

(f)

Tosefta (R. Ilai): I asked R. Yehoshua - about which sheaves do Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel disagree?

1.

(R. Yehoshua): I swear that they disagree over sheaves that are near a stone fence or a stack, cattle or utensils, that Beis Shammai say that it is not Shichechah and Beis Hillel say that it is Shichechah.

2.

And when I asked R. Eliezer, he said - they agree that a sheaf close to a stone fence, a stack, cattle or utensils is Shichechah; but they disagree over a sheaf that he took (and acquired) and then put next to a stone fence, a stack, cattle or utensils - Beis Shammai say that it is not Shichechah because he acquired it and Beis Hillel say that it is Shichechah.

'

3.

And when I presented this to R. Eliezer ben Azaryah, he said - I swear that this (R. Eliezer's explanation) was what was said to Moshe in Chorev (Sinai).

(g)

(Mishnah in Kesubos): If property was inherited by a woman before she was betrothed, Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel agree that she may sell them or give them away (and her husband cannot prevent it). If she inherited them after she was betrothed, Beis Shammai say that she may sell and Beis Hillel say that she may not sell.

(h)

Question (R. Pinchas to R. Yosi): Why wasn't this taught amongst the list of cases (in Maseches Eduyos) where Beis Shammai are lenient and Beis Hillel are stringent?

'

(i)

Answer (R. Yosi): That Mishnah only lists cases that are stringent for both sides, but here, it is stringent for the husband and lenient for the wife.

[ ( )]

(j)

Question (R. Pinchas to R. Yosi): Amongst the cases listed there, Beis Shammai say that declaring Hefker for only the poor is valid, which is only lenient for the poor but is stringent for the landowner?

(k)

Answer (R. Yosi): It is a leniency for the poor but it is not a stringency for the landowner as he knowingly declared it Hefker.

' " ' .

(l)

Question (R. Pinchas to R. Yosi): Doesn't our Mishnah teach that if a sheaf is left near a stone fence or a stack or near cattle or utensils and he forgot it (Beis Shammai say that it is Shichechah). Isn't this lenient for the landowner and stringent for the poor, and it is taught in the Mishnah?!

" " '

(m)

Answer (R. Yosi): It is not a stringency for the poor, as they didn't yet acquire them.

(n)

Question (R. Pinchas): You could say the same about the woman who inherited property, that it is a leniency for her (that she can sell or give them away), but it is not a stringency for him since he didn't yet acquire them?

"

(o)

Answer (R. Yosi): But once he betrothed her, they fell into both his and her possession (and you have taken them away from him).

" " :

(p)

(R. Yehuda): The Rabbanan said to Rabban Gamliel - since both whilst betrothed and after the Chupah she is his wife, just as after the Chupah her sale is invalid, so too after betrothal, her sale should be invalid? Rabban Gamliel replied -we are embarrassed of the new transactions and you want him to force on us the old ones? The new ones refer to the husband being capable of overriding a sale she made after her Chupa). The old ones refer to transactions she made when betrothed.