יָלְפִינַן מְצִיאָה מִגֵּט, וּמָר סָבַר: לָא יָלְפִינַן מְצִיאָה מִגֵּט.

we derive the halakha with regard to acquiring a found item from the halakha with regard to a bill of divorce, and one Sage, Abba Kohen Bardela, holds that we do not derive the halakha with regard to a found item from the halakha with regard to a bill of divorce.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: בִּקְטַנָּה כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּיָלְפִינַן מְצִיאָה מִגֵּט. וְהָכָא בְּקָטָן קָא מִיפַּלְגִי,

And if you wish, say instead that with regard to a minor girl, everyone agrees that we derive the halakha with regard to a found item from the halakha with regard to a bill of divorce, and she acquires an ownerless item that is found in her courtyard. And here they disagree with regard to whether a minor boy acquires an item that is placed in his courtyard.

מָר סָבַר: יָלְפִינַן קָטָן מִקְּטַנָּה. וּמָר סָבַר: לָא יָלְפִינַן קָטָן מִקְּטַנָּה.

One Sage, Rabbi Yannai, holds that we derive the halakha with regard to a minor boy from the halakha with regard to a minor girl, as there should be no difference between them with regard to the halakhot of acquisition. And one Sage, Abba Kohen Bardela, holds that we do not derive the halakha with regard to a minor boy from the halakha with regard to a minor girl; only a minor girl acquires items by means of her courtyard, as the Torah includes this mode of acquisition with regard to acquiring a bill of divorce.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מָר אֲמַר חֲדָא, וּמָר אֲמַר חֲדָא וְלָא פְּלִיגִי.

And if you wish, say instead that there is no dispute here at all. Rather, one Sage, Abba Kohen Bardela, said one statement, that a minor girl is divorced by her husband placing a bill of divorce in her courtyard, and one Sage, Rabbi Yannai, said another statement, that a minor boy or girl does not acquire an item that is found in his or her courtyard; and they do not disagree.

מַתְנִי׳ רָאָה אוֹתָן רָצִין אַחַר מְצִיאָה, אַחַר צְבִי שָׁבוּר, אַחַר גּוֹזָלוֹת שֶׁלֹּא פֵּרְחוּ, וְאָמַר: ״זָכְתָה לִי שָׂדִי״ – זָכְתָה לוֹ. הָיָה צְבִי רָץ כְּדַרְכּוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ גּוֹזָלוֹת מַפְרִיחִין, וְאָמַר: ״זָכְתָה לִי שָׂדִי״ – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם.

MISHNA: If one saw people running after a found ownerless animal, e.g., after a deer crippled by a broken leg, or after young pigeons that have not yet learned to fly, which can be caught easily, and he said: My field has effected acquisition of this animal for me, it has effected acquisition of it for him. If the deer were running in its usual manner, or the young pigeons were flying, and he said: My field has effected acquisition of this animal for me, he has said nothing, as one’s courtyard cannot effect acquisition of an item that does not remain there on its own.

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: וְהוּא שֶׁעוֹמֵד בְּצַד שָׂדֵהוּ.

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: And this acquisition mentioned in the mishna is effective specifically in a case where the owner is standing next to his field at the time of the acquisition, so that it has the halakhic status of a secured courtyard.

וְתִקְנֵי לֵיהּ שָׂדֵהוּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: חֲצֵרוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם קוֹנָה לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ!

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But shouldn’t his field effect acquisition of the animal for him even without him standing next to it? As Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: A person’s courtyard effects acquisition of property for him even without his knowledge.

הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּחָצֵר הַמִּשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת, אֲבָל חָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ מִשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת, אִי עוֹמֵד בְּצַד שָׂדֵהוּ – אִין, אִי לָא – לָא.

The Gemara answers: This statement applies only to a secured courtyard, where items remain in the courtyard without supervision. But with regard to an unsecured courtyard, if the owner is standing next to his field, yes, it effects acquisition of ownerless items on his behalf, but if he is not, it does not effect acquisition of items on his behalf.

וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא דְּחָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ מִשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת, אִי עוֹמֵד בְּצַד שָׂדֵהוּ – אִין, אִי לָא – לָא?

The Gemara asks: And from where do you say that in the case of an unsecured courtyard, if the owner is standing next to his field, yes, it effects acquisition of ownerless items on his behalf, but if he is not, it does not effect acquisition of items on his behalf?

דְּתַנְיָא: הָיָה עוֹמֵד בָּעִיר וְאוֹמֵר, ״יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁעוֹמֶר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בַּשָּׂדֶה פּוֹעֲלִים שְׁכֵחוּהוּ – לֹא יְהֵא שִׁכְחָה״, יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא שִׁכְחָה – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְשָׁכַחְתָּ עֹמֶר בַּשָּׂדֶה״, ״בַּשָּׂדֶה וְשָׁכַחְתָּ״ – וְלֹא בָּעִיר.

As it is taught in a baraita: There is a case where a landowner was standing in the town and saying: I know that my laborers forgot a sheaf that I have in the field, which I had intended for the laborers to bring in, but since I remember it, it shall not be considered a forgotten sheaf, which must be left for the poor. Then, the landowner himself forgot about the sheaf. In this case, one might have thought that it is not considered a forgotten sheaf. To counter this, the verse states: “When you reap your harvest in your field, and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to fetch it; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow” (Deuteronomy 24:19). It is derived from here that the phrase: “And have forgotten” applies “in the field,” but not in the town.

הָא גּוּפַהּ קַשְׁיָא: אָמְרַתְּ יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא שִׁכְחָה – אַלְמָא הָוֵי שִׁכְחָה, וְנָסֵיב לַהּ תַּלְמוּדָא ״בַּשָּׂדֶה וְשָׁכַחְתָּ״ וְלֹא בָּעִיר, אַלְמָא לָא הָוֵי שִׁכְחָה!

The Gemara clarifies: This baraita itself is difficult. First you said that one might have thought that it is not considered a forgotten sheaf, so apparently the tanna seeks to prove that it is considered a forgotten sheaf. And then the baraita adduces the derivation that the phrase “and have forgotten” applies only “in the field,” but not in the town, which apparently means that a sheaf forgotten by the owner while he is in the town is not considered a forgotten sheaf.

אֶלָּא לָאו הָכִי קָאָמַר: בַּשָּׂדֶה – שָׁכוּחַ מֵעִיקָּרוֹ הָוֵי שִׁכְחָה, זָכוּר וּלְבַסּוֹף שָׁכוּחַ אֵין שִׁכְחָה, מַאי טַעְמָא – דְּכֵיוָן דְּקָאֵי גַּבַּהּ, הָוְיָא לַיהּ חֲצֵרוֹ וְזָכְתָה לֵיהּ.

Rather, isn’t this what the tanna is saying: In a case where the owner is in the field, if the sheaf was forgotten at the outset, it is considered a forgotten sheaf; but if it was remembered at first and was ultimately forgotten, it does not assume the status of a forgotten sheaf? What is the reason for this distinction? The reason is that since he is standing in the field, beside the sheaf, his field is tantamount to his courtyard, and his courtyard effects acquisition of the sheaf for him once he remembers it.

אֲבָל בָּעִיר, אֲפִילּוּ זָכוּר וּלְבַסּוֹף שָׁכוּחַ – הָוְיָא שִׁכְחָה. מַאי טַעְמָא – דְּלֵיתֵיהּ גַּבֵּיהּ דְּלִזְכֵּי לֵיהּ.

But in a case where the owner is in the town, even if the sheaf was remembered and ultimately forgotten, it is considered a forgotten sheaf and must be left for the poor. What is the reason for this? It is because the owner is not beside it, which is necessary for his courtyard to effect acquisition of the sheaf for him. Evidently, an item that is in a person’s courtyard is acquired by him only if he is standing next to the courtyard.

מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא גְּזֵירַת הַכָּתוּב הִיא, דְּבַשָּׂדֶה נֶהֱוֵי שִׁכְחָה וּבָעִיר לָא נֶהֱוֵי שִׁכְחָה!

The Gemara rejects this proof: From where can it be proven that this is the reason? Perhaps the baraita should be understood in a different manner: It is a Torah edict that if the owner is in the field, it is considered a forgotten sheaf, but if the owner is in the town, it is not considered a forgotten sheaf and does not need to be left for the poor. Accordingly, the distinction would not be derived from the halakhot of acquisition.

אָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא תָּשׁוּב לְקַחְתּוֹ״, לְרַבּוֹת שִׁכְחַת הָעִיר.

The Gemara responds that the verse states: “You shall not go back to take it” (Deuteronomy 24:19), which is interpreted to include sheaves forgotten while the owner is in the town. Evidently, there is no fundamental difference between a town and the field with regard to the halakhot of forgotten sheaves; rather, the distinction is due to the fact that one cannot acquire a sheaf by means of his courtyard if he is not standing next to the courtyard.

הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְלָאו!

The Gemara challenges: This phrase is necessary to impose a prohibition upon one who takes his sheaf after he forgot it, instead of leaving it for the poor. It is therefore not superfluous and cannot be interpreted as including an additional case.

אִם כֵּן נֵימָא קְרָא ״לֹא תִּקָּחֶנּוּ״, מַאי ״לֹא תָּשׁוּב״ – לְרַבּוֹת שִׁכְחַת הָעִיר.

The Gemara answers: If so, if the verse serves only that purpose, let the verse say: You shall not take it. What is added by the phrase: “You shall not go back to take it”? It is written to include sheaves forgotten while the owner is in the town.

וְאַכַּתִּי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, לִכְדִתְנַן: שֶׁלְּפָנָיו – אֵין שִׁכְחָה, שֶׁלְּאַחֲרָיו – יֵשׁ שִׁכְחָה, שֶׁהוּא בְּבַל תָּשׁוּב.

The Gemara challenges: But the phrase “you shall not go back” is still necessary for that which we learned in a mishna (Pe’a 7:4): While a landowner collects the sheaves from his field, any sheaf that remains before him, as he has not reached it yet, does not assume the status of a forgotten sheaf, even if he has forgotten about its existence. Any sheaf that is already behind him has the status of a forgotten sheaf, as the prohibition of: You shall not go back, applies.

זֶה הַכְּלָל: כֹּל שֶׁהוּא בְּבַל תָּשׁוּב – שִׁכְחָה, כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּבַל תָּשׁוּב – אֵינוֹ שִׁכְחָה!

This is the principle: Any sheaf to which the prohibition of: You shall not go back, applies, as one would need to retrace his steps in order to retrieve the sheaf, assumes the status of a forgotten sheaf; and any sheaf to which the prohibition of: You shall not go back, does not apply, i.e., a sheaf that one has yet to reach, does not assume the status of a forgotten sheaf. The phrase “You shall not go back” is apparently necessary to teach this halakha, and it cannot be interpreted as including a case where the owner is in the town.

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, אָמַר קְרָא ״יִהְיֶה״ – לְרַבּוֹת שִׁכְחַת הָעִיר.

Rav Ashi said that the inclusion of this case is derived from another phrase in the verse. The verse states: “It shall be” (Deuteronomy 24:19), which is interpreted to include sheaves forgotten while the owner is in the town. Therefore, the Gemara’s initial interpretation of the baraita is accepted, leading to the conclusion that the distinction between a case where the owner is in the field and a case where he is in the town is due to the halakha that one’s courtyard can effect acquisition of property for him only if he is next to the courtyard, as Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel.

וְכֵן אָמַר עוּלָּא: וְהוּא שֶׁעוֹמֵד בְּצַד שָׂדֵהוּ. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: וְהוּא שֶׁעוֹמֵד בְּצַד שָׂדֵהוּ.

And Ulla also says that the acquisition mentioned in the mishna is effective specifically in a case where the owner is standing next to his field. And Rabba bar bar Ḥana also says that the acquisition is effective specifically in a case where he is standing next to his field.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא לְעוּלָּא: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וּזְקֵנִים שֶׁהָיוּ בָּאִים בִּסְפִינָה. אָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: עִישּׂוּר שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לָמוֹד נָתוּן לִיהוֹשֻׁעַ,

Rabbi Abba raised an objection to Ulla from that which is taught in a mishna (Ma’aser Sheni 5:9): There was an incident involving Rabban Gamliel and other Elders, who were traveling on a ship. Since he remembered that he had not tithed the produce of his fields, Rabban Gamliel said to the others: One-tenth of my produce, which I will measure out in the future and separate from my produce, is given to Yehoshua ben Ḥananya, who is a Levite and is entitled to receive the first tithe,