כב איתיביה רבי אבא לעולא מעשה ברבן גמליאל וזקנים שהיו באים בספינה אמר רבן גמליאל עישור שאני עתיד למוד נתון ליהושע
22 For what reason? Because he is not there beside it, so that [the field] does not require possession [of the sheaf] for him. But how does it follow?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the meaning of the verse is as stated, and that the conclusion of the Baraitha is correct (Tosaf.). ');"><sup>21</sup></span> Perhaps it is a Biblical decree that [only that which is forgotten by the owner while he is] in the field shall be subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf, but that [when the owner is] in town [again] the sheaf is no more subject to that law?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The emphasis in the verse would then be that the law of the forgotten sheaf only applies to [H] ('in the field') but never to [H] ('in the town'). ');"><sup>22</sup></span> The Scriptural verse says [further]: Thou shalt not go back to fetch it — this is to include the sheaf which has been forgotten [by the owner on his return] to town. But is not this needed to indicate that disregard of the law involves the transgression of a negative command?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Carrying with it the penalty of thirty-nine lashes. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> — If that were so, the Scriptural verse would only have to say 'Thou shalt not fetch it'. Why does it say: 'Thou shalt not go back'? [Obviously] in order to include the sheaf which has been forgotten [by the owner on his return] to town. But is not this [additional phrase] still required for [the rule] which we have learned: That which is in front of him [who is engaged in reaping] is not [subject to the law of the] forgotten [sheaf]; that which is behind him is [subject to the law of the] forgotten [sheaf], as it is included in the prohibition: 'Thou shalt not go back [to fetch it]'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This phrase is superfluous and thus serves as a basis for this deduction. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> This is the general rule: All that can be included in the prohibition 'Thou shalt not go back [to fetch it]' is [subject to the law of the] forgotten [sheaf]; all that cannot be included in the prohibition 'Thou shalt not go back [to fetch it]' is not [subject to the law of the] forgotten [sheaf]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pe'ah VI, 4. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> — R. Ashi said: The Scriptural verse says: It shall be [for the stranger]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. ibid. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> etc., so as to include that which has been forgotten [by the owner when he is back] in town. 'Ulla also said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Ulla expressed the same view as Rab Judah expressed in the name of Samuel (v. p. 59. n. 9). ');"><sup>27</sup></span> 'This is, provided that he is present by the side of his field'. And Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said likewise: 'This is, provided that he is present by the side of his field'. R. Abba placed before 'Ulla the following objection: It happened once that Rabban Gamaliel and some elders were going in a ship.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Hor. (Sonc. ed) pp. 70f. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> Rabban Gamaliel then said: The tithe which I shall measure off [when I come home] is given [by me] to Joshua.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Joshua b. Hananiah, who was a Levite and was entitled to receive the first tithe. (Cf. 'Ar. 11b.) Rabban Gamaliel was afraid that if he waited till he returned home he would be too late to perform the duty of tithing for that year. [Or that the members of his household might make use of the produce on the assumption that he had set the tithe aside before his departure, incurring thereby the guilt of eating untithed produce]. According to the view of Rabbenu Tam (Tosaf. a.l. and Kid. 26b) this happened on the eve of the Passover festival of the fourth year, when all the tithe offerings had to be 'put away' (cf. Deut. XXVI, 12ff.) ');"><sup>29</sup></span>