טו ברבית קצוצה קמיפלגי וכדרבי אלעזר דא"ר אלעז' רבית קצוצה יוצאה בדיינין
15 If he did not separate from the standing corn, he separates from the sheaves. If he did not separate from the sheaves, he separates from the pile [of grain] before he evens it. If he has evened it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When it becomes subject to tithes and terumah.');"><sup>30</sup></span> he tithes it and then gives pe'ah to him [the poor man]. In the name of R'Ishmael it was said: He also separates from the dough?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the change of name from grain does not give him ownership so as to exempt him from pe'ah. The Rabbis, however, differ from R. Ishmael and hold that the change in the name makes it exempt from pe'ah; v. B.K. 94a.');"><sup>31</sup></span> This refutes Abaye?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who says that a forbidden act has a legal effect. The difficulty will arise if we accept the view of the Rabbis, for since he has not separated pe'ah from the standing corn, he transgresses a negative command. He ought then, according to Abaye, to be exempt from pe'ah, as a forbidden act is valid. The difficulty will even more certainly arise according to Abaye, if we adopt the view of R. Ishmael, for he goes even further than the Rabbis as regards the duty of giving pe'ah. V. Sh. Mek.');"><sup>32</sup></span> - Abaye can answer you: The case is different there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With reference to pe'ah.');"><sup>33</sup></span> since Scripture says: Thou shalt leave,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 10.');"><sup>34</sup></span> [and again] thou shalt leave<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXIII, 22.');"><sup>35</sup></span> as redundant.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The extra text therefore teaches us that although the grain has changed in his possession, he does not acquire possession of it, and is still bound to separate pe'ah and to leave it for the poor.');"><sup>36</sup></span> And Raba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds that a forbidden act is not valid. What will he do with the additional text 'thou shalt leave'?');"><sup>37</sup></span> - He can answer you:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The object of the extra text 'thou shalt leave' is to teach the following.');"><sup>38</sup></span> There is another case of 'leaving' similar to this. And what is it? It is the case of one wh renounces ownership of his vineyard, for it was taught: If one renounces ownership of his vineyard and wakes in the morning and harvests it, he is bound to give peret,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Grapes fallen off during cutting, v. Pe'ah VIII, 3.');"><sup>39</sup></span> the defective grapecluster,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. 'oleloth; which belong to the poor, v. ibid 4.');"><sup>40</sup></span> the forgotten sheaf<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which also belongs to the poor. And although in the normal way renunciation of ownership exempts from the duty of giving all these things to the poor, this kind of renunciation does not exempt, on account of the additional command 'thou shalt leave' mentioned in connection with peret, pe'ah, etc.');"><sup>41</sup></span> and pe'ah, but he is exempt from tithe.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in connection with tithes there is no text 'thou shalt leave'.');"><sup>42</sup></span> Said R'Aha the son of Raba to R'Ashi: And now that you have given all these [various] answers,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraithas and the Mishnahs quoted above in the Gemara either as questioning Abaye's or Raba's dictum, as the case may be, and the replies of each of these teachers explaining that, although elsewhere they maintain their own view on the subject as to whether a forbidden act has a legal effect or otherwise, the case of the particular Baraitha or Mishnah adduced was different, inasmuch as there existed a text to render it an exception.');"><sup>43</sup></span> wherein do Abaye and Raba really differ? - They differ in the case of stipulated usury<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the creditor arranges for a fixed amount as interest on loan. Abaye will hold that the action is valid and therefore the interest would not be reclaimed, in spite of transgressing the negative command relating to usury. Raba, however, will hold that the action has no legal effect and the interest therefore must be returned.');"><sup>44</sup></span> and will be on the lines of R'Eleazar's [statement]. For R'Eleazar said: Stipulated usury can be reclaimed through the judges,