Your "Thoughts on the Daily Daf" for BM 11a, presents a machloches Rashi and Tosefos on the meaning of "zachur ulebesof shachuach". Rashi (DH Ela Lav), according to your presentation, interpretes "zachur ulebesof shachuach" as ,eamomg that the owner never forgot, but the workers eventually forgot.
My questions are:
(a) Which meforshim (achronim or rishonim) explain Rashi in this manner that the owner never forgets?
(b) What is the nafka mina of the machloches rashi vs. tosefos here. I could think of one: when owner is in the city, and he remembers the sheaf, but the field workers forget: according to Rashi the sheaf is instantly mammon aniyim and the aniyim can then take the sheaf. But according to Tosefos, the aniyim cannot take the sheaf until the owner himself in the city also forgets.
Similarly when the owner is in the field, and he forgets the sheaf, then, according to Rashi, the sheaf is instantly the mammon aniyim and the aniyim can take the sheaf. But here, according to Tosefos, the aniyim must wait until the workers also forget the sheaf before they can take it.
Thank you very much.
Daniel Feinberg, USA
(a) This explanation is apparent from Rashi himself since Rashi explains that Shachu'ach means that the workers forgot it, and not that he forgot it, like Tosfos. Also the next Rashi says that Zachar uliva'Sof Shachu'ach means "even if he remembers", so we see that Rashi learns this is the meaning of Zachur uliva'Sof Shachuach. See Rebbi Akiva Eiger Pe'ah (5:7) who brings this p'shat in the name of the Bartenura and the Pri Chadash. The Ritvah and other Rishonim explain Rashi differently.
(b) Your Nafka Minos are correct.
Dov Freedman
Thank you for your cogent, substantive reply. As I understand your pshat in Rashi: when the gemora says ulevasof shachuach , this means the workers forgot in the end, and the owner never forgot (whether we are speaking in a case that he is in the fireld still or in the case where he is already in the city).
I wonder how you respond to this question on the pshat you propose in Rashi?
1. In Rashi DH Ela lav, you write: Shachu'ach means that the workers forgot it, and not that he forgot
it, like Tosfos. If so, why does Rashi use the language ulvasof shacho al yidei poalim ? Why al yedei ? Why did Rashi not write simply, ulbesof shachu paulim?
2. In svara, when the owner is in the field, how could the sheaf become property of the poor if ONLY the workers forgot it? If he still remembers it, and he is in the field, does it make sense that the Torah would still remove it from his property and give it to the poor while he is in the field? I understand when he is in the city, then only the workers count, but when he is in the field how could sheaf go to the poor despite the fact that he remembers the sheaf?
3. Regarding my proposed nafka mina:
Case: when owner is in the city, and he remembers the sheaf,
but the field workers forget:
Din: according to Rashi the sheaf is instantly mammon aniyim and the aniyim can then take the sheaf.
But according to Tosefos, the aniyim cannot take the sheaf until the owner himself in the city also forgets.
I understand the practicality of the halacha according to Rashi, but the halacha here according to Tosefos seems impractical. How will the poor know whether the owner in the city has mentally forgotten the sheaf? And if somehow they do know he has forgotten, and they do take a sheaf, then how do we resolve a case when he is told that the poor are taking a sheaf his workers forgot, and he goes to bais din to claim that in actuallity he never forgot the sheaf? How the poor ever win such a case in Tosefos s shita? It seems the owner can always claim that he never forgot the sheaf.
Thank you very much.
Yours b chovod,
Daniel
(1) Since the Gemara uses the term "Shachu'ach", meaning "It was forgotten" and not "Shachach", meaning he (according to Rashi the worker) or "Shachachu" they (the workers) forgot, Rashi explains this as "It was forgotten by the workers" and not that the workers forgot. Rashi still wanted to write that at the end of the day the one who is keeping the laws of Shichachah by leaving the produce for the workers is the owner so he wrote "Shachecho".
(2) I do not understand what you are asking here. The Gemara says that if the owner is in his field then we do not consider it to be Shichachah unless the owner forgot the produce as well. Please clarify.
(3) Of course you mean when the owner originally remembered the sheaf in the field after the workers had forgotten it, then the sheaf is not considered Shichachah until the owner forgets it in the city. You are right that it is difficult for the poor people to know whether the sheaf is actually Shichachah or not, but Shichachah is a Mitzvah on the owner to leave the forgotten sheaves for the poor, and we would have to rely on him to give it. In fact every time someone harvests his field and forgets sheaves he could claim that he never really forgot them but intended to return to collect them.
Dov Freedman