Welcome again to the series of lectures concerning the explanation of the differences of opinion between the school of שמאי and the school of הלל. And just to recap the main point of our discussion, that even though they argue in many many different subjects in Talmudic Jewish law, there is one underlying thought that is the reason for their differences of opinion. And as I stressed in the previous times, I will stress again, that even though they are different subjects altogether, and there might be other reasons why each one would have, would hold his opinion, but there's definitely one underlying thread that is the source of their differences of opinion in their different subjects. So so far we brought a few different subjects the first other class, and now we will continue with different examples to show where we see the differences of opinion of בית שמאי and בית הלל are based on whether we follow the בכח or the בפועל, which means, and I repeat again, do we follow the potential potential stage, or do we follow the actuality of the stage, the way it is in actuality? And שמאי holds that we always follow the בכח, and therefore, whenever there is a question what the law should be, so he, they base it on the theory of בכח, and בית הלל bases it on the theory of בפועל. So here we're going to have another example, and that is in the tractate פאה, which is in the first order of the six orders of the משניות of the תלמוד, which is in the order, the זרעים, the סדר called זרעים, deals with plants and things that have to do, laws that have to do with plants and agriculture and things like that. The argument of בית שמאי and בית הלל that we will learn now will be as follows. It is concerning an interesting מצוה called שכחה. Many people are not familiar with what that means. Actually, the Hebrew word שכחה means to forget. Now what kind of מצוה can there be in forgetting? Well, this falls under the category of מתנות עניים. מתנות עניים means presents that we have to give to the poor people. We know that in the תורה, God commands us to provide for the people who are in need. First and foremost of of the הלכה, the laws of providing for the poor, is צדקה, charity, we know, people have to give charity. But then there are more things that it says a person has to give to the poor people. I mentioned in the other class, there is מעשר. I didn't mention it actually, it's I mentioned מעשר שני, but there is a concept called מעשר עני, a certain amount of the crop that you have to give certain years of the cycle, of the seven-year cycle, whatever it is, you have to give to the poor people. But then there's one more מצוה. Besides the others. One מצוה actually is פאה. It's good to mention, because this tractate is called פאה. פאה means that when you cut your field, when you take, when you take off the fruit or whatever it is, you've got to leave a corner, an end, and that, not to take off, and that stays for the poor people. But then there's another הלכה called שכחה. That means when you gather the bundles of wheat or whatever grain you have, and you put them into bundles, and you take them from the field and you take them to the storage house, if you forget one in the field, you're not allowed to take it. You have to leave it there for the poor people. That's the דין. That's called שכחה. You have to leave it there. If you leave the field and you take everything, and you reminded yourself or you noticed later that there was one bundle of wheat that you forgot, you're not allowed to take it. It's probably the only מצוה that you could only fulfill if you forget. Most מצוות, any commandment you do, you have to consciously do the מצוה. Here's one מצוה that you could only do if you're not conscious of it. If you forget the bundle, you have to leave it there and goes to the poor people. And actually used to be that in those years that poor people would come to every field after the end of the season and they would look, and if they would find one bundle, they know it's theirs, they could take it. In addition to other types of מתנות עניים, presents that were supposed to be given to the poor or left for the poor. Now, if you leave four bundles, if you leave over four bundles, which means you forget four bundles, automatically that doesn't fall under the category, the law of שכחה. Only if you forget one, two, or three. But if you forget four, that's too much already, and there the law is that you're able to take it, you don't have to leave it for the poor people. Only if you forget a small amount, which is one, two, and three. But if you forget a whole bunch, starting from four, that's not really considered forgetting, because it's like you didn't take a whole certain part that you didn't take yet. So then it doesn't turn into what we call שכחה, which is the term used for a forgotten bundle, and that doesn't belong to the poor and then you're allowed to take it. So here in the sixth chapter of the tractate פאה, the first משנה, it says like this: כל עמרי השדה של קב קב. If all the bundles of the field are made up of a קב. A קב is a certain measurement. Let's use the example of a pound, 10 pounds, just to make it easier for our discussion. You bundled all the bundles in 10 pounds each, which is a קב, let's say. ואחד של ארבעת קבין. And one bundle, you made a big one. And this one bundle has four קבין, which, if we use our numbers, let's say you have it has 40 pounds of wheat there. ושכחו, and you forgot it. בית שמאי אומרים, בית שמאי say, אינו שכחה. It's not שכחה. Even though you forgot one bundle, and we said if you forget one bundle, it has a law of שכחה that you're not allowed to come and take it, it has to be left for the poor people. בית שמאי says this is not שכחה, even though it's one. Why? Because it's made up of four, equivalent to others that you have in the field, which are this is four times as much. This is one bundle, which is equivalent of four bundles. It's not שכחה. ובית הלל אומרים, and בית הלל say, שכחה. It is שכחה, and you do have to leave it for the poor people. Now, there are different explanations in the commentaries about what is the reason of the argument between the school of שמאי and the school of הלל. According to one of the opinions, it's because בית שמאי holds since all other bundles are made up of one קב, which we said is let's say 10 pounds, this one bundle that's bigger and is four times as much, really we look at it as four separate bundles. Because what do we expect the person will do, or what can be done here? Since this person likes or has bundles of a קב of 10 pounds, eventually, probably he will separate it and make it into four separate bundles. So בית שמאי says we look at it as if he left four bundles. And we said before that if you leave four bundles, it's not שכחה. And בית הלל says, \"No, we don't look at it that way. Look at what is it now. It is a bundle. It's one bundle, and if it's one bundle, there is a דין שכחה.\" What does that mean? Very simple. בית שמאי says we follow the בכח, we look in the potential. And in potential, this is four. In actuality, it's not four, it's one bundle. And the law is that if you have one bundle, it is שכחה. But since in potential this is like four bundles, we consider it four bundles, and therefore it is not שכחה. And בית הלל says, \"No, we don't consider it that way.\" And because בית שמאי says we follow the בכח, we follow the potential, this is in potential called four bundles, and that's why the law is that this is considered four bundles, and it is not שכחה, you do not have to leave it. בית הלל says we follow the בפועל, and in this case, the בפועל it is one bundle, and if it's one bundle, it is שכחה, and that's why בית שמאי בית הלל says it is שכחה. Here again, it is pretty clear. It sounds like we're getting clearer that we see actually how this is the way they were thinking. Then there is another משנה, actually the next משנה, which is going to be a similar idea, also talks about the מצוה of שכחה, and that's משנה ב, the second משנה in the same sixth פרק of the tractate פאה. העומר שהוא סמוך לגפה, if you have a bundle that's next to the fence, ולגדיש, or next to the pile of wheat, לבקר, next to the place where you keep your cattle, ולכלים, next to the instruments that you use to plow or to gather the wheat or whatever it is, ושכחו, you left a bundle in one of these places, next to the fence, next to the the pile of wheat, next to the place where you keep the animals, next to the instruments, and you forgot it there. בית שמאי אומרים אינו שכחה. בית שמאי says that's not שכחה, it's not called forgotten, so to speak, and therefore, you do not have to leave it for the עניים, for the poor people, you can take it. ובית הלל אומרים, בית הלל say, שכחה. It is considered שכחה. It is considered forgotten, and therefore, you do have to leave it. Here again, there are different interpretations in the commentaries. One of the main commentaries on the משניות actually is called the רב, רב, ריש, the Hebrew letters ריש, עין, בית, בית, רב. Not doesn't mean רב, like a teacher is a רב. This is an abbreviation: רבינו עובדיה ברטנורא. The person who wrote that, his name was עובדיה, רבי עובדיה, and he lived in the city of ברטנורא. So his commentary is called the רב, the commentary of the ברטנורא. So he gives commentary and different different ways of explaining these different משניות. So one of the ways they explain this משנה here, that why would בית שמאי say that if you leave it next to the fence or you leave it next to the instruments, it's not שכחה? We're not talking here about leaving a specially big bundle like we said before, it's a regular bundle like the rest and you left them in that area, so why would it not be שכחה? Why בית הלל says it's שכחה makes sense. Why not? It's like any other bundle. But why does בית שמאי say it's not? So one of the explanations they give is because since you left it in a place which is, we call it a מקום מסוים, a specific place, a place which stands out, you will eventually remember. If you leave it סתם plain in the middle of the field, you'll probably never remember. I mean if you come back, you'll see it, you'll remember, but you left and that's it. But if you have something that you put down next to a specific place, you will eventually remind yourself because that's a place which is a important place, whether it's the fence that blocks the field or it's the place of the בקר which is the cattle, where that's where your stable is or next to the instruments, these are special Any thing you put down there is something that's closer to your memory and therefore you will eventually remember. So בית שמאי says because you will eventually remember, it is not שכחה. And בית הלל says we don't care that you'll eventually remember, you forgot now. The law is that if you forget it, it has a דין of שכחה. And here again we see exactly how this follows the line of thought that we said before. בית שמאי who follows בכח says: Since potentially this is remembered, it's not forgotten. In actuality it's forgotten, you don't remember it, but potentially you will remember. Since בית שמאי follows the בכח, בית שמאי says this is considered remembered and therefore בית שמאי says this is not שכחה and you don't leave it. While בית הלל says, since we follow the actuality, the בפועל, בפועל it's forgotten, so this has a דין of שכחה. Then we will go to another example, also in the same order of the six משניות which is זרעים, and this is another הלכה in the tractate called מעשר שני, which deals with other הלכות of מעשר שני. And this needs an introduction. And this is going to be in the third chapter of מעשר שני, the sixth משנה. And here I have it needs an introduction exactly to understand what מעשר שני is, what you have to do with מעשר שני, and the different laws that are concerning מעשר שני. As I said before, when the crop grows, there are certain amount that you have to take off and there are certain things you have to do with it. As I mentioned, you have to take off a certain amount and we call that תרומה that's given to the כהנים, to the priests. And תרומה is has a special holiness in it and only a כהן, a priest could eat it, and he could only eat it if he's not טמא, as we said before there's the concept of טומאה of impurity, and that belongs to the כהן. Then we have מעשר ראשון. You take off a tenth. תרומה is not a tenth, תרומה is in an average of 2% of the crop, let's say you have 100 pounds, you take off 2 pounds and you give it to the כהן, that's תרומה. Then you have מעשר ראשון is a tenth, it's called מעשר, comes from the word עשר which means 10, it's a tenth. You take off a tenth of what's leftover, so if you have 98 leftover, you take off 9.8, and that you give to the לויים. The לויים were the Levites who also worked in the holy temple, also were not occupied, didn't get a share in the land of Israel, and therefore they didn't have a way to make a living. So השם said, God said, \"Give them,\" just like He said give תרומה to the כהן and that's part of his salary so to speak, the לויים get the מעשר ראשון. מעשר ראשון is not holy, it doesn't have any special קדושה and holiness, it just belongs to the לוי and it's the לוי's property. Then you would take another tenth of what's leftover, and that's called מעשר שני. And you could see right away why it's called מעשר שני, because you take off a tenth first and another tenth, so the first tenth is called מעשר ראשון, ראשון means the first, the first tenth, מעשר שני is called the second tenth. What happens to the food, the crop that you take off for מעשר שני? So the law is like this: interesting interesting law. You don't give it to anybody, you keep it to yourself. And what's the purpose? The food that's taken off as מעשר שני has a level of קדושה, of holiness. And you could only eat the מעשר שני in ירושלים. You have to take all the food that was taken off as מעשר שני, you got to take it to ירושלים. And in ירושלים, you would eat it. And you also have to be טהור, you cannot be טמא when you eat it. Then the תורה says like this: what happens if a person has too much, he can't schlepp everything, take everything to ירושלים? So the דין is that you're allowed to exchange the מעשר שני that you have for money. And automatically, that food that was originally מעשר שני has no קדושה anymore, becomes regular food, but the money that you have now instead, that money now has the status of מעשר שני. You take that money to ירושלים, in ירושלים, you would use that money to buy food. And every time you bought some food with that money, the holiness, the קדושה would transfer from the money, and the money would become, we call it חול, regular money, and the food becomes מעשר שני, and all the laws of מעשר שני would apply. Just by the way, just to mention to make it more understandable, what's the purpose of this מצוה? We understand the purpose of giving תרומה to a כהן so he should have from what to live, give the מעשר ראשון to the לוי. Then at certain times you had to give מעשר עני, a tenth, and you would give it to the poor people. We understand that, too, they should have from what to live. But what's the purpose of מעשר שני? So it says the purpose of מעשר שני is because God wanted that from time to time a Jew should go up to ירושלים, and have to spend quite a few days there, quite a time there, in order to see what goes on in ירושלים, in the holy city. And if you stay there for a while, the person would absorb the holiness of the city, the holiness of the Holy Temple, and when he'd come back to his city, he would have a lot of קדושה within him to be able to continue his life in a holy way. So that's why God made this מצוה. Okay, this is what מעשר שני is. But then there is a law, another law. If you took the מעשר שני, you didn't exchange it for money, you took the מעשר שני as it is, and you brought it to ירושלים, now you can't exchange it anymore for money. Only before you took it to ירושלים you could exchange it, but after it came into ירושלים, now you can't exchange it for money anymore. What happens if a person took not the מעשר שני, but he took a whole bunch of his crop that grew before he separated the מעשר שני, and he brought it into ירושלים? So this wasn't מעשר שני yet. Can he still exchange the מעשר שני for money? Obviously, he will have to take it out of ירושלים, because in ירושלים, when it's there already, when the מעשר שני is in ירושלים, that's it, you can't exchange it, that's the law. So if a person bought brought מעשר שני into ירושלים, you can't exchange it. If a person brought food into ירושלים before the מעשר שני was separated, and then he separated it in ירושלים, you also can't exchange it, because now already it's in ירושלים, it's exchange it's already מעשר שני. But what happens he took the food in before he took off מעשר שני, and it's in ירושלים already. Then he took the whole thing out, and now he separated the מעשר שני, can he exchange the מעשר שני for money or not? And that's a question. And here we have an argument between בית שמאי and בית הלל. They argue like this: פירות שנגמרה מלאכתן, which means the fruit, the crop that was already finished, ready, and you brought it into ירושלים before you separated מעשר שני, שבית שמאי אומרים, בית שמאי say, יחזיר מעשר שני שלהם ויאכל בירושלים. When you take off מעשר שני, even though you took the whole thing out again, and now you separated the מעשר שני, you cannot redeem it. You got to take the מעשר שני into ירושלים. בית הלל אומרים, בית הלל say, יפדה ויאכל בכל מקום. No, you can, if you brought in all the food into ירושלים before you separate מעשר שני, and then you took it out, you could now separate the מעשר שני outside, and you could exchange it. And what is the reason for the argument? And again, this sounds a little bit complicated, so I'll try to just recap exactly what the argument is about. The law is that when you have this food which is in the category of מעשר שני, which is after you separated the מעשר שני from the whole crop that you have, you could exchange it for money as long as it didn't come into ירושלים. As soon as it came into ירושלים, now you can't exchange it for money. The question here is if you didn't take in the מעשר שני to ירושלים, you took the whole, all the food into ירושלים, מעשר שני was not separated yet, and then you took it out, and outside of ירושלים you separated מעשר שני. Now if you have מעשר שני, it's outside of ירושלים. In outside of ירושלים we are able to exchange that for money, can we exchange this for money and the food will become regular food? And the the basis of the question is, on one hand you could look at it, it was already in ירושלים. When you took in the whole food and this was still part of it, this מעשר שני was already in ירושלים. And we said that if it came to ירושלים already, you can't exchange it. On the other hand, when you took it into ירושלים, it wasn't מעשר שני yet. It was still part of the whole pile. It wasn't separated. You took it out and you separated it then. So now you could say that מעשר שני did not enter ירושלים. So again, בית שמאי says, you cannot redeem it. It has to be eaten in ירושלים as מעשר שני. And בית הלל says, יפדה ויאכל בכל מקום, you could still redeem it, you could exchange it. And the reason for this argument, the תלמוד tells us in מסכת מכות, in another tractate, מכות, called מכות, on page כ עמוד א, which is 20, page 20, the second the first side, the תלמוד gives an explanation for this argument. And the explanation is as follows, and as soon as I will say the explanation of the תלמוד, you will right away see the connection to בכח and בפועל. Before you took off the מעשר שני, in actuality there was no מעשר שני yet. But being that this whole pile contains מעשר שני, you will take off מעשר שני from it. So when you have the whole pile of food, potentially it has מעשר שני in it. Actuality it doesn't, because you didn't take the מעשר שני off yet. And this is the argument: בית שמאי says, we follow the בכח, and since potentially when you took in the whole, the whole thing before you took off מעשר into ירושלים, we look at it, yes, מעשר שני that's there was already in ירושלים, but it wasn't מעשר שני yet, you didn't separate it yet, but potentially it was there to be separated, because if you separate the part that's מעשר שני, before that it was in a potential form. It wasn't separated yet, but you know you're going to separate it, and you know you're going to have to take out, so whatever מעשר שני is there, is there בכח. So בית שמאי says, since we followed the בכח, therefore, at that point when it is בכח מעשר שני, it is potentially מעשר שני, it's already considered מעשר שני. So he says, when they took in the whole food into ירושלים with the מעשר שני part of it without being separated yet, but potentially being מעשר שני, we look at it as if you already took in the מעשר שני. So it's too bad, you took in the מעשר שני, we said before the law is, if you took in the מעשר שני to ירושלים, you cannot redeem it, you cannot exchange it. But בית הלל says, we look at the actuality. In actual in actuality it still was not מעשר שני, so you did not take the מעשר שני in ירושלים. What happened here, you took in the food into ירושלים, you took it out again, and there was no מעשר שני yet. Now you took off the מעשר שני after when it was outside of ירושלים. It's no problem, it's like the same as if you never took it in, and therefore you could still redeem that מעשר שני. So here we have another example of the argument between the school of שמאי and the school of הלל based on the theory or the understanding whether we go בכח or בפועל. And it's in this case, which is again another subject altogether, has nothing to do with the subjects we were talking about before, that here again, בית הלל says, בית שמאי, let's start with בית שמאי says, מתנות, and I'll use the Hebrew words that the תלמוד says, מתנות שלא הורמו כהורמו. That means those מתנות, those presents, those things that you have to take off that were not taken off yet, מתנות, these presents, שלא הורמו, were not taken off, כהורמו, since potentially you will take them off, it's as if it's taken off already. So whatever law applies to, let's say to מעשר שני, will apply also when the מעשר שני was still part of the whole thing because potentially it was. And בית הלל says, מתנות שלא הורמו, שלא הורמו, if it wasn't taken off, it's not taken off, even though potentially it will be. We don't care about the potential stage, and we look at the actuality, at the בפועל, and בפועל it wasn't taken off, so it's not מעשר שני yet, and therefore, all the laws apply to it as if it was not מעשר שני.