Bet Shammai says: [That which is] made ownerless only in regard to the poor is indeed ownerless. But Bet Hillel says: it is not ownerless unless ownership is renounced even for the rich, as in the case of the sabbatical year. [If] all of the sheaves in a field are a kav each, and one is four kavs and that one is forgotten: Bet Shammai says: it is not considered forgotten. But Bet Hillel says: it is considered forgotten.

A sheaf left near a stone fence, or near a stack [of grain] or near oxen, or near equipment: Bet Shammai says: it is not considered “forgotten”; Bet Hillel says: it is considered “forgotten.”

[With regard to sheaves forgotten] at the end of the row, the sheaf lying across from it proves [that the first sheaf has not been forgotten.] [As for] a sheaf that [the owner] took to bring it to the city and forgot it, all agree that it is not considered a “forgotten sheaf.”

These are to be considered ends of the rows:If two men begin [to gather] from the middle of the row, one facing north and the other south and they forget [some sheaves] in front of them and behind them, those left in front of them are “forgotten,” but those left behind them are not “forgotten.” If an individual begins from the end of the row and he forgets [some sheaves] in front of him and behind him, those in front of him are not “forgotten”, whereas those behind him are “forgotten,” for this comes under the category of “you shall not go back [to retrieve it].” This is the general rule: anything that can be said to fall under the law “you shall not go back” is considered “forgotten,” but that to which the principle of “you shall not go back” cannot be applied is not considered “forgotten.”

Two sheaves [left lying together] are “forgotten,” but three are not “forgotten.” Two bundles of olives or carobs are “forgotten” but three are not “forgotten.” Two flax-stalks are “forgotten”, but three are not “forgotten”. Two grapes are considered “grape gleanings,” but three are not “grape gleanings.” Two ears of grain are deemed “gleanings,” but three are not gleanings.” All these [rulings] are according to Bet Hillel. And concerning them all Bet Shammai says that three [that are left] belong to the poor, and four belong to the owner.

A sheaf that has two seahs and he forgot it it is not considered “forgotten.” Two sheaves that together comprise two seahs: Rabban Gamaliel says: they belong to the owner; But the sages say: they belong to the poor. Rabban Gamaliel said: “Are the rights of the owner strengthened or weakened according to the greater number of the sheaves?” They replied, “His rights are strengthened.” He said to them: “If in a case of one sheaf of two seahs it is not deemed “forgotten,” then how much more should be the case of two sheaves that together contain two seahs?” They replied: “No. If you argue in the case of one sheaf it is because it is large enough to be considered a stack. Are you going to argue likewise in the case of two sheaves which are like bundles?”

A standing stalk of grain that contains two seahs and he forgot it, it is not considered “forgotten.” If it does not contain two seahs now, but is fit to yield two seahs, even if it was of an inferior kind of barley, it is regarded as full barley [grains].

A standing stalk of grain can save a sheaf and another standing stalk [from being regarded as “forgotten”]. A sheaf cannot save either another sheaf or a standing stalk. What is the standing stalk of grain that can save a sheaf? Anything which has not been forgotten, even though it is a single stalk.

A seah of plucked grain and a seah of unplucked grain, and also trees; and garlic and to onions do not combine to count as two seahs, but rather they must be left to the poor. Rabbi Yose says: if anything that belongs to the poor comes in between them, the two are not combined together; otherwise, they do combine.

One who harvests by night and binds sheaves [by night] or one who is blind [that which he leaves] is subject to the law of the “forgotten.” If he intends to remove large leaves first, then the law of “forgotten” does not apply. If he said: “Behold, I am reaping on the condition that I take afterwards that which I have forgotten,” the law of “forgotten” still applies.