"in the field": to exclude (from shikchah) what is hidden (in the ground). These are the words of R. Yehudah. The sages say: "in the field": to include (as shikchah) what is hidden. "in the field": to include standing grain. For (if it were not written "in the field") it would follow (that standing grain was not shikchah), viz.: If a sheaf, where the "power" of the poor man is wanting (i.e., he does not receive a sheaf), he does receive shikchah (i.e., if it is forgotten, it belongs to the poor man), then standing grain, where the "power" of the poor man is strong, (i.e., he does receive leket and peah from it), how much more so should he receive shikchah from it! — (No,) this (i.e., that it is subject to shikchah) may be so with a (remembered) sheaf, which does not "save" (from shikchah) a (forgotten) sheaf (lying near it) or (forgotten) standing grain.
But would you say the same (that it is subject to shikchah) for (remembered) standing grain, which does "save" (from shikchah) a (forgotten) sheaf and forgotten standing grain (that are near it)? (It must, therefore, be written "in the field" to include standing grain as subject to shikchah.)