Jerusalem Talmud Peah Chapter 4

הַפֵּיאָה נִיתֶּנֶת בִּמְחוּבָּר לְקַרְקַע. בְּדָלִית וּבְדֶקֶל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת מוֹרִיד וּמְחַלֵּק לָעֲנִיִים. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר אַף בְּחִילְקֵי אֱגוֹזִים. אֲפִילוּ תִּשְׁעִים וְתִשְׁעָה עֲנִיִים אוֹמְרִין לְחַלֵּק וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר לָבוֹז לְזֶה שׁוֹמְעִין שֶׁאָמַר כַּהֲלָכָה. וּבְדָלִית וּבְדֶקֶל אֵינוֹ כֵן אֲפִילוּ תִּשְׁעִים וְתִשְׁעָה אוֹמְרִין לָבוֹז וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר לְחַלֵּק לְזֶה שׁוֹמְעִין שֶׁאָמַר כַּהֲלָכָה. לֹא תְכַלֶּה פְּאַת שָׂדְךָ בְּקֻצְרֶךָ. מִיכָּן שֶׁהַפֵּיאָה נִיתֶּנֶת בִּמְחוּבָּר לְקַרְקַע. יָכוֹל אֲפִילוּ בְּדָלִית וּבְדֶקֶל תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר קְצִיר מַה קְצִיר מְיוּחָד שֶׁהַקָּטוֹן מוֹשֵׁל בּוֹ כַּגָּדוֹל יָצְאוּ הַדָּלִית וְהַדֶּקֶל שֶׁאֵין הַקָּטֹן מוֹשֵׁל בּוֹ כַּגָּדוֹל. אִית דְּבָעִי מַשְׁמָעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא תַּעֲזוֹב הַנַּח לִפְנֵיהֶן תְּבוּאָה בְּקַשָּׁהּ. תִּלְתָּן בְּעָמִיר תְּמָרִים בִּמְכַבֵּדוֹת. יָכוֹל בְּדָלִית וּבְדֶקֶל כֵּן תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אוֹתָם. מַה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת אֵילּוּ וּלְהוֹצִיא אֶת אֵילּוּ. אַחַר שֶׁרִיבָּה הַכָּתוּב מִיעֵט. מַרְבֶּה אֲנִי אֶת אֵילּוּ שֶׁאֵינָן שֶׁל סַכָּנָה וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי אֶת אֵילּוּ שֶׁהֵן שֶׁל סַכָּנָה. וְאֵינוֹ מְחוּבָּר. אִין תֵּימַר מְחוּבָּר הוּא קוֹרֵא שֵׁם פֵּיאָה לְמַעְלָן. אִין תֵּימַר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחוּבָּר קוֹרֵא שֵׁם פֵּיאָה לְמַטָּן. אִין תֵּימַר קוֹרֵא שֵׁם פֵּאָה לְמַעְלָן הוֹצָאָה מִשֶּׁל עֲנִיִים אִין תֵּימַר קוֹרֵא שֵׁם פֵּאָה מִלְּמַטָּן הוֹצָאָה מִשֶּׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימַר קוֹרֵא שֵׁם פֵּיאָה לְמַעְלָן הִטְרִיחוּ עַל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁתְּהֵא הוֹצָאָה שֶׁלּוֹ מִפְּנֵי הַסַּכָּנָה. תַּנִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי [מֵאִיר] כָּל הָאִילָנוֹת סַכָּנָה. רִבִּי מֵאִיר לֹא דָרַשׁ קָצִיר וְרַבָּנָן דָּרְשֵׁי קָצִיר. כָּל עַמָּא דָּרְשֵׁי קָצִיר אֶלָּא רִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר כָּל אִילָנוֹת סַכָּנָה. וְרַבָּנָן אָמְרֵי אֵין סַכָּנָה אֶלָּא הַדָּלִית וְהַדֶּקֶל בִּלְבָד. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁמֵּתוּ חֲמִשָּׁה אַחִים בְּחֲמִשָּׁה חֲלִיקֵי אֱגוֹזִים. בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁקָּרָא שֵׁם פֵּיאָה וְכִילָּה קוֹרֵא אֲנִי עָלָיו לֹא תְכַלֶּה פְּאַת שָׂדְךָ בְּקֻצְרֶךָ. לֹא קָרָא שֵׁם פֵּיאָה וְכִילָּה קוֹרֵא אֲנִי עָלָיו לֹא תְכַלֶּה פְּאַת שָׂדְךָ בְּקֻצְרֶךָ. הִתְנוּ בֵּינֵיהֶן אֲפִילוּ כֵן אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. בַּעַל הַבַּיִת יְחַלֵּק בְּיָדוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יִרְאֶה לְעָנִי מוֹדַעְתּוֹ וְיַשְׁלִיךְ לְפָנָיו. רִבִי שְמוּאֵל בַּר אֶבוּדַמָא בְּעִי כִּילָּה אֶת שָׂדֵהוּ אַתְּ אֲמַר חָזְרָה פֵּיאָה לָעוֹמָרִין. אֲפִילוּ כֵן בַּעַל הַבַּיִת מְחַלֵּק בְּיָדוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יִרְאֶה לְעָנִי מוֹדַעְתּוֹ וְיַשְׁלִיךְ לְפָנָיו.

MISHNAH: Peah is given connected to the ground. From a climbing vine and a date palm, the owner brings it down and divides it up among the poor. Rebbi Simeon says, also for smooth means trees without branches to hold on to, which cannot safely be harvested without a ladder. nut trees. Even if 99 poor people say to distribute and one says to grab, one listens to him whose request is in keeping with practice. But for a climbing vine and a date palm it is not so; even if 99 say to grab and one says to distribute, one listens to him whose request is in keeping with practice. HALAKHAH: ( Lev . 23:22 ) “Do not finish off the corner of your field during your harvest.” This shows that peah is given standing on the ground. One might think this also includes climbing vine and date palms, but the verse says “harvest.” Harvest is special in that a small person can do it as well as a tall person; this excludes climbing vine and date palm where a small person cannot do it as well as a tall person. Some 2(5–7). want to understand it from the verse ( Lev . 19:10 , 23:22 ) “abandon. 19:10 : “Do not glean in your vineyard, neither collect single berries, abandon them for the poor and the stranger; I am the Eternal, your God.” Lev . 23:22 : “When you are harvesting the harvest of your land, do not finish off the corner of your field during your harvest, neither collect the gleanings of your harvest, abandon them for the poor and the stranger; I am the Eternal, your God.” The implication is that peah has to be given before any further processing. ,” put before them grain in its straw, fenugreek in bundles, dates in brooms. I might think that this also includes climbing vine and date palms, but the verse says “them.” What argument do you have to include these and to exclude those? After the verse included, it excluded. I include those that are not dangerous and exclude those that are dangerous. Is it not connected has to be given for the standing crop, or whether it is only a technicality requiring the owner to harvest the peah himself. The answer is that there is no exception; it may well be that the name peah has to be given when the fruits are still hanging on the tree, but this does not change the fact that the owner must pay for taking them down. ? He calls it by the name peah when it is on the tree”. . If you say not from standing produce, he calls it by the name peah when it is taken down. If you say he calls it by the name peah when it is on the tree, the removal is charged to the poor. If you say he calls it by the name peah when it is taken down, the removal is the obligation of the owner. But even if you say that he calls it by the name peah when it is on the tree, they charge the owner with taking it down because of the danger. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: All trees are dangerous. Does Rebbi Meïr not infer from “harvest” while the rabbis likewise infer from “harvest. 23:22 . ?” Everybody infers from “harvest”, except that Rebbi Meïr says that all trees are dangerous and the rabbis say only the climbing vine and the date palm are dangerous. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It has happened that five brothers died climbing five smooth nut trees. If the owner called it peah and nevertheless finished harvesting the entire field, I read for him: “Do not finish off the corner of your field during your harvest. to the poor by abandoning it on the field. ” If he did not call it peah and finished harvesting the entire field, I read for him: “Do not finish off the corner of your field during your harvest.” If they agreed among themselves and give it to them. Since the Mishnah says that if 99 want to differ from the rule and one wants to comply with it (even if he acts out of selfishness because he would be able to grab more than the others), it follows that if all of them agree the agreement is valid. The Halakha notes that one does not listen to him , i. e., if the farmer is part of the agreement (and presumably its originator, but in any case a person of overriding influence over the poor) then the agreement is void. [This is the explanation of R. Simson of Sens. It seems that Maimonides reads הִתְנוּ בֵּינֵיהֶן שׁוֹמְעִין לָהֶן or a similar text, since in his Code ( Mattenot Aniïm 2:16,17) he repeats twice that agreements among the poor about the manner of distribution are valid.] , even so one does not listen to him. The owner has to distribute by hand to avoid that he would see a poor person of his acquaintance and throw it before him; this means that he cannot simply take the fruits down and let the poor take them. Since we have the general rule of “abandon”, any exception needs a justification. . Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon questioned: If he finished harvesting his field, you say that peah returned to the sheaves. Even so, does the owner have to distribute by hand to avoid that he would see a poor person of his acquaintance and throw it before him?

נָטַל מִקְּצַת הַפֵּיאָה וְזָרַק עַל הַשְּׁאָר אֵין לוֹ בָּהּ כְּלוּם. נָפַל לוֹ עָלֶיהָ וּפִירֵס טַלִּיתוֹ עָלֶיהָ מַעֲבִירִין אוֹתוֹ מִמֶּנָּהּ וְכֵן בְּלֶקֶט וְכֵן בְּעוֹמֶר הַשִּׁכְחָה. תַּנִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי מֵאִיר קוֹנְסִין בּוֹ וּמוֹצִיאִין מִמֶּנּוּ אֶת הַתָּלוּשׁ וְאֶת הַמְּחוּבָּר. עַד כְּדוֹן מֵזִיד אֲפִילוּ שׁוֹגֵג וַאֲפִילוּ כְּרִיכוֹת. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָּקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם אַבָּא כֹהֵן בַּר דָּלָיָא אָדָם זוֹכֶה בִּמְצִיאָה בְּתוֹךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ מַה טַעַם וְהִנֵּה בְּעוֹנְיִי הֲכִינוֹתִי לְבֵית יי זָהָב כִּכָּרִים מֵאָה אֶלֶף וְכֶסֶף אֶלֶף אֲלָפִים כִּכָּרִים וְלַנְּחוֹשֶׁת וְלַבַּרְזֶל אֵין מִשְׁקָל כִּי לָרוֹב הָיָה וְעֵצִים וַאֲבָנִים הֲכִינוֹתִי וַעֲלֵיהֶם תּוֹסִיף. רִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא בְּעִי מַה נָן קַיָימִין אִם בְּתוֹךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת עָשִׁיר הוּא. אִם בְּחוּץ לְאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת וְיֵשׁ אָדָם מַקְדִּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ. וְקִיַימְּנוּהָ בְּמַקְדִּישׁ רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין מַהוּ בְעֳנְיִי שֶׁאֵין עֲשִׁירוּת לִפְנֵי מִי שֶׁאָמַר וְהָיָה הָעוֹלָם. דָּבָר אַחֵר בְּעוֹנְיִי בְּעִינּוּי שֶׁהָיָה מִתְעַנֶּה וּמַקְדִּישׁ סְעוּדָתוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם. הָתִיב רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִּי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ וְהָתַנֵּינָן רָאָה אֶת הַמְּצִיאָה וְנָפַל לוֹ עָלֶיהָ וּבָא אַחֵר וְהֶחֱזִיק בָּהּ זֶה שֶׁהֶחֱזִיק בָּהּ זָכָה בָהּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ תִּיפְתָּר בְּשֶׁלֹּא אָמַר יִזְכּוּ לִי אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת שֶׁלִּי. וְהָתַנִּי נָפַל לוֹ עָלֶיהָ פִירֵס טַלִּיתוֹ עָלֶיהָ מַעֲבִירִין אוֹתָהּ מִמֶּנָּהּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ עוֹד הִיא בְּשֶׁלֹּא אָמַר יִזְכּוּ לִי אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת שֶׁלִּי. וְהָתַנִּי רִבִּי חִיָיא שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהָיוּ מִתְכַּתְּשִׁין עַל הָעוֹמֶר וּבָא עָנִי אַחֵר וַחֲטָפוֹ מִלִּפְנֵיהֶן זָכָה בּוֹ. אָמַר לֵיהּ עוֹד הִיא בְּשֶׁלֹּא אָמַר יִזְכּוּ לִי אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. אָמַר רִבִי יָסָא אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן זוֹ בְגִיטִּין מַה שֶׁאֵין כֵּן בְּמַתָּנָה. רוּבָּהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרוּבָּהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. רוּבָּהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מַה אִם מְצִיאָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ זוֹכֶה בָּהּ מִדַּעַת אַחֵר הֲרֵי הוּא זוֹכֶה בָהּ בְּתוֹךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. מַתָּנָה שֶׁהוּא זוֹכֶה בָהּ מִדַּעַת אַחֵר לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן. רוּבָּהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ מַה אִם מַתָּנָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ זוֹכֶה בָּהּ בְּתוךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת הֲרֵי הוּא זוֹכֶה בָּהּ מִדַּעַת אַחֵר. מְצִיאָה שֶׁהוּא זוֹכֶה בָהּ בְּתוֹךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן. הָתִיב רִבִּי זְעִירָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא וְהָתַנֵּינָן וְכֵן לְעִנְיָין הַקִּידּוּשִׁין. אָמַר לֵיהּ הִיא גִּיטִּין הִיא קִידּוּשִׁין. וְהָתַנֵּינָן וְכֵן לְעִנְיָין הַחוֹב. אָמַר לֵיהּ שֶׁכֵּן אִם אָמַר לֵיהּ זֹרְקֵיהוּ לַיָּם וִיהֵא מָחוּל לָךְ מָחוּל לוֹ. מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ קָרוֹב לְלוֶֹה זָכָה הַלֹּוֶה. וְתַנֵּינָן קָרוֹב לַלֹּוֶה הַלֹּוֶה חַיָיב שֶׁכֵּן אִם אָמַר לַיהּ זֹרְקֵיהוּ עַד שֶׁיִּיכָּנֵס לִרְשׁוּתִי וַאֲדַיִין לֹא נִכְנַס בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ כָּל אִילֵּין תֲתוּבָתָה דַּהֲוָה רִבִּי זְעִירָא מוֹתִיב קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא. וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ מוֹתִיב קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מְקַבֵּל מִינֵיהּ פָּתַר לֵיהּ בְּאִילֵּין פִּיתְרָיָא.

MISHNAH: If he. took some of the peah and threw it on the rest has the legal status of abandoned property, the slightest action of acquisition should be valid. , he has nothing of it. If he fell on it or spread his talith on it, one removes him from it. The same is valid for gleanings and the forgotten sheaf. HALAKHAH: It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: “One punishes him and takes away from him both the cut and the standing produce. 2:1 reads: “If he took some of the peah and threw it on the rest, he has no claim to it. Rebbi Meïr says, one punishes him and takes away from him both the cut and the standing produce.” This proves that the language of the Mishnah, the first sentence of the Tosephta, implies that he does not lose the peah he previously collected. Maimonides, who in his commentary to the Mishnah writes that he loses that peah also, explains the Halakhah, not the Mishnah. ” That refers to intentional misconduct; does it apply even to action in error or even to small sheaves. The question is not answered; for practical purposes, it is answered in the negative. ? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Abba Cohen Bar Dalaia: A person acquires a find within four cubits of himself, there seems to be a contradiction between two rabbinic principles. The Babli ( Baba Meẓi‘a 10a/b) resolves the problem by restricting the principle of Abba Cohen to the public domain; it does not apply to private property such as a field. The Yerushalmi disagrees; since peah is abandoned property, as proved in the preceding Halakhah, it must be assumed that the ground on which peah grows is temporarily also abandoned to the poor. The expression “himself” will be given special importance in the following discussion. . What is the reason? ( 1Chr . 22:14 ) “Look, in my poverty I prepared for the House of the Eternal 100’000 kikkar equals 3’000 sheqel , and, since the sheqel in the Talmud is defined as 2 drachmas, the kikkar is equal to the Greek talent of 6’000 drachmas. The 14 g silver sheqalim from the Jewish revolt were “sacred sheqalim ” of double weight, or four civil denars. Honest silver denars or drachmae from the early principate weigh about 3.5 g. Taking civil sheqalim , one kikkar would be about 21 kg and David would have prepared 2 metric tons of gold and 20 metric tons of silver for the Temple. of gold, 1’000’000 kikkar of silver, bronze and iron unweighed because it was so much, I prepared wood and stones, and you should add to them.” Rebbi Jonah said that Rebbi Hoshaiah asked: What are we talking about? If this was within four cubits from him, he was rich. If it was outside of four cubits, may anybody dedicate anything that is not his? We confirmed it; then he could assemble all this wealth for the Temple without ever ceasing to be legally poor. if he dedicated it piece by piece. Rebbi Abun said, what means “in my poverty?” That there is no wealth before Him Who commanded and the world came into existence! Another explanation: בְּעוֹנְיִי “in my deprivation,” because he fasted and donated the price of his meal to Heaven. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi objected before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Did we not state: (Mishnah Baba Meẓi‘a 1:4) “If somebody saw a find and fell on it, when another person came and grabbed it, he who grabbed it had the rights to it?” He answered him: Explain it if the first one did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him 10b) explains that deeds speak louder than words and that by falling on the object the finder showed that he did not wish to acquire it by simple speech. In that case, it can be acquired only by grabbing, i. e., holding on to it and moving it. The Yerushalmi does not go so far; it only requires that an object should be within four cubits of the finder and that the latter should clearly express his intention of acquiring the object. Afterwards, he can do as he wishes. . But did we not state: “If he fell on it or spread his talith on it, one removes him from it?” He said to him, that is the same, if he did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: ( Tosephta Peah 2:2 ) “If two were pushing one another because of a sheaf and another poor person came and grabbed it from before them, he is entitled to it. He said to him, it is the same, he did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan 8:3 (fol. 49c), where it is stated in Mishnah 2 that a divorce document, of which it is written ( Deut . 24:1 ): “He wrote her a divorce document and delivered it into her hands,” can be delivered by the husband’s throwing the document close to her (within four cubits) in the public domain, with the wife’s knowledge. Then Mishnah 3 adds: “The same rule applies to marriage and the settlement of debts,” meaning that if a woman agrees to marry a certain man and the groom, while declaring that the wedding gift is given for the purpose of marriage, instead of delivering it into the bride’s hand throws it close to her in the public domain in front of two witnesses, the marriage is valid. Similarly, if the creditor asks the debtor to throw to him the amount owed, if the debtor did that and it landed within the creditor’s four cubits in the public domain, the debtor has discharged all his obligations. On this, Rebbi Joḥanan comments that a gift can be acquired only by actual possession, not by four cubits in the public domain. : That refers to divorce documents, but it does not apply to a gift. Rebbi Joḥanan adds something, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish adds something. Rebbi Joḥanan adds something. Since a find which cannot be acquired by the knowledge of another person 1:3). However, in that case the find must actually be taken up; the four cubits of the agent and his declaration are invalid. If the second person decides to take the find for himself, the four cubits and his declaration of intent of acquisition are valid and the find is his. can be acquired within four cubits, should this rule not apply a fortiori to a gift that is acquired by the knowledge of another person? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish adds something. Since a gift which cannot be acquired within four cubits can be acquired by the knowledge of another person, should this not a fortiori apply to a find? Rebbi Zeïra objected before Rebbi Yasa: But did we not state 8:3 . : The same applies to marriage? He answered him, divorce documents and marriage contracts have the same rules. But did we not state: The same applies to debt? He said to him, because if he said to him: Throw it into the sea and your debt will be forgiven, it would be forgiven. But if that is true, even if it fell down close to the debtor, the debtor should have the benefit! But we have stated, if it falls down close to the debtor, the debtor is still obligated. For he said to him, throw it so that it will enter my domain, and it did not yet enter his domain. Rebbi Abbahu said, all those objections that Rebbi Zeïra raised before Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish raised before Rebbi Joḥanan. Did he accept them from him? He solved them with those same solutions.

פֵּיאָה אֵין קוֹצְרִין אוֹתָהּ בְּמַגָּלוֹת וְאֵין עוֹקְרִין אוֹתָהּ בְּקַרְדּוּמוֹת כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יַכּוּ אִישׁ אֶת רְעֵהוּ. שָׁלוֹשׁ אוֹבָּעְיוֹת בַּיּוֹם בְּשַׁחַר וּבְחַצּוֹת וּבְמִנְחָה. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא יִפְחֲתוּ. וְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא יוֹסִיפוּ. שֶׁל בֵּית נָמֶר הָיוּ מַלְקִיטִין עַל הַחֶבֶל וְנוֹתְנִין פֵּיאָה מִכָּל אוֹמָן וְאוֹמָן. מַהוּ אֹבָּעְיוֹת אָמַר רִבִּי בּוֹן דְּתֵימַר אֵיךְ נֶחְפְּשׂוּ עֵשָׂיו נִבְּעוּ מַצְפּוּנָיו. בְּשַׁחַר וּבְחַצּוֹת וּבְמִנְחָה. בְּשַׁחַר מִפְּנֵי הַמֵּנִיקוֹת. וּבְחַצּוֹת מִפְּנֵי הַתִּינוֹקוֹת. וּבְמִנְחָה מִפְּנֵי הַנְּמוּשׁוֹת. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִפְחֲתוּ וְאִם רָצָה לְהוֹסִיף מוֹסִיף. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יוֹסִיפוּ. הָא אִם רָצָה לִפְחוֹת אֵינוֹ פּוֹחֵת. שֶׁל בֵּית נָמֶר הָיוּ מַלְקִיטִין אוֹתָהּ עִם הַחֶבֶל וְנוֹתְנִין פֵּיאָה מִכָּל אוּמָן וְאוּמָן. תַּנִּי אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר מַזְכִּירִין אוֹתָן לִגְנַאי וּמַזְכִּירִין אוֹתָן לִשְׁבָח. מַזְכִּירִין אוֹתָן לִגְנַיי שֶׁהָיוּ נוֹתְנִין פֵּיאָה אֶחָד מִמֵּאָה. וּמַזְכִּירִין אוֹתָן לִשְׁבָח שֶׁהָיוּ מַלְקִיטִין אוֹתָן עִם הַחֶבֶל וְנוֹתְנִין פֵּיאָה מִכָּל אוּמָן וְאוּמָן. תַּנִּי בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מִפְּנֵי חֲמִשָּׁה דְּבָרִים לֹא יִתֵּן אָדָם פֵּיאָה אֶלָּא בְסוֹף שָׂדֵהוּ. מִפְּנֵי גֶּזֶל עֲנִיִים. וּמִפְּנֵי בִיטּוּל עֲנִיִים. וּמִפְּנֵי הָרַמָּאִין. וּמִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן. וּמִשּׁוּם שֶׁאָמְרָה תוֹרָה לֹא תְכַלֶּה פְּאַת שָׂדְךָ. מִפְּנֵי גֶּזֶל עֲנִיִים כֵּיצַד שֶׁלֹּא יִרְאֶה אָדָם אֶת הַשָּׁעָה פְּנוּיָה וְיֹאמַר לִקְרוֹבוֹ עָנִי בּוֹא וְטוּל לָךְ אֶת הַפֵּיאָה. מִפְּנֵי בִיטּוּל עֲנִיִים כֵּיצַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ עֲנִיִים יוֹשְׁבִין וּמְשַׁמְּרִין כָּל הַיּוֹם וְאוֹמְרִים עַכְשָׁיו הוּא נוֹתֵן פֵּיאָה עַכְשָׁיו נוֹתֵן פֵּיאָה אֶלָּא יֵלְכוּ וִילַקְּטוּ בְשָׂדֶה אֲחֶרֶת וְיָבוֹאוּ בִשְׁעַת הַכִּילּוּי. מִפְּנֵי הָרַמָּאִין כֵּיצַד שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר כְּבָר נָתַתִּי וִיהֵא בּוֹרֵר אֶת הַיָּפֶה וּמוֹצִיא אֶת הָרָע. מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן כֵּיצַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ הָעוֹבְרִים וְהַשָּׁבִים אוֹמְרִים רְאוּ הֵיאַךְ קָצַר אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שָׂדֵהוּ וְלֹא הִנִּיחַ פֵּיאָה לָעֲנִיִים. וּמִשּׁוּם שֶׁאָמְרָה תוֹרָה לֹא תְכַלֶּה פְּאַת שָׂדְךָ.

MISHNAH: One does not harvest peah with sickles and one does not uproot it with axes so that they should not injure one another. Three investigation periods. According to the interpretation of Maimonides ( Mattenot Aniïm 2:17), the poor are not permitted to collect at other times. The root of the word is בעי “to question”. (The Halakhah reads אבעיות). The Halakhah will clarify the meaning of the three periods. are there during the day, in the morning, at noontime, and in the evening. Rabban Gamliel says, they decreed this only to say that one may not do less. Rebbi Aqiba says, they decreed this only to say that one may not do more at any other time, when not all poor have the opportunity to be present. . In Bet Namer. 32:2 ) on the Jordanian side of the Jordan, a tell called Nymreïn . they insisted on collecting‘ il form, given by the overwhelming majority of manuscript sources, is a causative: The farmer made his farmhands cut the grain along ropes stretched lengthwise along the field. In this way, the entire end-strip of the field became peah , given piecemeal during the harvest. along a rope and were giving peah from every strip, “furrow in plowing, swathe in reaping,” also ὤγμος, “strip of cultivated land.” . HALAKHAH: What are אֹבָּעְיוֹת? Rebbi Abun said, just as you say ( Ob . 6): “How was Esau searched out, his hidden places investigated.” “In the morning, at noontime, and in the evening.” In the morning because of nursing women. At noontime because of the children. In the evening, because of the decrepit. “Rabban Gamliel says, they decreed this only to say that one may not do less;” if he wants to add, he may add. “Rebbi Aqiba says, they decreed this only to say that one may not do more;” does this mean that if he wants to give less frequently he may not do so? “Those of Bet Namer insisted on collecting along a rope and were giving peah from every strip.” It was stated: Abba Shaul says, one mentions them disapprovingly and one mentions them approvingly. One mentions them disapprovingly because they only gave peah of one percent. And one mentions them approvingly because they insisted on collecting along a rope and were giving peah from every strip. It was stated 1:6 , Sifra Qedošim 1:10 , Babli Šabbat 23a . In all these parallels, there are four reasons given, meaning that R. Simeon explains the reason of the Biblical law. In the Babli, R. Simeon is reputed to deduce laws from the reasoning behind Biblical precepts; the Yerushalmi does not seem to accept this but gives reasons separate from the verse. (The Tosephta in our hands is essentially a Babylonian compilation; Sifra is Palestinian material edited in Babylonia.) It is clear that R. Simeon supports here his argument in Mishnah 1:3 that peah must be given at the end, because of Biblical precept and rabbinical ordinance. in the name of Rebbi Simeon: For five reasons one should give peah only at the end of one’s field, because of robbing the poor, because of idling the poor, because of cheats, because of bad impression, and because the Torah said ( Lev . 19:9 ): “Do not finish off the corner of your field.” Because of robbing the poor, that no man should see a free hour and say to his poor relative: Come, and take this peah for yourself. Because of idling the poor, that the poor should not sit around, watch the entire day, and say: Now he is giving peah , now he is giving peah , but rather they should go, collect on another field, and come at the moment of finishing. Because of the cheats, that one should not say: I already gave, and then he chooses the good and brings out the bad. Then he is obligated to give peah from the cut grain but here he has the possibility to select stalks with small kernels for the poor, whereas he has no such control if he refrains from cutting the last corner. . Because of bad impression, that the passers-by should not say: Look, this man harvested his field and did not leave peah for the poor. And because the Torah said: “Do not finish off the corner of your field.”

נָכְרִי שֶׁקָּצַר אֶת שָׂדֵהוּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְגַּיֵיר פָּטוּר מִן הַלֶּקֶט וּמִן הַשִּׁכְחָה וּמִן הַפֵּיאָה. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה מְחַיֵיב בְּשִׁכְחָה שֶׁאֵין הַשִּׁכְחָה אֵלָּא בִשְׁעַת הָעִימּוּר. יְאוּת אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה מַה טַעֲמָא דְרַבָּנָן. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רַב רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל כְּתִיב וְשָׁכַחְתָּ עוֹמֶר בַּשָּׂדֶה וְשָׁכַחְתָּ קָמָה אֶת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שִׁכְחַת קָמָה יֵשׁ לוֹ שִׁכְחַת עֳמָרִין. אֶת שֶׁאֵין לוֹ שִׁכְחַת קָמָה אֵין לוֹ שִׁכְחַת עֳמָרִין. יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹי שֶׁהָיוּ שׁוּתָפִין בְּקָמָה חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל חַיָיב וְחֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל גּוֹי פָּטוּר. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה בְשֵׁם רַב יִרְמְיָה בִּמְחוּלֶּקֶת.

MISHNAH: A Non-Jew who harvested his field and later converted is free from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah and gleanings it is written: “At your harvesting,” and for the forgotten sheaf it says: “If you harvest your harvest,” and at the time of the harvest he still was an outsider. . Rebbi Jehudah obligates him for forgotten sheaves because that applies only at the time of binding the sheaves. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jehudah said it well, what is the reason of the Rabbis? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav, Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: It is written ( Deut . 24:19 ): “If you forget a sheaf on the field.” If you forget the standing grain cut your harvest on your field and then you forget a sheaf on the field, do not return to collect it.” The obligation attaches not to sheafmaking but to harvesting. The Sifri Debarim 282 reads: “‘Your harvest,’ except if it was cut by Gentiles. From that they said: A Non-Jew who harvested his field and later converted is free from gleanings, forgotten sheaves and peah . Rebbi Jehudah obliges him for forgotten sheaves because that applies only at the time of binding the sheaves.” . What applies to forgetting while it is standing also applies to forgetting sheaves, but what does not apply to forgetting while it is standing, does not apply to forgetting sheaves. If a Jew and a Gentile were partners in the standing grain, the part of the Jew is obligated but the part of the Gentile is free. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rav Jeremiah: If it was divided up2:9 reads: “If a Jew and a Gentile were partners in the standing grain, the part of the Jew is obligated but the part of the Gentile is free. Rebbi Ismael said: If a Jew and a Gentile were partners in standing grain, it is free from peah . When is that? Only if the Gentile has veto power; if the Gentile has no veto power then it is obligated for peah .” This means that if the Jew may harvest his part without getting the Gentile’s permission, it is not a partnership as far as harvest is concerned but only a partnership for the growing period; accordingly, it is totally the Jew’s harvest and is obligated. The Yerushalmi seems to apply the expression “when is that?” and the following to the beginning statement, not to the opinion of Rebbi Ismael. .

הִקְדִּישׁ קָמָה וּפָדָה קָמָה חַיָיב. עֳמָרִין וּפָדָה עֳמָרִין חַיָיב. קָמָה וּפָדָה עֳמָרִין פְּטוּרָה שֶׁבִּשְׁעַת חוֹבָתָהּ הָיְתָה פְטוּרָה. וּכְיוֹצֵא בוֹ הַמַּקְדִּישׁ פֵּירוֹתָיו עַד שֶׁלֹּא בָאוּ לְעוֹנַת הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת וּפְדָּאָן חַיָיבִין וּמִשֶׁבָּאוּ לְעוֹנַת הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת וּפְדָּאָן חַיָיבִין. הִקְדִּישָׁן עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרוּ וּגְמָרָן הַגִּזְבָּר וְאַחַר כָּךְ פְּדָאָן פְּטוּרִין שֶׁבִּשְעַת חוֹבָתָן הָיוּ פְטוּרִין. וְלָמָּה תַּנִּיתָהּ תְּרֵין זִימְנִין. רִבִּי יוֹנָה רִבִּי חִיָיא רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי בְשֵׁם בַּר פְּדָיָה אַחַת לְמֵירוּחַ וְאַחַת לִשְׁלִישׁ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא וַחֲבֵרָיָא. חֲבֵרָיָא אָמְרֵי אַחַת לְמֵירוּחַ וְאַחַת לִשְׁלִישׁ. רִבִּי בָּא מְפָרֵשׁ בְּחַלָּה לְמֵירוּחַ. וּבְפֵיאָה בִשְׁלִישׁ. מַתְנִיתִין דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אָמַר אַחַר שְׁלִישׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן אַתְּ מְהַלֵּךְ. דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוּן שָׂדֶה שֶׁהֱבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ לִפְנֵי גּוֹי וּלְקָחָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר פָּטוּר וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִין בְּתוֹסֶפֶת חַיָיב. מַיי כְדוֹן. תִּיפְתָּר כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה (בְּמֵירוּחַ) [בְּמַחְלוֹקֶת]. וּכְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל בְּקוֹצֵר מִיַּד.

MISHNAH: If somebody dedicated (personal) harvest” is not applicable and produce harvested by the Temple administration is free from all obligations. The Temple did acquire real estate and other valuables only for redemption or sale, to be converted into currency. standing produce and redeemed it standing, it is obligated; in sheaves and redeemed in sheaves, it is obligated; standing and redeemed in sheaves it is free since at the time of obligation it was free. Parallel to this, if somebody dedicated his produce before the time of tithes and redeemed it, it is obligated; after the time of tithes, it is obligated. But if he dedicated it before it was finished, the treasurer finished it, and then the owner redeemed it, it is free since at the time of obligation it was free. HALAKHAH: And why is it stated twice 3:3 . The entire discussion also appears there in Halakhah 3. ? Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah: One for smoothing, one for one third. From this moment on, grain kernels may be eaten on the spot without giving heave and tithes, but they may not be used for household purposes without first separating the dues for Cohen and Levite. . Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Abba and the colleagues. The colleagues say, one for smoothing, one for one third. Rebbi Abba explains: At Ḥallah for smoothing is the heave of bread dough (in a sizeable amount), it does not qualify for “eating on the spot” but must refer to the finished harvest. , at Peah for one third. Our Mishnah is from Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that you go after the first third. And they differed: A field that was one-third ripened in the possession of a Gentile, and a Jew bought it after that time, Rebbi Aqiba said it is free, but the Sages say he is obligated for the additional growth 137a , Giṭṭin 77a , the positions of R. Aqiba and the Sages are inverted. . How is that? Explain it for Rebbi Aqiba (after smoothing 5:4, the same statement is quoted and there it is said in the name of R. Eleazar that even the Sages obligate only for the Second Tithe or the tithe of the poor. These two alternative obligations are attached only to smoothed, stored grain; their obligation does not start with grain that is only one-third ripe. ) [in a disagreement], or according to everybody if he harvested immediately.

מִי שֶׁלִּיקֵּט פֵּיאָה וְאָמַר הֲרֵי זוּ לְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי עָנִי רִבִּי לִעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר זָכָה לוֹ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים יִתְּנֶנָּהּ לְעָנִי הַנִּמְצָא רִאשׁוֹן. הַלֶּקֶט וְהַשִּׁכְחָה וְהַפֵּיאָה שֶׁל נָכְרִי חַיָיב בְּמַעֲשֵׂר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִבְקִיר. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אוֹמֵר בְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת עָשִׁיר נֶחְלְקוּ. אֲבָל בְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת עָנִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לִיטוֹל זָכָה. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא רִבִי לָעְזָר לַחֲבֵירוֹ וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי שְׁלָשְׁתָּן אָמְרוּ דָבָר אֶחָד. רִבִּי לָעְזָר דְּאָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר אָדָם זָכָה לַחֲבֵירוֹ בִמְצִיאָה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּתַנֵּינָן תַּמָּן מְצִיאַת בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ הַקְּטַנִּים עַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הַכְּנַעֲנִים מְצִיאַת אִשְׁתּוֹ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ. מְצִיאַת בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ הַגְּדוֹלִים וְעַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הָעִבְרִים מְצִיאַת אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁגִּירְשָׁהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן לָהּ כְּתוּבָתָהּ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלָּהֶן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בִּשְׁאֵינָן טְפוּלִין. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ טְפוּלִין לַאֲבִיהֶן מְצִיאָתָן שֶׁלּוֹ. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי דְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר בְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת עָשִׁיר נֶחְלְקוּ. אֲבָל בְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת עָנִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לִיטוֹל זָכָה. תַּנִּי הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל לַעֲשׂוֹת עִמּוֹ בְּכָל מְלָאכָה מְצִיאָה שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּעֵי רָצָה לַחְזוֹר חוֹזֵר בּוֹ. וְאַתְּ אָמַר מְצִיאָה שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא אָמַר רִבִּי יָסָא מַקְשֵׁי מַה צוּרְכָה לְהַהִיא דְאָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ וְלָא נָן שְׁמִיעַ דָּמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא אִיתְפַּלְּגוּן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר אָדָם זוֹכֶה לַחֲבֵירוֹ בִמְצִיאָה. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר אֵין אָדָם זוֹכֶה לַחֲבֵירוֹ בִמְצִיאָה. רִבִּי רְדִיפָה אִיתְפַּלְּגוּן רִבִּי יוֹנָה וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. חַד אָמַר הָרָאוּי לִיטּוֹל זָכָה. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר הָרָאוּי לִיתֵּן זָכָה. מָן דָּמַר הָרָאוּי לִיטּוֹל כָּל שֶׁכֵּן לִיתֵּן. מָאן דָּמַר הָרָאוּי לִיתֵּן הָא לִיטּוֹל לֹא. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל מָאן דְּאָמַר הָרָאוּי לִיטּוֹל זָכָה דְּתַנֵּינָן תֵּן גֶּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי שֶׁכֵּן רָאוּי לְקַבֵּל גֶּט בִּתּוֹ. וּשְׁטָר שִׁיחְרוּר זֶה לְעַבְדִּי שֶׁכֵּן הוּא רָאוּי לְקַבֵּל שְׁטָר שִׁחְרוּרוֹ. וְתַנֵּינָן הִתְקַבֵּל גֶּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי אוֹ הוֹלֵךְ גֶּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי אִם רָצָה לְהַחֲזִיר לֹא יַחֲזִיר. וְהָעֶבֶד רָאוּי הוּא לְהוֹלִיךְ אֶת הִגֶּט. פָּתַר לָהּ לִצְדָדִין. הָא מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל מָאן דְּאָמַר הָרָאוּי לִיטּוֹל זָכָה דְּתַנֵּינָן תַּמָּן עִישּׂוּר אֶחָד שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לִמוֹד נָתוּן לַעֲקִיבָה בֶּן יוֹסֵף שֶׁיִּזְכֶּה בוֹ לָעֲנִיִים וּמְקוֹמוֹ מוּשְׂכָּר לוֹ. וְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה רָאוּי הוּא לִיטּוֹל. פָּתַר לָהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֶעֱשִׁיר. וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימָא מִשֶּׁהֶעֱשִׁיר תִּיפְתָּר בְּשֶׁהָיָה פַּרְנָס וְיַד הַפַּרְנָס כְּיַד הֶעָנִי. מִילְתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי הָרָאוּי לִיטּוֹל זָכָה. דְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר בְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת עָשִׁיר מַחְלוֹקֶת. אֲבָל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת עָנִי מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁרָאוּי לִיטוֹל זָכָה. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר יֵשׁ קִנְיָין לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְפוֹטְרוֹ מִן הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת. בְּרַם כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר אֵין קִנְיָין לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְפוֹטְרוֹ מִן הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת אֲפִילוּ הִבְקִירוֹ חַיָיב. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר אֵין קִנְיָין לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְפוֹטְרוֹ מִן הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת. בְּרַם כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר יֵשׁ קִנְיָין לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְפוֹטְרוֹ מִן הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת קַל הֵיקִילוּ חֲכָמִים בְּלִיקּוּטִין. רִבִּי לָעְזָר שָׁאַל וְאֵין לוֹ קִנְיַין נְכָסִים. לָא עַל הָדָא אִיתְאֲמָרָת אֶלָּא עַל הָדָא. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר יֵשׁ קִנְיָין לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְפוֹטְרוֹ מִן הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת. בְּרַם כְּמָאן דָּמַר אֵין קִנְיָין לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְפוֹטְרוֹ מִן הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת עֲלֵיהּ רִבִּי לָעְזָר שְׁאִיל וְאֵין לוֹ קִנְיַין נְכָסִים. רִבִּי חֲנִינָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי פִינְחָס אַף קַדְמִיָיתָא עַל דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי מַקְשִׁי דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר אֵין קִנְיָין לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְפוֹטְרוֹ מִן הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת. בְּרַם כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר יֵשׁ קִנְיָין לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְפוֹטְרוֹ מִן הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת עֲלֵיהּ רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר שְׁאַל וְאֵין לוֹ קִנְיַין נְכָסִים.

MISHNAH: He who collected peah and said: “This is for X, the poor man,” Rebbi Eliezer says, he made him acquire it; but the Sages say, he should give it to the first poor person he meets. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah of a Non-Jew 47a ). Regularly collected peah , gleanings, and forgotten sheaves are exempt from heave and tithes. are obligated for tithes, except if the Non-Jew declared it to be abandoned property. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joshua ben Levi says: They disagree about a rich owner for himself, he may not take it for others. The Babli ( Baba Meẓi‘a 9b) explains that R. Eliezer disagrees: since everybody can make himself poor by giving away all his property, he is a potential receiver of charity and may collect, but he may not keep it as long as he is not poor. . But a poor owner, since he has the right to take it is a rabbinic institution that does not influence the status of the peah taken by any poor person. , the other person acquired it. Rebbi Zeïra said: Rebbi Eleazar (about one’s friend), Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said the same thing. Rebbi Eleazar, as Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: A man may acquire a find for his friend, not to give later to somebody else, but so that the other should be the immediate owner of every collected stalk. [Later in this Halakhah and in the Babli ( Baba Meẓi‘a 10a ), this appears as a statement of R. Joḥanan. Since a statement X in the name of Y usually means that X did not hear the statement directly from Y, it is to be assumed that R. Zeïra heard the statement of R. Eleazar in the yeshivah of R. Joḥanan.] . Rebbi Joḥanan, as we have stated there (Mishnah Baba Meẓiah 1:5): “The finds of his minor sons and daughters, of his Gentile slaves and slave girls, and of his wife, belong to him. The finds of his adult sons and daughters, of his Jewish slaves and slave girls, and of his divorced wife in case that he had not yet paid her ketubah is not paid, the ex-husband has to support his ex-wife, but her earnings and finds are hers to keep. , belong to them. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if they are not dependents. But if they are dependent on their father, their finds belong to him. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, as Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: They disagree about a rich owner. But if the owner is poor, since he has the right to take it, the other person acquired it. It was stated: If one hires a worker to do all kinds of work 10a , 12b , 118a ). for him, the worker’s findings belong to his employer. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked: If he wants to quit, he may quit6:2 ); there Rav is of the opinion that in a hiring contract both parties may dissolve the relationship without notice (but the party that changes the contract is liable for damages arising for the other party.) In the Babli ( Baba Meẓi‘a 10a ), Rav states that a worker can quit without notice since it is written ( Lev . 25:42 ): “(The Children of Israel) are My slaves,” and not slaves of slaves. Hence, any contract that restricts the ability of the worker to leave his place of work is invalid. ; and you say that the find belongs to the employer? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Yasa asked, why do we need that of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, did we not understand that Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree? Rebbi Joḥanan said, a man may acquire a find for his friend. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a man cannot acquire a find for his friend.), the objection to R. Joḥanan’s rule is raised and answered, that as long as the journeyman does not quit, all he does that day is to the employer’s benefit. . Rebbi Redifa: Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose disagree. One says, he who may take may acquire; the other says, he who may give may acquire. He who says “he who may take” certainly includes him who may give. He who says “he who may give,” excludes him who may take. A Mishnah disagrees with him who says that he who may take may acquire, since we have stated 1:6 . This paragraph is elliptic and almost incomprehensible. The Mishnah reads: “If someone says, give this divorce document to my wife or this document of manumission to my slave, and then wants to change his mind in either case, he may do so in the opinion of R. Meïr. But the Sages say, in the case of a wife, but not in the manumission of slaves since one may favor a person without his knowledge.” Since the divorce is considered bad for the wife, it can become valid only with her knowledge. R. Meïr thinks that manumission also may be bad for the slave who will have to accept all duties of a free Jew; the Sages consider manumission always to be good. With the wife’s knowledge, however, the emissary, a man, can acquire the divorce document for her. But as a man, he is not in a position ever to receive a divorce document. : “Give this divorce document to my wife …,” because he may receive the divorce document of his minor daughter. “And the document of manumission to my slave …,” since he may receive his own document of manumission. But did we not state 6:1 : “If someone says: Receive this divorce document for my wife, or convey this divorce document to my wife, and wants to change his mind, he may do so. If the woman said: Receive the divorce document for me, if he {the husband} wants to change his mind {after handing over the document}, he may not do so {since the transaction was done with the wife’s knowledge.}” That is the case if the emissary of the wife is a free man; she is divorced the moment the document comes into her emissary’s hand. But since a slave has no “hand” in the legal sense, how can this Mishnah be reconciled with the one quoted first? : “Receive this divorce document for my wife or bring this divorce document to my wife; if he wants to change his mind … he may not do so.” Is a slave empowered to bring a divorce document? Explain it by different cases. The following Mishnah disagrees with him who says that he who may take may acquire, since we have stated there 5:9. The Mishnah discusses the case of a man who was away on a trip at the time (Passover Eve) when the tithes must be given. Rabban Gamliel, Rebbi Joshua, Rebbi Aqiba, and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah were travelling on a ship on that day (probably to or from Rome on official business) when Rabban Gamliel designated the first tithe to Rebbi Joshua, a Levite, and the tithe of the poor to Rebbi Aqiba. In order not to transgress the Biblical command of distributing the tithes, Rebbi Aqiba must have been able to let the poor acquire their tithe while on the ship. : “One tithe that I will measure in the future is given to Aqiba ben Joseph that he should let the poor acquire it, and its place is rented to him.” But is Rebbi Aqiba entitled to take? Explain it, before he got rich. And even if you say, after he became rich, when he was an administrator, and the hand of the administrator is equal to the hand of the poor. The word of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi is that he who may take may acquire, since Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: They disagree about a rich owner. But in the case of a poor owner, since he has the right to take it, the other person acquired it. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jeremiah, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan of a Gentile are obligated for tithes, except if the Gentile declared it to be abandoned property. : According to him 3:4, 5:9. The opposite opinion in Demaï 5:9 (fol. 24d), Kilaïm 7:4 (fol. 30d) and in the Babli, Giṭṭin 47a , is attributed to R. Meïr. The Yerushalmi clearly accepts the opinion of RR. Jedudah and Simeon. Cf. also Demay , Chapter 5, Note 102 . who says that a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes( loc. cit .) and elsewhere that the Biblical duties of heave and tithes ceased with the Babylonian exile. The returnees from Babylonia took these duties upon themselves and future generations in a solemn covenant with God ( Neh . 10:1 ) in those regions (Judea, the Southern Plains, Galilee, and Golan Heights) settled by the returnees; hence the problem is not one of Biblical precepts but of the meaning of this covenant. According to the position taken here, the obligation of peah , gleanings, and forgotten sheaves is a later Rabbinic obligation on the land as far as Jews are concerned ( Demaï 3:4, fol. 23d). Since the Gentile has no obligation to give to the poor, he cannot designate anything under these names. But since he is the owner, he may legally abandon the produce just as a Jew might abandon it. . But according to him who says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes, even if he declared it abandoned property it is obligated, gleanings, and forgotten sheaves also are free of heave and tithes but these can be given only by persons obligated to give. Hence, peah , gleanings, and forgotten sheaves designated by Gentiles do not have the legal status of peah , gleanings, and forgotten sheaves, and are not exempt; neither does abandoning the property help since nothing the Gentile does can possibly influence the duties upon the produce. . Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, gleanings, and forgotten sheaves. : According to him who says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes, gleanings, and forgotten sheaves is on the Land and is activated as soon as the produce comes into Jewish hands. R. Yose is of the opinion that the Gentile owner still may legally abandon the produce. . But according to him who says that a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes, the Sages decreed special leniency for gleanings, or left gleanings on the field, he clearly abandoned this to the poor. The general rule is that abandoned property must be abandoned to rich and poor alike (Mishnah 6:1), but in the case before us the rabbis made an exception; it is the leniency mentioned here. This is part of Nehemiah’s covenant; such a leniency would be impossible for a Biblical obligation. . Rebbi Eleazar asked, does he not acquire movables? Not on the last statement this was asked, but on the following: Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jeremiah, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: According to him who says that a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes. But according to him who says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes, on this Rebbi Eleazar asked, does he not acquire movables? Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Phineas, also on the preceding one, on that of Rebbi Yose he asked: Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: According to him who says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes. But according to him who says that a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes, on this Rebbi Eleazar asked, does he not acquire movables5:9), even for R. Meïr, and certainly for RR. Jehudah and Simeon, there cannot be an obligation for heave and tithes on any peah , against the statement in the Mishnah. Since the question is not answered, R. Eleazar’s position is accepted. ?

אֵי זֶהוּ לֶקֶט הַנּוֹשֵׁר בִשְׁעַת הַקְּצִירָה. הָיָה קוֹצֵר קָצַר מְלֹא יָדָיו תָּלַשׁ מְלֹא קוּמְצוֹ. הִכָּהוּ קוֹץ וְנָפַל לָאָרֶץ הֲרֵי זֶה שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. תּוֹךְ הַיָּד וְתוֹךְ הַמַּגָּל לָעֲנִיִים. אַחַר הַיָּד וְאַחַר הַמַּגָּל לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת. רֹאשׁ הַיָּד וְרֹאשׁ הַמַּגָּל רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר לָעֲנִיִים. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת. חוֹרְרֵי הַנְּמָלִים שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הַקָּמָה הֲרֵי זֶה שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. וְשֶׁל אַחַר הַקּוֹצְרִים הָעֶלְיוֹנִים לָעֲנִיִים וְהַתַּחְתּוֹנִים לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר הַכֹּל לָעֲנִיִים שֶׁסָּפֵק לֶקֶט לֶקֶט. תַּנִּי לֶקֶט קְצִירְךָ לֹא כָל הַקּוֹצֵר בְּיָדוֹ. וְדִכְוָותֵיהּ פֶּרֶט כַּרְמְךָ לֹא הַפּוֹרֵט בְּיָדוֹ. רַב כַּהֲנָא וְרַב תַּחְלִיפָא. חַד אָמַר תּוֹךְ הַיָּד וְתוֹךְ הַמַּגָּל. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר תּוֹךְ הַיָּד וַאֲפִילוּ לְאַחַר הַמַּגָּל. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל הָעֶלְיוֹנִים לָעֲנִיִים בִּלְבָנִים וְהַתַּחְתּוֹנִים לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת בִּירוֹקִין. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר הַכֹּל לָעֲנִיִים שֶׁסָּפֵק לֶקֶט לֶקֶט שֶׁאִי אֶיפְשַׁר לְגוֹרֶן לָצֵאת בְּלֹא יְרוֹקִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן חַגְרָא הִיא. דְּתַנִּי גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵיר וְהָיְתָה לוֹ קָמָה נִקְצֶרֶת עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְגַּיֵיר פָּטוּר מִשֶּׁנִּתְגַּיֵיר חַיָיב. וְאִם סָפֵק פָּטוּר. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶן חַגְרָא מְחַיֵיב. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁעִיקָּרוֹ חַיָיב סְפֵיקוֹ חַיָיב וְגוֹי שֶׁעִיקָּרוֹ פָּטוּר סְפֵיקוֹ פָּטוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כָּךְ הָיָה רִבִּי מֵאִיר מֵשִׁיב אֶת רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶן חַגְרָא אֵין אַתְּ מוֹדֶה לִי שֶׁסָּפֵק לֶקֶט לֶקֶט. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ כָּךְ הָיָה מֵשִׁיב רִבִּי מֵאִיר אֶת חֲכָמִים אֵין אַתֶּם מוֹדִין לִי שֶׁסָּפֵק לֶקֶט לֶקֶט. וּמְנַיִין שֶׁסָּפֵק לֶקֶט לֶקֶט. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן עָנִי וְעָשִׁיר הַצְדִיקוּהוּ בְּמַתְּנוֹתָיו. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם בַּר קַפָּרָא לֹא תַטֶּה מִשְׁפַּט אֶבְיוֹנְךָ בְּרִיבוֹ. בְּרִיבוֹ אֵין אַתְּ מַטֵּהוּ. אֲבָל מַטֵּהוּ אַתְּ בְּמַתְּנוֹתָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְכֹה זַכָּה הוּא מַה שֶׁשָּׁנָה לָנוּ רִבִּי תַּעֲזוֹב הַנַּח לִפְנֵיהֶן מִשֶׁלָּךְ. אָמַר רִבִּי לָא כְּתִיב לַגֵּר לַיָּתוֹם וְלָאַלְמָנָה יִהְיֶה בֵּין מִן דִּידָךְ בֵּין מִדִּידֵיהּ הַב לֵיהּ.

MISHNAH: : What are gleanings? That which falls down at harvest time. If in harvesting he cut what his hands grabbed, or he uprooted a handful, when he was stung by a thorn and it fell to the ground, this belongs to the owner 2:5 . The somewhat awkward wording היה קוצר קצר is also used there; it cannot be emended away. . From inside the hand and/or inside the sickle it belongs to the poor. From the back of his hand or the back of the sickle, it belongs to the owner. From fingertips and the tip of the sickle, Rebbi Ismael says, to the poor, Rebby Aqiba says, to the owner. Antholes inside the standing produce belong to the owner. In those appearing after the harvesters left, the tops are for the poor and the bottoms for the owner. Rebbi Meïr says, everything is for the poor because gleanings in doubt are gleanings. HALAKHAH: It was stated: The gleanings of your harvest, not what anybody harvests with his bare hands. And equally, the dropped berries of your vineyard, and not what drops from hand-picking. Rav Cahana and Rav Taḥlifa Taḥlifa, a colleague of Rav Cahana (II) in the yeshivah of Rebbi Joḥanan. . One said, both from inside the hand and inside the sickle; the other one said, from inside the hand, even if it is from behind the sickle. Rebbi Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Samuel: The tops are for the poor, viz., white ones. The bottom ones are for the owner, viz., green ones. Rebbi Meïr says, everything is for the poor because gleanings in doubt are gleanings, since no threshing will end without some green ones. Rebbi Joḥanan said: It is by Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥagra134a , he appears as R. Jehudah bar Agra (from Kefar Acco), a Tanna of the fourth generation. There in Ḥulin , R. Jehudah ben Agra explicitly formulates that peah , gleanings, and forgotten sheaves in case of doubt belong to the poor, confirming the interpretation of R. Joḥanan. , as it was stated: “A Gentile who converted but had cut grain before he converted is free; after he converted, he is obligated. If it is in doubt, he is free. Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥagra obligates him.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it agrees with everybody: A Jew, who is obligated in principle, is also obligated in doubtful cases; a Gentile, who is not obligated in principle, is not obligated in doubt. Rebbi Joḥanan said: So did Rebbi Meïr argue with Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥagra, do you not agree with me that gleanings in doubt are gleanings? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: So did Rebbi Meïr argue with the Sages, do you not agree with me that gleanings in doubt are gleanings? From where that gleanings in doubt are gleanings? Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: “Poor and rich, justify him. 82:3 ) “Do justice for the poor and needy.” One does justice in also giving him the gifts that are in doubt. ” in his gifts. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Bar Qappara: ( Ex . 23:6 ) “Do not bend the lawsuit of your destitute.” In his lawsuit, you may not bend, but you may bend for him in his gifts. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he acquires in this case, as Rebbi instructed us ( Lev . 19:10 , 23:22 ): “abandon,” put something before him of your own 2:7 . The same applies for the triple expression quoted by R. La. It is clear from here that Practice has to follow R. Meïr; this is also the decision of Maimonides ( Mattenot Aniïm 4:9). . Rebbi La said, it is written ( Deut . 24:19–21 ): “It shall be the sojourner’s, the orphan’s, and the widow’s;” give him both from yours and from his!