MISHNAH: The following separate for two fields separated by one of the enumerated obstacles. regarding peah : The river, the water canal, a private road, a public road, a private path or a public path open both summer and winter, a fallow field, a ploughed field. and [another kind of] 2:1 , and it is certainly understood here. Two wheat fields separated by a field of peas require two separate peot . seed. He who cuts. for animal feed makes a separation, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the sages say it does not create a separation unless he ploughed.
HALAKHAH: “The following separate regarding peah .” Because it has been said ( Lev . 19:9 , 23:22 ): “Your field Qedošim 1:22 . ,” that he should not give from one field for another.
It cannot be connected. If you would say that it is connected, it should separate even a field of trees, but we have stated there (Mishnah 3): “Everything separates for seeds but only a fence separates for trees.” Hence, by a fence it is connected and not connected! If you say it is connected, even hair pressing down does not separate, since we have stated: “Hair pressing down does not separate but he gives one peah for all!” That means that it is not connected. If you say it is connected then it should separate if it is one-sided, as we have stated. : “If the hair was pressing down from both sides it does not separate.” Hence, from one side only it separates
Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If someone gave peah from one field for another one, it does not acquire holiness and, hence, subject to the laws of terumah and tithes. .
Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Yasa: If he intended to let them acquire from the boundary strip, dealing with real estate left by a convert to Judaism who failed to start a Jewish family. Since by conversion the convert severed his ties to his former family, in the absence of a will his property becomes ownerless at his death and can be acquired by actual possession. Then the question is whether two adjacent fields can be acquired if one performs an act of possession (such as weeding) on one of them. In the Yerushalmi ( Baba Batra 3:1, fol. 13d), R. Yasa states in the name of R. Joḥanan that if one weeded on one of two adjacent fields with the intention of thereby acquiring both fields but did not have the explicit intent to acquire the boundary strip also, he acquired only the field he weeded but no more. Then it is reported that R. Zeïra asked R. Yasa about somebody working on the boundary strip only (whether he would acquire both fields), and R. Yasa avoided answering. In the Babli ( Baba Batra 55a ), R. Assi states in the name of R. Joḥanan that boundary strip and ḥaẓab are dividers in respect to the property of a convert but not for peah whereas Ravin (Rebbi Abun) declares in the name of R. Joḥanan that it is not a divider for peah . For the Yerushalmi, R. Assi himself was not sure whether R. Joḥanan followed the opinion ascribed to himself in the Babli, or that ascribed to R. Abun. ? He avoided answering him. The opinions of Rebbi Yasa are contradictory since we have stated there (Mishnah 3:2): “The sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba about someone who sowed dill or mustard in three places be given, but the sages require only one peah for the whole field, except for (expensive) spices. .” (The Mishnah means: dill in three places or mustard in three places.) Samuel said, because the first of them does not wait for the last. Samuel asserts that spice plants can be harvested at greatly varying times. . Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because they are usually sown in separate beds. And here he says so. ? It is obvious for him that it separates. What he could not decide is whether it does become sanctified as peah or maybe it does not become sanctified is exempt from terumah and tithes, the status of the grain growing on the boundary strip remains in limbo. ! Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: If someone gave peah from one field for another one, it does not acquire holiness. One understands that this means even the boundary strip.
Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, rue 3:6 . In modern Hebrew, following Loew and Ben Jehudah, the word denotes the sea onion, sea leek (urginea). It is more likely that bushes such as rue were used as boundary markers rather than bulbous plants whose dispersion by seeds is beyond control. (In Arabic, ח̇צ̇ב is simply “greenery”). separates for peah . Rav Ḥisda investigated whether they were used by Joshua to divide the Land. Rebbi Ḥanina asserted in the name of Rav Ḥisda: they were used by Joshua to fix the boundaries of the Land.
A water canal, whenever it is flowing. A river even though it does not flow.
If it is correct that we have stated “a private road,” what is the need for “a public road?” I tell you, even a public road does not separate for trees, only a fence does. Since we have stated “a private path,” what is the need for “a public path?” To exclude one that is permanent in summer but is not permanent in winter.
Rav said are due. : Fallow land and ploughed land of a bet rova‘ . 27:18 ), defined the area covered by two seah . One seah are six qab . Hence, the area covered by a quarter qab , the bet rova‘ , is an area of 5000:48 = 104 1/6 square cubits. A cubit was at least 45 and at most 61 cm, probably 54.6 cm. , other produce even the tiniest amount. Rebbi Joḥanan said: Fallow land, ploughed land, and other produce at three preliminary furrows. 28:24 ), in ploughing an uncultivated field one first ploughs wide and coarse “starter” furrows; for sowing one then ploughs narrow ones adapted to the particular seed. According to Maimonides ( Kilaim 3:2), the coarse furrows serve to cover breaks in the soil which developed during the heat of summer. There is no practical difference between the two explanations. In any case, the total width of the three furrows cannot be larger than two cubits. . Do they disagree? What Rav said refers to produce subject to peah , what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to produce not subject to peah are more powerful to interrupt between fields of the same kind than those not subject to it. . But did we not state that fallow or ploughed land is subject to peah ? What Rav said refers to an average field, what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to a plot 50 by 2, the rule of Rav becomes inapplicable and must be replaced by a smaller limit. .
Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Both Rebbi Meïr. and Rebbi Jehudah 10:8 , dealing with the prohibition of using grain from the new harvest before the presentation of the ‘omer on the 16th of Nisan. We insist that they follow the same principle in both cases eventhough we have no statement of R. Jehudah on peah and no statement of R. Meïr about cutting green grain as animal fodder. said the same. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that he who cuts for fodder separates, so Rebbi Jehudah will say that he who cuts for fodder separates. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that an obligation for peah separates, so Rebbi Meïr will say that an obligation for peah separates. But we find that Rebbi Meïr says that an obligation for peah separates between two fields separates the two fields into two entities from each of which one must give peah . since we have stated 1:8 . A field on which grain grows but which is destroyed during growth is not subject to the obligation of peah . : “If locusts ate it, ants undermined it, or a storm or animals broke it, it is free; everybody agrees that if he ploughed it separates, if he did not plough it does not interrupt.” Who is “everybody”? Does not Rebbi Meïr say, if it is free from peah , only separate ploughing will create two obligations. But if there were a separate obligation from the start, as in the example quoted next from R. Jehudah, then it seems that there are two obligations of peah created. , but if it were obligated it would interrupt even if he did not plough. Parallel to what we stated there 10:8 . There is a Biblical prohibition on using new grain for human consumption before the 16th of Nisan ( Lev. 23:14 ) and a rabbinical prohibition to harvest before that time. However, that rabbinical prohibition is waived either if it would cause monetary loss (as for fields in the region of Jericho that ripen very early) or if the grain is not used for humans. R. Simeon permits cutting for fodder anytime, R. Jehudah allows it only if the grain is less than one third ripe (since afterwards it is fit for human consumption as “green kernels”). : “Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he started before it was one-third ripe, but if it is one-third ripe one is forbidden to cut.” If he cuts he is obligated for peah . And anything that is obligated for peah separates from this strip. If that strip separated the remaining grain into two disjoint pieces, the two fields now are separately liable for peah . .
Rebbi Zeïra questioned: Just as Rebbi Jehudah said, if he started before it was one-third ripe, even if he continued after it was one-third ripe he will be freed from collecting, forgotten sheaves, and peah 19:9 , Ruth 2 ) and leaving sheaves forgotten on the field ( Deut. 24:19 ), and peah . , would Rebbi Meïr say that if he started before it was one-third ripe, even if he continued after it is one-third ripe he will be freed from collecting, forgotten sheaves, and peah ?
MISHNAH: An irrigation canal that cannot be harvested together, Rebbi Jehudah says it separates. For all hills subject to weeding. 7:25 . It means as long as the obstacle can be used agriculturally, even if it cannot be worked with ploughs or other implements drawn by animals, it does not separate for peah even if such a ridge separates a field into two parts as far as mechanical farming is concerned. , even if cattle can not pass by with their implements, he gives one peah for everything.
HALAKHAH: They wanted to say that there is no disagreement. It was found stated: “A permanent irrigation canal separates, Qedošim 3:2 reads: “A permanent irrigation canal separates. Rebbi Jehudah says, if (it) [both banks of the canal] cannot be harvested together, it separates. For all hills subject to weeding, even if cattle cannot pass by with implements, he gives one peah for everything.” Hence, the majority of the Sages agree that a permanently installed irrigation canal separates for peah even if both banks can be cut at the same time; R. Jehudah’s opinion is in the minority. ”
They wanted to say: What Rebbi Jehudah talks about is one who stands on one bank and cannot cut on the other bank, but if he stands in the middle and cuts on both banks it does not separate. It was found stated 1:8 : “An irrigation canal that cannot be harvested together, R. Jehudah says if he has to stand in the middle in order to harvest on both banks, it separates, otherwise, it does not separate.” The text before the Yerushalmi must have been similar. in disagreement: “If he was standing in the middle and harvesting on both banks, it separates; on one bank it does not separate.”
Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If there was a rock along the length of his entire field, if he has to lift the plough from one side and transport it to the other side, it separates, from the other side it does not separate. But did we not state 1:9 , together with the quote at the end of the paragraph, forms one sentence there. : “For terraces which are each ten hand-breadths higher than the other. , he must give peah for each one separately. Less than that he gives one peah for all of them.” But for less than that, does he not have to lift the plough from one (terrace) and transport it to the other? Even for less than that he has to lift it. We had to state “ten” only because of the concluding statement: “If the heads of the terraces are connected, he gives one peah for all for all and the incline makes possible the ploughing without lifting the plough. However, in general we say that a height of 10 handbreadths creates a new domain. For example, regarding the laws of Sabbath, “public domain” in which one may not carry extends only up to a height of 10 handbreadths from the ground. One might have thought that a level difference of 10 handbreadths also creates a new domain for peah , but this is not the case. .”
MISHNAH: Everything separates for seeds but only a fence separates for trees. But if hair was pressing down it does not separate and he gives one peah for all. : But for carob trees all that see one another. Rabban Gamliel said, in my father’s house they used to give one peah for the olive trees they had in every direction for all olive trees in all four main directions. and for all carobs that saw one another. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadoq said in the former’s name: also for all carob trees they had in the entire town.
HALAKHAH: “Everything separates for seeds.” What is pressing down if the leaves of trees of one orchard come down and lie across the fence to the other orchard? Does it mean that the leaves actually have to press on the fence or may they be in the air and just press down one branch on the other? ? It rises while pressing as in a mortar 5:3 quotes the text here as כעלי במכתש “like a pestle in the mortar,” and explains, on the basis of the same language in Kilaim , that the branches have to press hard on the stone fence so as to create a dusty surface on the fence. Better is the interpretation of the uncorrected text, preferred by R. Moses Margalit, that the branches on both sides may be enmeshed but be higher than the fence, since the pestle is higher except for the short moments when it touches the bottom of the mortar. or must it press down on the fence? From the text “hair was pressing down,” the fence does not press. That means it presses down on the fence.
Rebbi Mana said: Sometimes they need to be inside four cubits and sometimes they need to be inside ten handbreadths if they are planted ten to a bet se‘ah . How do you understand this? They need to be within four cubits of the fence; the crowns have to be within ten handbreadths of one another if they are planted ten to a bet se‘ah are characteristic for a tree nursery (Mishnah Sheviït 1:7); adult trees form an orchard if a minimum of three trees are planted on a bet se‘ah (Mishnah Sheviït 1:2). Since Maimonides does not quote the rules of R. Mana in his code, he seems to consider them non-operative since trees that actually bear fruit are no longer in a tree nursery. .
“But for carob trees all that see.” What defines the directions for them? The town defines the directions for them explains that each town has to put up markers at the end of the Sabbath territory (2000 cubits from the last house of town) in the four cardinal directions. . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the family of Rebbi had four oil presses in the four directions of the town and their used to give for each oil press according to its direction.
If there were three (groups of) trees, the outer ones see the middle ones, the middle ones see the outer ones, but the outer ones do not see one another, then one may give from the outer ones for the middle ones and from the middle ones for the outer ones but one may not give from the outer ones for the outer ones.
MISHNAH: He who sows one species on his field gives one peah even though he works at two different threshing floors. If he sows two species, he gives two peot even though he threshes them together. He who sows two different kinds of wheat on his field gives one peah if he processes them together, two peot if he threshes them separately. It happened that Rebbi Simeon from Miẓpah sowed before Rabban Gamliel; they ascended to the stone hall and asked. Naḥum the scribe, “of books.” He was the clerk of Rabban Gamliel I’s court. said: I have the tradition from Rebbi Miasha, who received it from my father, who received it from the pairs. , who received if from the prophets, a practice going back to Moses on Sinai, that he who sows two different kinds of wheat on his field gives one peah if he stores them together, two peot if he stores them separately.
HALAKHAH: If he cut half the fine wheat is probably correct. The term corresponds to Syriac איגורי דחיטתא “fine quality wheat” (Payne-Smith vol. I, col. 137). The entire exposition deals only with the case of a field sown with two kinds of wheat, as in the Mishnah. and half the coarse wheat shows that these rules were formulated in the region between Haifa and Beth She‘an where ח was identified with ה. The root of the word is שחם “to be darkish” (Arabic سخم، سحم; cf. also شخم “spoiled”). This is the coarser kind of wheat. to process them together and then he changed his mind and processed them separately he cannot give from the fine wheat for the coarse either the first time will be given and that is at the end of the total harvest. or at the end. If he cut half the fine wheat and half the coarse wheat to process them separately and then he changed his mind and processed them together, he may give from the fine wheat at the end for the coarse wheat at the end, from the fine wheat the first time for the coarse wheat the first time. He gives from fine wheat for fine wheat if he finished harvesting his field, but if he did not finish harvesting, he may not give even from fine wheat for fine wheat has to be given at the end. . If he cut half the fine wheat and all the coarse wheat to process them together and he changed his mind and processed them separately has to be given at the end, there is only fine wheat to be given (for the entire field) and the farmer is not obligated to separate peah from the coarse wheat kernels in his heap. {The emendations proposed by the commentators are unconvincing.} then he gives from the fine wheat for the fine wheat and all the coarse wheat is exempted.
Rebbi 1:8 . Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If you come to notice a practice of which you do not know the reason, do not push it aside as something alien since many practices were shown to Moses on Sinai and all of them were absorbed into the Mishnah. Rebbi Abin said, that is correct! If Naḥum had not come and explained it to us about the two kinds of wheat, could we have known?
Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: ( Hos . 8:12 ) “I wrote down for him most of My teaching.” 60b ), this is the definite statement of R. Eleazar. The later statement of R. Samuel bar Naḥman is attributed in the Babli to R. Joḥanan, and R. Zeïra follows the latter’s argument. But was most of the Torah written down? Rather, more things are derived from what is written than what is (only) oral tradition. Is that so? But so it is: Things derived from what is transmitted orally are preferred over those written.
Rebbi Judah ben Pazi says: “I wrote down for him most of My teaching,” these are the admonitions. 26:14–46 , Deut . 28:15–69 . . Nevertheless, is it not that ( Hos . 8:12 ) “they were considered foreign”.
Rebbi Avin said: If I had written down for you most of my teaching, would it not be considered Gentile? What is the difference between us and the Gentiles? These produce their books and those produce their books. These produce their parchments 60b briefly alludes to this argument. and those produce their parchments.
Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani: Things have been said orally and things have been said in writing, and we do not know which ones are preferred. From what is written ( Ex . 34:27 ): “By the mouth of these words I concluded a covenant with you and Israel 60b , R. Simeon ben Laqish explains the verse as part of the covenant and states that written verses may not be recited by heart and oral traditions not written down. ;” it follows that the oral traditions are preferred 60b . .
Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Yudan bar Rebbi Simeon. One said that if you kept what is oral tradition and kept what is written I will conclude a covenant with you, otherwise I shall not conclude a covenant with you. The other one said, if you watched all that is oral tradition and kept all that is written you will receive your reward, otherwise you will not receive any reward.
Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said. 9:10 : “The Eternal gave to me the two stone tablets, written by the Divine Finger, and on them like all the words that the Eternal spoke to you on the mountain at the day of assembly.” The three italicized expressions are all unnecessary for the understanding of the sentence; these are interpreted as referring to the three divisions of oral law contained in the complete Torah. {The same derivation is found in Megillah fol. 74d, and in very shortened form with different emphasis in Babli Megillah 19b .} : On them, and on them; all, like all; words, the words; Bible, Mishnah, Talmud, and Aggadah. Even what a competent student will discover before his teacher was said to Moses on Sinai. What is the reason? ( Eccl . 1:10 ) “There is something about which one would say, look, this is new!” His colleague will answer, “it already has been forever.”
Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Samuel: One makes inferences neither from practices, s. v. עד . , nor from homiletics. Unfortunately, since the sixteenth century this principle has been violated by Kabbalists in favor of practices mentioned in Zohar . , nor from extraneous sources, but only from study. Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: The case of two kinds of wheat is the same as the case of two kinds of barley. Rebbi Zeïra said, that was part of the original practice and it was forgotten: The case of two kinds of wheat is the same as the case of two kinds of barley. But did we not state ( Mishnah 3:3): “He who strips moist onions for the market and stores dry ones two times; this rule cannot be deduced from the stated practice regarding two kinds of wheat since one deals here with only one kind of onion. Since this Mishnah cannot be a consequence of the original Halakhah , neither may one assert that the ruling of R. Ḥalaphta ben Shaul was part of the original Halakhah . Hence, neither the statement of R. Halaphta nor the Mishnah are exempt from logical scrutiny on the basis of accepted general principles. ;” can you say about market and storage that this was of the original practice and was forgotten?
Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Samuel: One makes no inferences from a ruling. Everybody agrees that one makes no inferences from an action. Rebbi Mana said to him, that means somebody who does not understand, but he who understands may act. He said to him, whether one understands or one does not understand, if there is a disagreement. But if there is no disagreement, whether one understands or one does not understand.
MISHNAH: A field harvested by Gentiles or robbers for s is certainly a scribal error. Since Gentiles who rob are mentioned first, the robber here is a Jew. , undermined by ants, ruined by a storm or animals, is free. If he harvested half of it and robbers harvested the other half, it is free since the obligation of produce is when it is standing arises at the end of the harvest, when some grain is still standing. Since at that moment the grain is in the hands of the robbers, no obligation is incurred by the owner of the field. . If robbers cut half of it and he harvested the other half, he must give peah from what he cut. If he harvested half and sold half, the buyer gives peah for everything did arise from his cutting. However, he may ask to deduct the value of the seller’s peah , 1⅔% of the seller’s harvest, from the selling price. . If he cut half and dedicated half 3:1 ). The Mishnah does not have to mention that the Gentiles harvest for themselves and not for the Jew, since for the grain harvest one may not hire Gentile workers who would pick up the single stalks not bound in sheaves. , he who redeemed it from the treasurer gives peah for everything.
HALAKHAH: The Mishnah, if they cut for themselves, but if they cut for a Jew it is obligated. And we have formulated regarding this 3:1 ). The Mishnah does not have to mention that the Gentiles harvest for themselves and not for the Jew, since for the grain harvest one may not hire Gentile workers who would pick up the single stalks not bound in sheaves. : One does not hire Gentile workers because they do not know about gleanings.
The Mishnah, if they cut to destroy it. But if they do not cut to destroy it, it is obligated from what they are cutting, the farmer has to give peah from any grain that he manages to obtain from the field. This might apply in particular to the next case, discussed in the next paragraph, when he harvested the first half of the field, in which case the language of the Mishnah may be read to mean that the farmer is totally freed from his obligation. . Rebbi Hoshaia ben Shammai said, even if you say that they do not cut to destroy it, it is free since peah is given from standing produce and real estate cannot be robbed 7:5 , Babli Sukkah 30b . The reason is that ownership of real estate is always documented; hence, real estate taken by force in a time of anarchy can always be recovered in court when the rule of law is reestablished. According to R. S. Cirillo, since the robbers are not owners of the field, they are not owners of the grain as long as it stands. It is true that they become owners of the grain as soon as they cut it; the legal owner then has a claim for damages against them but not a claim to the actual grain. Hence, when the robbers cut the grain, there is no obligation of peah incurred by the farmer since neither he nor his employees are doing the harvesting. There also is no obligation on the robbers since the grain comes into their possession only after it is cut and the obligation of peah is already a past event. As a consequence, the field is cut without anybody incurring the obligation of peah . .
Because, once incurred, may be discharged also from cut grain as explained in Mishnah and Halakhah 1:6. he separates for the poor. from cut grain for standing grain and from standing grain for cut grain but he does not separate from cut grain for either cut or standing grain. Sometimes he has to separate from cut grain for standing grain. How can this be? If he finished his field and left something standing on it for peah , at the moment he cuts the first stalk from this, peah returns to the sheaves; he has to give from cut grain. Not only if he finished his field but even if he cut some and said: “From here and further on I give for peah ,” at the moment he cuts the first stalk from this, peah returns to the sheaves and he separates from cut grain for standing grain.
May the seller get the peah which permits the sheaves the buyer is obligated to give also for the grain he himself cut? The problem is that nobody is permitted to take his own peah . ? Let us hear it from the following (Mishnah 5:4): “ of the field he is working on. Then Rebbi Jehudah explains (nobody dissenting) that this is only true for the sharecropper who has leased the field and has property rights to 50%, 33%, or 25% of the crop. But if the landlord acts as the owner of the field at all times and the sharecropper has no property rights to the crop except that he will receive 50%, 33%, or 25% of the harvest after it is harvested, then the peah was never his and, being poor, he may go and collect from the peah with the rest of the poor. Rebbi Jehudah said: When is this, if he received it for a half, a third, or a quarter.” What is the difference between this and the first case? It must be, “if you cut it, a third will be yours.” Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, this implies that the seller may get the peah which permits the sheaves the field is already sold, the peah was never the seller’s and he may take his part among the other poor who come to collect. . Rebbi Yose arises during the buyer’s harvest, the potential obligation started with the seller’s harvest. Hence, the seller should be barred from taking his part of the peah . In contrast, the sharecropper who is given ownership only of a part of the harvest, not of the standing grain, has nothing at all to do with the obligation of peah . said, there the obligation of the field did not come during his ownership, but here the obligation of the field started during his ownership. It is correct that if he cut half of the field and sold what he cut, the buyer is allowed gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah . May the buyer get the peah which permits the sheaves of the seller that he will give for the seller’s harvest? The answer might be yes, unless we are afraid of unfair competition. This is the essence of the last argument in the quarrel between Rebbi and Rebbi Jehudah II the Prince as explained at the end of Halakhah 1:6. ? That is the disagreement of Rebbi and Rebbi Jehudah the Prince.
Rebbi Phineas asked: Can a harvest outside of the Land become subject to peah ? Could you not say that a dedicated crop is exempt and (a crop) outside the Land is exempt; just as a dedicated crop may become obligated, so from outside the Land it may become obligated? He found it stated: ( Lev . 19:9 , 23:22 ) “When you harvest the harvest of your Land,” and not the harvest outside of the Land.
If the treasurer cut half of the half but did not finish to harvest the rest before somebody redeemed everything, he gives from the harvest for what was harvested also for the harvest of the original owner. However, since the verse speaks to individuals, “when you cut the harvest of your land”, the obligation is only on private individuals. It does not apply to the Temple which is the collective property of all of Israel. but all that was harvested in the possession of the Temple is already exempted.