Kommentar zu Peah 5:9

גדיש שלא לוקט תחתיו – he who collected and heaped up stacks of grain to one place within the field, where the poor people there had not yet gleaned the poor man’s share of the crop.

Introduction This mishnah deals with gleanings that are, for various reasons, hard or impossible for the poor person to find.

כל הנוגעות בארץ לעניים – the Rabbis fined him since he heaped up stacks on top of the gleanings, and even heaped up stacks of wheat on top of gleanings of barley, whomever comes in contact with/touches the wheat on the ground is for the poor.

If a pile of grain was stacked [on part of a field] from which gleanings had not yet been collected, whatever touches the ground belongs to the poor. If the field owner makes a stack of grain on a part of the field from which the poor have not yet collected their gleanings, then we penalize him and he loses the bottom part of the stack, that which touches the ground. The poor person can, in a sense, say to the field owner, that any part of the stack that touched the ground might actually be gleanings and hence belongs to him.

הרוח שפזרה את העמרים – on top of the gleanings.

If the wind scattered the sheaves, they estimate the amount of gleanings the field would have yielded and they give that to the poor. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: he must give to the poor the amount that would fall. If the wind scattered all the sheaves, mixing the sheaves that belonged to the field owner with the sheaves that should belong to the poor, then we estimate how much gleanings the field would produce and we give that amount to the poor person.

גשי נפילה – according to the measure that normally falls at the time of harvesting, which are four Kabim for a Kor of seed, and a Kor is thirty Se’ah, and because the first Tanna/teacher who stated that we estimate how much it is appropriate to make as gleanings, Rabban Gamaliel teaches us that the matter does not require an estimation for it is already defined/determined as the field requires for seed, with thirty Se’ah of seed, it is customary to fall from it four Kabim at the time of harvest, and such is given to the poor.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that we estimate how many gleanings would fall from a field of this size. Kehati explains that the debate between Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel and the opinion in the previous section is that Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that we determine the gleanings based on a typical field of this size, whereas the previous opinion says we estimate that specific field.

שבולת שבקציר – he left a remnant in his harvesting one sheaf that he did not reap, and the top of that sheaf touches/reaches the standing corn, if that sheaf is cut with the standing corn, it belongs to the owner of the house, as the standing corn saves it and we don’t call it (Deuteronomy 24:19): “do not turn back to get it…”

Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with cases where we have a doubt as to whether the gleanings belong to the owner of the field or to the poor. However, the first half of the mishnah seems to deal with the laws of forgotten sheaves and not with the laws of gleanings. It is probably brought here due to some language which is similar to the second half of the mishnah.

מעשר שבולת אחת ונותן לו – since he is is obligated to give him tithed things like that which was a sheaf of gleanings which is exempt from tithes, and even though that they had yet been shaped into an even pile, the title of tithe applies upon it such as First Tithe in which the sheaves had been advanced hat the name of Tithe fell upon hem, even though they had yet formed an even pile. And how does he do this? He brings two sheaves from this pile that had been combined in the sheaves of the gleaning, and says about one of them if this gleaning is good, and if not, it is from the set tithes of the second, and he gives him the first. And in the Jerusalem Talmud, an objection is raised, for we suspect lest that this second time when he established it for tithes of this gleaning, since it is exempt from Tithes, the Tithes do not establish it, for we don’t’ separate from that which is exempt for what is liable. And we respond that the person who takes a third sheaf and says if the second one that I had established it is for Tithes is for gleaning, and it cannot be for tithes, the third is tithed for the first.

The top of a single ear of grain [that remained] after the harvesting and its top touches the standing stalk: If it can be cut with the stalk, it belongs to the owner; But if not, it belongs to the poor. After having harvested the stalks, one stalk remains that has a single ear of grain on it. The question is, is this ear of grain considered to be “forgotten,” in which case it belongs to the poor? The rule is that if it still touches a standing stalk that has not yet been harvested and it can be cut in one swipe with that stalk then it is not forgotten. If it cannot be cut together with the stalk, then it is considered to be forgotten and it still belongs to the poor.

א"ר אליעזר וכי היאך העני הזה מחליף דבר שלא בא ברשותו – Rabbi Eliezer to the words of the Rabbis said to them that, that you who dispute me regarding a rich person who gleans Peah for a poor person, for I say that he should take possession and you stated that he should not take possession, how can this poor person exchange a matter that has not come into his possession? For surely, the owner of the field is not able to make assignment to him the gleanings according to their words, and it is found that this gleaning does not come into the possession of the poor person, other than according to their words, he can assign the poor person the entire pile on the condition to return it, for a gift given on the condition to return it is called a gift, and it is found that that sheaf which is gleanings comes to the hand of the poor person and he can exchange it for another. But the Rabbis state here that they did what they cannot assign as one who assigns it and we consider it as that sheaf of gleanings as if it comes into the hands of the poor person, even though that he did not merit it, for regarding this he can exchange it for another. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

If an ear of grain of gleanings that became mixed up with a stack of grain, [the owner] must tithe one ear of grain and give it to him [the poor]. In this case an ear of grain of gleanings that should belong to the poor gets mixed up with a stack of grain that belongs to the field owner. The problem here is that the gleanings are exempt from tithes whereas the stack is liable to be tithed. Therefore, he owner can’t just give the ear to the poor person, because he would be forcing the poor person to tithe it. So according to the Rambam what he does is he takes two ears of grain from the stack. He picks up the first one and says, “If this is the gleaning then let it belong to the poor person. But if it is not gleanings, then let the tithes that I give from the other ear be taken for this ear.” He then makes the same statement on the second ear of grain. Then he gives one to the poor person.

Rabbi Eliezer says: how can this poor man give in exchange something that had not yet become his? Rather, [the owner] must transfer to the poor man the ownership of the whole stack and then tithe one ear of grain and give it to him. According to Rabbi Eliezer, the problem with this is that the poor person has not yet taken the gleanings such that he can exchange them for another ear. In other words, according to the sages, the poor person relinquishes ownership over the original gleanings when he accepts the ear of corn in exchange despite the fact that he has not even taken possession of the gleanings. To avoid this problem what the field owner should do is give the whole stack to the poor person as a retractable gift (which according to halakhah counts as a gift), and then take it back and then perform the tithing procedure as described above.

אין מגלגלין בטופח – a form of thin pulse, which we call in Arabic Gilabaan. But Maimonides explained that it is a kind of seed which we call it Kortmin, and it is likened to barley. And Rabbi Meir states that we don’t irrigate this species with other kinds of seeds, to reap them together, for the greening that was appropriate to fall from the other kinds of seeds would fall from this worst species and it is found to cause loss to the poor.

Introduction Our mishnah deals with the potential problem of watering a field with a water wheel.

וחכמים מתירים מפני שאפשר – that gleanings will fall from the rest of the seeds as from the irrigating engine. And the Halakha is according to the Sages. Another explanation: We don’t bring up water in a wheel from the well to water the field or to sprinkle it until the irrigating engine waters on it at the time when the poor come for the gleanings, because it causes loss to the poor. But the Sages permit it, since it is possible that they would estimate the loss of the poor in this and give the owner the family according to the estimation that they would estimate upon it, and for Rabbi Meir who stated that we don’t irrigate, we estimate for the owner of the house his loss and take it from the poor.

They should not [irrigate a field] with a water wheel, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Meir prohibits watering a field with a water wheel before the poor come and collect their gleanings because the water will cause the gleanings to be ruined.

The sages permit it, because it is still possible [for the poor to get their gleanings]. The other sages permit this because he can just pick up the gleanings and put them on the side and the poor can come and collect them from there. Furthermore, if he does end up ruining some of their gleanings, he can always compensate them for their losses.

עני היה באותה שעה – and he is exempt from paying, and the Halakha is according to the Sages.

Introduction This mishnah deals with a person who is not truly poor, but while traveling has no money to buy food and takes one of the agricultural gifts that goes to the poor. The question is must he make restitution. One of the interesting things about this mishnah is that it contains a definition of what it means to be poor.

A property owner who was passing from place to place and need to take gleanings, the forgotten sheaf, peah or the poor man’s tithe, he may take them, and when he returns home, he must pay [for the amount gathere], the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Eliezer holds that the person who is temporarily poor can take the agricultural gifts that belong to the poor. However, since he has land, he is not truly poor. When he returns to his home, he has to make restitution to the poor for that which he took.

The sages say: he was a poor man at that time [and so he need not make restitution]. The other sages look at his current status and not his overall status. Since he was poor and had no money to buy food while he was out traveling, he need not make restitution when he returns. We could explain this mishnah as a debate about the definition of poverty. To Rabbi Eliezer, a poor person is one who doesn’t have any property. Since this person has property, he must make restitution for that which he took. In contrast the other rabbis hold that a person is poor if he doesn’t have any money to buy food. After all, all the property in the world won’t help him if he doesn’t have cash to buy food.

המחליף עם העניים – he gives grain or fruit to a poor person in exchange for what he gleaned.

One who exchanges with the poor, [what they give in exchange] for his is exempt [from tithes] but what [he gives in exchange] for that of the poor is subject [to tithes]. The agricultural presents received by the poor are not obligated in tithes, whereas normal produce is. So if a field owner gives the poor some of his produce and in return they give him back the peah, forgotten sheaf, or gleanings that he gives to them, then that which he gives to them must be tithed and that which they give to him is exempt from tithes. In other words, the fact that they now have possession over some produce does not change the fact that it was not originally exempt from tithes, and the same holds true for the opposite scenario. All of the produce retains its original status even after it was swapped.

שלו פטור – from tithing. What the poor person gave him which is gleaning, the forgotten sheaf and [from] the corner of the field.

Two who received a field as sharecroppers, this one may give to the other his share of the poor man’s tithe and this one may give to the other his share of the poor man’s tithe. In this scenario two people receive a field from its owner in return for giving the owner a percentage of the crop. In general, a field owner cannot take the agricultural gifts from his field for himself, even if he is poor. This is probably meant to prevent corruption. However, these two sharecroppers do not own the field, and hence each can give the other the agricultural gifts of peah, forgotten sheaves, gleanings and the poor man’s tithe. They cannot take the agricultural gifts from the part of the field that they are actually harvesting because that part of the field is considered as belonging to them.

ושל עניים חייב – what the owner of the house gave the poor person from his grain, and he is lible to tithe prior to giving it to the poor person.

One who receives a field in order to harvest it, he is forbidden to take gleanings, the forgotten sheaf, peah or the poor man’s tithe. In contrast, a single person who receives a field in order to harvest it and to take a share of the harvest as payment, cannot take the agricultural gifts for himself. The difference between this case and that in the previous section is that here there is only one person. Since he harvests the whole field, he cannot take any of its agricultural offerings.

שנים שקבלו את השדה – and both of them are poor.

Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? When he receives it [in order to pay the owner] a half, third or quarter [of the crop]. But [if the owner] had said to him: “A third of that which you harvest belongs to you,” then he may take gleanings, the forgotten sheaf and peah, but not the poor man’s tithe. Rabbi Judah says that the previous ruling holds true only if the contract with the sharecropper implied that the sharecropper owns his percentage of the crop while it is still attached to the ground. In such a scenario he is considered to have sufficient ownership of the crop that he cannot take the agricultural offerings. However, if the contract implies that the crop becomes his only after it has already been harvested, then he may take gleanings, forgotten sheaf and peah, because it is as if he is being paid to harvest with produce that has been detached from the ground. He is not the owner of the field and therefore he can take the agricultural gifts. However, he still cannot take the poor man’s tithe because poor man’s tithe is always given with harvested produce and not with the crop while still attached to the land. And once he harvests the crop some of it belongs to him and he cannot take the poor man’s tithe from his own produce.

באריסות – for one-half, for one-third and/or for one-fourth, and they are made like the owner of the house, and if the owner of the house is poor, he is prohibited from the gleanings of his field, as it is written (Leviticus 19:10): “or gather [the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them] for the poor…,” it is a warning to the poor that he should not glean his gleanings and he is liable to separate out the Poor Man’s tithe and to give it to another poor person. And specially everyone regarding his portion is made like the owner of the house, and not on the part of his fellow. Therefore, it is permissible for this one to give that one the Poor Man’s Tithe.

שקבלה ממנו למחצה – if he owned that which was attached [to the ground] but if he said to him… [שליש] מה שאתה קוצר – you have no part other than that which is detached [from the ground] and he is liable for gleanings, the forgotten sheaf and the corner of the field, everything is upon the owner of the field, and even though that you forgotten the sheaves when detached at he time of the heaping up of the sheaves/carrying the sheaves home nevertheless, here he is exempt, and we don’t call it, “your harvest” (Leviticus 21:9), since he did not merit it other than when it was detached. And a proselyte who converted after the harvest and is liable in the forgotten sheaf above, according to Rabbi Yehuda, that is because we call it “your field” (Leviticus 21:9). But nevertheless, for this reason, we do not obligate a convert in gleaning after it had been uprooted from being attached to the ground.

המוכר שדהו – He sold him a field and its standing corn, but if he sold only the standing corn and left the field to himself, both are forbidden for the gleanings, the forgotten sheaf and the corner of the field, for near this, I call it “your field” and near that I call “your harvest.”

Introduction This is the final mishnah which deals with the topic of gleanings.

המוכר מותר – [to have] the gleanings, the forgotten sheaf and the corner of the field if he is poor.

One who sells, the seller is permitted [to take the agricultural gifts] and the purchaser is forbidden. Someone who sells a field may subsequently take the agricultural gifts (provided he is poor) from that field because once he has sold it, he is no longer the owner. The opposite also holds true--the one who bought the field may not take the agricultural gifts even if he is poor because he is now the owner.

על מנת שילקט בנו אחריו – and through this, the worker deducts it from the rent, it is found that he repays his liability from the poor.

One may not hire a worker on the condition that the son [of the worker] should gather the gleanings after him. The remainder of our mishnah teaches that it is forbidden to create a system whereby one poor person will have an advantage over others in collecting the gleanings. A field owner is not allowed to hire a worker who stipulates that his son would collect the gleanings after him. Such a scenario could entirely corrupt the system. First, the worker’s son gains an unfair advantage. Second, one can easily imagine the field owner telling the worker that he is going to pay him less because he is giving him preferential ability to collect the gleanings. The owner might try to in essence sell the gleanings. In other words, forbidding this contract protects the rights of other poor people as well as this worker himself.

אל תסג גבול עולים – that is to say, don’t read it as “always” but rather as those who ascend, there are those who interpret these as those who went up from Egypt that they would not change the warnings in the Torah that were given to those who left Egypt, and there are those who interpret those to ascend as those people whose property decreased, and calling them those who ascend is a language of honor, such as they call a blind person, who is capable of sight.

One who does not allow the poor to gather, or one who allows one but not another, or one who helps one of them [to gather] behold he is a robber of the poor. Concerning him it is said: “Do not remove the landmark of those that come up (” (Proverbs 22:28). The mishnah concludes with some general exhortations against these types of arrangements. One should not do anything to give preferential treatment to some poor people over others. The final midrash on Proverbs 22:28 is based on a variant reading of the text of Proverbs. The Masoretic (traditional Jewish) text reads, “Do not remove the ancient (olam) landmark stone.” Our text reads the word “olam” as if it was written “olim.” “Olim” usually means “those who go up” and therefore it may be being used euphemistically here for the poor who could be called “those who are going down,” meaning they have lost their money.

ולא שכחו בעל הבית – such as the case where the owner of the house is in the field and refers concerning him and he acquires it, but the owner of the house is in the city, it is considered forgetting, even though the owner of the house did not forget it.

Introduction Our mishnah begins to deal with the topic of forgotten sheaves. Deuteronomy 24:19 states, “When you reap the harvest in your field and overlook a sheaf in the field, do not turn back to get it; it shall go to the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow in order that the Lord you God may bless you in all your undertakings.” Today’s mishnah teaches what it means for a sheaf to be considered “forgotten.”

A sheaf which the workers forgot but not the land owner, or which the land owner forgot but not the workers; or [a sheaf] which the poor stood in front of [and blocked its view], or they covered it up with stubble, it is not considered a forgotten sheaf. In order for the sheaf to be considered “forgotten” and therefore belong to the poor, both the one who actually owns the land and the worker who is harvesting the crop must forget it. If only one of them “forgets” it there in the field, then it is still not considered forgotten. Similarly, if the poor stand in front of the sheaf so that the owner or field worker can’t see it and thereby forget it, or if they to cover it up with stubble so that it won’t be noticed, then they don’t get to keep it as a “forgotten sheaf” because they themselves caused it to be forgotten. Note that while in yesterday’s mishnah we were concerned with the field owners cheating the poor out of what belongs to them, today we are concerned that the poor might cheat the field owner. The rabbis’ concern for cheating is not protection for one side over the other. It is balanced protection in order to ensure that the system operates justly to both sides.

לכובעות – to make of them a kind of hat at the top, for such they were accustomed to making wreaths of ears of corn and to put them on the head.

One who binds sheaves into stack covers, stack bases, round stacks or regular stacks, he is not subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf [while binding].
[When bringing them afterwards] to the threshing-floor, he is subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf.
One who piles up the sheaves to make a stack, he is subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf.
[When bringing them afterwards] to the threshing-floor, he is not subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf.
This is the general rule: whoever makes the sheaves at the place which is the end of the work is subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf, [and afterwards when he takes] them to the threshing-floor, he is not subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf.
However, [one who piles up the sheaves] at a place which is not the end of the work, is not subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf; [and afterwards when he takes] them to the threshing-floor, he is subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf.
The status of a sheaf as “forgotten” is determined at the time when the processing of the sheaf is completed and it is ready to be threshed. Our mishnah comes to teach that the laws of the forgotten sheaf do not apply when he makes small piles of sheaves in order to later make them into a bigger stack or to bring them to the threshing floor. They only apply either when he makes the smaller bundles of sheaves into a large stack, or when he brings them to the threshing floor.
Section one: In this case, the worker makes the grain into small temporary sheaves while harvesting. If he forgets a sheaf at this point, it does not officially count as “forgotten” and it does not belong to the poor.
Section two: If he then proceeds to gather these small bundles of sheaves in order to bring them to the threshing floor and while doing so forgets one of them, it is considered to be “forgotten” and it belongs to the poor. This situation, and the previous one, will be illustrated in section six. When he makes the small bundles it is not yet “the end of the work” and therefore they are not yet subject to the laws of the forgotten sheaf. When he then takes them to the threshing floor, this is considered the end of the stacking/bundling work and they now are liable for the laws of the forgotten sheaf.
Section three: This is the opposite scenario. He makes a big stack of sheaves out in the field. There is no more work of stacking to be done, and hence if there is something forgotten at this point, it counts as a forgotten sheaf.
Section four: Henceforth, when he brings this stack to the threshing floor, it is no longer liable for the laws of the forgotten sheaf. This is illustrated in section five.
The general rule of the entire mishnah might be summed up thusly: the laws of the forgotten sheaf apply at the completion of the stacking/bundling process. Before and after this time if a sheaf is forgotten it does not count as a forgotten sheaf.

לכומסאות – they are not tall nor project above like hats, but are bent below so that they would be seen so much, as it states (Deuteronomy 32:34): “Lo, I have it all put away [Sealed up in My storehouses].”

ולחררה – reaped a little bit and made a temporary stack in the field, in order to roll the dough to make a thick cake baked on coals. Another explanation: There are those who harvest the grain and make a pile in one place until they are collected, and then they carry them to the place where they thresh the grain, and the place of the threshing is called a granary. And what they make a pile of on the ground is called stack covers, like the image of a hat which they place on a head, and what they make a pile of in a ditch in the field is called sheaves put at the bottom of a stack as foundation , like the language of (Deuteronomy 32:34): “Lo, I have it all put away,” and what they make a pile in a round heap like the image of the stone of a millstone is called a temporary stack in the field, on account that the temporary sheaf is round.

ולעמרים – he made small sheaves and he will end up making from two or three one sheaf.

אין לו שכחה – that is to say, what he forgot in the field at the time that he brings in from one of these places is not “forgotten,” as it is written (Deuteronomy 24:19): “When you reap the harvest in your field and overlook a sheaf in the field, [do not turn back to get it;]...,” just as there is reaping that has no reaping after it, so too carrying sheaves home, which have no other sheaves, which excludes those which have sheaves heaped up afterwards.

ממנו ולגורן יש לו שכחה – A person who brings from one of these places to the granary and forgot one heap of sheaves from these places, is considered “forgotten.”

המעמר לגדיש – and wants that they should remain in one place and there he will thresh them, there is something forgotten.

ממנו ולגורן – if he had his mind upon them and afterwards brought them to another place to thresh them, he has nothing forgotten.