Commentaire sur Péa 2:12

אלו מפסיקין – between one field and another and they would be considered like two fields, regarding [the case] that if he left the corner fallow in one of them over its neighbor, he did not fulfill [the Mitzvah] of Peah, as it is written (Leviticus 19:9): “….you shall not reap all the way to the edges of your field…,” for he did not leave the corner fallow from one field to its neighbor.

Introduction This mishnah deals with how one determines if a plot of land is considered one plot or two in terms of peah. If the plot is considered to be two then he must leave peah from both fields for he cannot give peah from one field in order to exempt the other.

הנחל – river

The following divide a field for peah: a stream, a pool, a private road, a public road, a public path, a private path in constant use in summer and the rainy season, fallow land, a plowed field and a different seed. If one of these things is found in a given field then the field is considered to be two and he must leave peah in both. Most of these are self-explanatory. The private path must be in constant use for it to be considered significant enough to divide the field. A plowed field refers to one that was not planted, unlike a fallow field to which no work has been done. Planting different seeds is another way of dividing one field from another.

שלולית – canal that imparts booty (alluvium) to its banks (see Talmud Bava Kamma 61a), that other canals drink from it.

One who harvested for animal fodder, [the plot] serves divides, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: it does not stop for peah unless it is plowed. One doesn’t have to leave peah from a field that has been harvested for the crops to be animal food. Our mishnah deals with a case where one harvests a field early so that the unripe grain can be used as animal fodder. According to Rabbi Meir this harvest now divides the field into two. In other words we don’t look at this harvest as being part of the harvest of the remainder of the field and therefore the section that has been harvested is considered to be fallow. The other rabbis consider the harvest of the crops for animal food to be part of the larger harvest and hence this harvest in and of itself does not divide the field. Only if before he harvests the rest of the field he goes and plows it does it serve to divide the field into two.

ודרך היחיד – four cubits

ודרך הרבים – sixteen cubits, and because of the concluding section [of the Mishnah] it used it, for it was necessary for the Mishnah to teach the ending section that all of these do not form a division at a tree. And it comes to tell us that even the communal path which is sixteen cubits wide does not form a division at a tree.

שביל הרבים ושביל היחיד – many small paths that took a foot and left a foot, and we learn that even the communal path if it is fixed for the days of sunshine (i.e., summer months) and the days of rain (i.e., winter months), that means to say, that people walk on it, even at the time when the fields are sown during the rainy seasons that separate between sown fields, and if not, they do not separate.

הבור – a field that is not sown [as it is written] (Genesis 47:19): “that the land may not become a waste,” which we translate [in Aramaic]: “and the land lay waste.”

והניר – ploughing, like (Jeremiah 4:3): “Break up the untilled ground, [and do not sow among thorns].”

וזרע אחר – like the example of two fields that are sown with wheat and between them is a piece of land sown with another kind. And the measurement of the width of the fallow land or the newly broken land and another seed is of three furrows with the handle of the plow.

והקוצר לשחת מפסיק – for he (i.e., Rabbi Meir) holds that a person who harvests young grain [for use as fodder] – is not for harvesting, and we don’t consider it as the beginning of harvesting. Corn that is used as fodder at its earliest stage which is grain that did not bring forth a third, and we harvest it to feed it to animals. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.

אמת המים שאינה יכולה להקצר כאחת – which was so wide that until one stands in the middle [of the channel] , he is unable to reap from one side or the other.

Introduction This mishnah continues to discuss what divides a field.

ר' יהודה אומר מפסקת – And he disagrees with the First Tanna, that he said above regarding the pool, that is the canal that in every manner it forms a division; but Rabbi Yehuda holds that if he is able to reap as one, it does not divide. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.

A water channel that makes harvesting [on one side] impossible [while standing on the other side], Rabbi Judah says: it divides. This mishnah teaches that a water channel divides a field only if the channel is wide enough that one cannot stand on one side and harvest the other side.

וכל ההרים אשר במעדר יעדרון – A mountain whose thin-point is upright and cattle with its utensils are unable to to pass there, and there is a division between the two fields.

But all of the hills that can be tilled with a hoe, even though cattle cannot pass over it in with their equipment, [is regarded as part of the field] he gives one peah from it all. We should note that the first words of this mishnah are a quote of Isaiah 7:25. I am not sure why the mishnah here uses biblical language. In any case, the mishnah refers to hills that lie in the middle of a field that are tilled with a hoe. One is obligated to give peah from this type of field even though oxen cannot plow their field because it is too hilly. Furthermore, the hills do not serve to divide the field since they are plowed by a person and planted.

הוא נותן פאה לכל – that is to say, he gives provides one “Peah”/corner for the two fields and it is not considered a division, for since they are hoed with a mattock, that is to say, that people dig the mountain with the utensil that they dig up the ground, this is not a division. For the person who sees it says that this not uncultivated ground, but the next day, they hoe it with a mattock and seed it and the two fields which are as one.

הכל מפסיק לזרעים – It is explains in the Gemara of the Jerusalem Talmud (Peah 17a) that the word הכל/all of these – includes a rock hat would pass over the face of the entire field. If it is necessary to uproot the plough from this side in order to place it on that side, one makes a division.

Introduction This mishnah teaches that there is a difference in what divides a field between a field planted with seeds from which crops grow (mostly grain and beans) and a field of trees.

אלא גדר – ten handbreadths high.

All of these divide in the case of a field [planted] with seeds, but in the case of trees nothing divides except a fence. All of the things in the above two mishnayot divide fields that are planted with seeds, but they do not divide fields with trees. The only thing that divides a field of trees is a fence. The reason for this seems to be that fields with trees customarily have large spaces between trees. There is always some fallow land. In contrast, crops such as wheat and barley are grown closely together and hence a fallow patch or a stream would serve to divide the field.

שער כותש – the branches of a tree are called שער. And the explanation is a thick hair crown, i.e., ramifications forming a sort of arbor – that the boughs of the trees combine one with the other above from the fence like these leaves that are caught in the mortar-shaped cavity. [The Gemara asks: Does this mean, like the pestle in the mortar (i.e., the partition is formed by a depression in the ground between the two fields, out of which the fence rises), or does it mean, pressing up (overgrowing) the fence? The ‘hair (ramification) presses, and not the ‘fence presence’, it is evident that it means overgrowing the fence.’].

Should the branches intertwine [on top of the fence], then it does not divide and he gives one peah for the whole field. Even a fence doesn’t divide a field of trees if the branches of the field are intertwined on top of the fence. Since the trees are intertwined with one another, we consider it to be one field.

כל הרואים זה את זה – All the while that he stands near one of the trees, he can see the other tree; even though there is a fence between them, it does not divide, and he takes [one portion of] Peah from the one tree on behalf of its neighbor.

Introduction This mishnah deals with peah for carob and olive trees.

לזיתים שהיו להם בכל רוח – They would give [one portion of] Peah on all the olives that they had on the eastern side of the city, and another [portion of] Peah for all the olives that they had on eh western side, and similarly for the four directions.

As for carob trees, [they are not divided] as long as they see one another. For a field of carob trees to be considered one field all the trees have to do is “see one another.” This means that someone standing next to one tree can see the other tree. If he can then the owner gives one peah from both trees.

שהיו להם בכל העיר – they do not give other than one [portion of] Peah for all of them, even though they don’t see each other, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer the son of Rabbi Tzadok who quoted him. But the Halakha is according to Rabban Gamaliel.

Rabban Gamaliel said: we had this custom in the house of my father. We would give separate peah from the olive trees in each direction and [one peah] for all the carob trees that saw one another. Rabban Gamaliel relates the custom that he had in his father’s house with regard to giving peah from carob and olive trees. He would give one peah from the olive trees that he had on all the different sides of the town. All of the olive trees are considered as if they were all part of one field. However, when it came to the carob trees he gave one peah for all of carob trees that were in sight of each other.

Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok said in his name: also for the carob trees they had in the whole city [they only gave one peah]. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok relates a different tradition in the name of Rabban Gamaliel. According to this tradition, they also gave only one peah for all of the carob trees, just like they did for the olive trees.

שני מיני חיטין – such as reddish, dark-colored wheat and white-colored wheat

Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with the question of when one gives one peah and when one gives two peahs. As we shall see what determines how many peahs he gives is usually not how many times he brings his grain to the threshing floor to separate the chaff from the wheat. Rather what determines is mostly how many types of species of grain that he planted.

He who plants his field with one kind of seed, even though he makes up of it two threshing-floors, he gives only one peah [for the lot]. If he planted his field with one kind of seed, for instance wheat, and he harvested it on two separate occasions and brought it two separate times to the threshing floor, he is only obligated to give one peah. Thus if he gave peah for the produce the first time he brought it, he need not bring peah again.

If he plants it of two kinds, even though he makes up of it one threshing-floor, he must give two peahs. In contrast, if he planted two different kinds of seeds he must give two different peahs, even if he threshed both types of grains together at the threshing floor. What this means is that if he gave peah from the first kind of seed he must still give peah from the other one.

One who plants his field with two species of wheat: If he makes up of it one threshing-floor, he gives only one peah; But if two threshing-floors, he gives two peahs. This is an in-between case. He plants the same type of seed but they are two different species of wheat. Same family, different species. In this case it makes a different how many times he brings the harvest to the threshing floor. If he brings it once, then he must give only one peah. But if he brings it twice he must give two peahs.

הלבלר – the scribe

Introduction This mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday’s mishnah. Its halakhic content is exactly the same as that halakhah in clause three of yesterday’s mishnah. It does not add any new halakhic information. What it does add is something about the authority and antiquity of that tradition.

הזוגות – they are those mentioned two-by-two in the first chapter of Mishnah Avot (from Mishnah 4), where two [individuals] received [the tradition] from two [others] [until] from the mouth of Shimon HaTzaddik/the Righteous.

It happened that Rabbi Shimon of Mitzpah planted his field [with two different kinds] and came before Rabban Gamaliel. They both went up to the Chamber of Hewn Stone and asked [about the law]. Nahum the scribe said: I have a tradition from Rabbi Meyasha, who received it from Abba, who received it from the pairs [of sage], who received it from the prophets, a halakhah of Moses from Sinai, that one who plants his field with two species of wheat, if he makes up of it one threshing-floor, he gives only one peah, but if two threshing-floors, he gives two peahs. According to this mishnah, the halakhah at the end of yesterday’s mishnah was unknown to some sages who lived when the Second Temple still stood. Since they didn’t know what to do in this situation, whether to give two peahs or one peah, they went to the Temple and asked the scribe, who sat in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, the place in the Temple where the Sanhedrin sat and answered questions. Nahum the Scribe told them that this law had been passed down from generation to generation and goes all the way back to Moses at Sinai. What this means is that the law is of great antiquity and significant authority. This is one of the occasions in the Mishnah upon which the rabbis emphasize the antiquity of the oral law. On a few occasions they say that a law that seems to be of a minor detail within a veritable sea of halakhah, is so old that it goes all the way back to Moses. It is as if they are trying to say that just as this law of minor detail is of great antiquity all the more so the larger aspects of the system go all the way back to the giving of the Torah. The “pairs” refers to the pairs of sages who led the Sanhedrin and Israel in the late Second Temple period. They are listed in the beginning of Tractate Avot and in Hagigah 2:2.

שדה שקצרוה גוים – for themselves. But the heathen workers did not harvest it for an Israelite, for then, it is as if an Israelite harvested it.

Introduction A person is obligated to give peah from his field only if he harvested it. Our mishnah brings examples where the owner didn’t harvest the field and hence is exempt from giving peah.

קרסמוה נמלים – it is the manner of ants to sever the branch of an ear of corn from the bottom, and this is called the plucking of tops off, in the language of (Psalms 80:14): “wild boars gnaw at it.”

A field harvested by gentiles, or harvested by robbers, or which ants have bitten [the stalks at the roots], or which wind and cattle have broken down, is exempt from peah. If he didn’t harvest the field because it was harvested by others who are not obligated by the laws of peah, for instance, gentiles or robbers, he is not obligated to give peah. Even if the gentiles or robbers leave the stalks in the field for the owner to collect, he is still not obligated to give peah. Furthermore, if the field’s produce is “reaped” by animals, for instance ants that nibble away at the stalks at their roots thereby “reaping” the grain, or by wind or cattle which break the stalks, he need not leave peah. This rule is based on a midrash on verses such as Leviticus 19:9, which state, “When you harvest your field” you have to harvest to be liable for peah.

פטורה – as it is written concerning the corner (Leviticus 23:22): “and when you reap [the harvest of your land…” until you, yourselves will be the reapers/harvesters.

If [the owner] harvested half of it and robbers harvested half, it is exempt from peah, for the obligation of peah is in the standing grain. If he harvested the first half and then robbers came and harvested the second half he is exempt from giving peah. This is because the obligation of giving peah is “set” at the time that the last standing stalk is harvested. Since this was done by the robbers, the owner is exempt from peah.

שחובת הקציר בקמה – that is to say, the obligation for the corner of this that is left standing, and assuming that if the field was destroyed, the corner returned to the sheaves and he is liable to separate the corner from the sheaves; these words apply where the field was destroyed, but here it was not destroyed.

הלוקח נותן פאה לכל – that the obligation of the corner from what he had harvested remains in that one-half that the purchaser bought, and it is as if he did not sell him other than what had remained in the field after he removed from it the appropriate corner to be removed from that field, and similarly, one who redeems from the hand of the treasurer removes from the one-half that he redeemed the appropriate corner for the entire field.

Introduction This mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday’s mishnah, concerning a field that was harvested half by its owners and half by others.

If robbers harvested half and the owner the other half, he gives peah from what he has harvested. Since robbers harvested the first half, he is exempt from giving peah for that section of the field. He need only give peah from the second half which he himself harvested.

If he harvested half and sold the other half, then the purchaser must give peah for the whole. In this case he harvested half of the field, thereby becoming obligated to give peah for that half. Then he sold the entire field, including his obligation to give peah for the half of the field that he had already harvested. In other words had the original owner kept the field, he would have had to have given peah from the second half of the field, from the stalks that he had already harvested. When he sold these stalks to someone else the obligation to give peah still exists. Therefore, the purchaser must give peah for the whole field, both the half that the previous owner harvested and the half that he himself harvests.

If he harvested half and dedicated the other half, then he who redeems it from the Temple treasurer must give peah for the whole. This situation is analogous to that in the previous section. The owner harvests half the field and then instead of selling the remaining half, he dedicates it to the Temple. Normally, peah is not given from fields that belong to the Temple. However, in this case because he began to harvest the field himself and he left the peah to be given from the second half of the field, the one who redeems the field from the Temple’s treasurer must still give peah from the second half of the field for the whole field. [To recall, redeeming means he gives the value of the field to the Temple and the field becomes non-sacred and belongs to him. Even the original owner can be the one who can redeem it, and probably would often be the one to do this. Donating the field became a way then of indirectly donating money.]