תלמוד על מעילה 3:6

¹⁶⁹From here on, the Halakhah also is Peah7:8 (פ).“How did they permit sycamore figs of dedicated trees? The Sages said to them, do you not agree with us that growth of dedicated [plants] is forbidden? They told them, when our forefathers dedicated them, they dedicated only the tree stems because of the strong men who came and took them by force.¹⁷⁰Tosephta 3:22 (Babli 56b). Sycamores produce inferior fruits but superior building material. The “strong men” are probably the Hasmonean rulers or Herod. The people protected their sycamore groves by putting them out of bounds of any human government.” Do the rabbis mean to say that they dedicated tree stems and fruits? Even if you say that they dedicated the tree stems but not the fruits, the rabbis wonder if somebody dedicates an orchard, may he reserve the growth for himself¹⁷¹In Mishnah Meˋilah 3:6 the anonymous Tanna declares that taking the fruits of a Temple tree does not constitute the crime of meˋilah, larceny committed on Temple property. But R. Yose declares the fruits to be covered by meˋilah. The Babli 56b points out that the Sages of the Tosephta, while agreeing that no felony is committed by taking the sycamore figs, nevertheless must assume that taking them means overstepping a prohibition. No such prohibition is written in the Torah. While any stipulation contradicting a commandment of the Torah is invalid (Peah 6:9), one violating a rabbinic prohibition may be valid. It remains unresolved whether the people of Jericho had permission to reserve the right to use the jummiz.? Let us hear from the following¹⁷²Mishnah Peah 7:8, about a vineyard dedicated to the Temple (i. e., its fruits to be sold by the Temple and the proceeds to be given to the Temple treasury).: “After the gleanings are recognizable, the gleanings belong to the poor.” That is different because nobody may dedicate anything that is not his own¹⁷³Since gleanings on vines belong to the poor by Divine decree (Deut. 24:21).. Does that not mean that even if the gleanings were not yet recognizable, they should belong to the poor? This is different, because it is a vineyard for the Temple, as it was stated¹⁷⁴Tosephta Peah 3:15. Here starts a Genizah fragment, edited by L. Ginzberg in Ginze Schechter, vol. 1, New York 1928, pp. 442–448 (ג).: “It somebody plants a vineyard for the Temple, it is exempt from single berries¹⁷⁵Which in secular growth belong to the poor (Lev. 19:10). Addition by the corrector, supported by a lacuna in ג., and from ˋoriah¹⁷⁶The fruits growing in the first three years after planting, forbidden for use (Lev.19:23)., and from the Fourth Year¹⁷⁷Where the fruit has to be redeemed (Lev. 19:24)., but it is subject to the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The land shall observe a Sabbath for the Eternal¹⁷⁸Lev. 25:2.. The sanctity of the Sabbatical falls even on anything that is the Eternal’s.