Commento su Pe'ah 3:5

It was the third day since his circumcision... [Rashi knows this] because He appeared to him in order to visit him, thus it makes sense that it was on the third day, since he was in the most pain then. For it says (34:25): “On the third day when they were in pain.” The Re’m asks: On the contrary, the danger on the third day is less than the danger during the first two days, for it says in Shabbos 134b that [according to the first Tanna] we may wash a circumcised infant [with warm water on Shabbos during the first two days after milah, but not on the third day, when he is in less danger]. If so, how did R. Chama bar Chanina [cited by Rashi] know that He appeared to Avraham was on the third day? Perhaps it was on the second day! Granted it was not the first day, when he was busy doing his own milah and that of his servants, but perhaps it was the second day. It seems to me that the answer is: The Tannaim (ibid.) only disagree regarding the milah of an infant, who is more exposed to danger on the first and second day than on the third day. The first Tanna holds that an infant’s wound heals very quickly [and the third day poses less danger]. Whereas R. Eliezer holds there is no difference between the first two days and the third day, and cites the verse, [“On the third day when they were in pain,” about the men of Shechem,] although it is not conclusive proof. But for the milah of an adult, all agree that the third day poses a greater danger than the first two. For the verse testifies: “On the third day when they were in pain,” which Onkelos explains as, “When their pains were the strongest.” And so the Rambam explains the third day’s pains (Peirush HaMishnayos, Shabbos 19:3): “Fluids flow down and create swelling, increasing the pain.” It is likely that an infant is different in this respect, as he has less fluid. His danger is the wound itself, thus on the third day his danger is less, since his wound heals quickly. But an adult’s wound is not as dangerous in itself, for he can withstand a knife wound, as is well known. [His danger is from] the fluids, which do not accumulate so much at first. It seems to me that the answer is: The Halachah states (Yoreh De’ah 335) that one should not visit the sick person on the first two days. [Therefore, it must have been the third day.] (Nachalas Yaakov) The Re’m asked: On v. 18:6, “Knead it and make cake-rolls,” the Midrash commented (Bereishis Rabba 48:12): “It was Erev Pesach.” And so it says in v. 19:3 [regarding Lot], “He baked matzos,” upon which Rashi himself comments: “It was Pesach.” Thus the Midrash must be of the opinion that Hashem visited Avraham on the very day of the milah, the fifteenth of Nisan, [since Yitzchok was born one year from the milah (see 17:21), and was born on the fifteenth of Nisan (see Rashi, 18:10). And since Hashem’s visit was Erev Pesach after noon, it was considered the fifteenth of Nisan]. But R. Chama [cited by Rashi here] is of the opinion that the visit was on the seventeenth of Nisan, [which is the third day]. If so, why did Rashi cite conflicting Aggados? The Re’m elaborated but did not explain it well. It seems to me that the answer is simple: According to all opinions, the milah was on the twelfth of Nisan, and the visit was on the fifteenth of Nisan. And, [as Rashi mentioned on 21:2,] the angel scratched a mark on the wall [to mark the date]. This was done on the 16th, [so as not to desecrate Yom Tov]. At that point Hashem said (v. 14): “At the appointed time (למועד) I shall return,” [referring to the 15th of Nisan of the coming year. You might ask:] On the day of the milah it said (17:21): למועד הזה, but on the day of Hashem’s visit it says: למועד, without הזה. [If so, why was Yitzchok born the following year on the day of the visit, rather than on the day of the milah? The answer is]: Rashi explained on v. 14 as follows: “למועד, i.e., on the מועד that I previously set for you when I said (17:21), ‘למועד הזה next year.’” And the reference works in reverse as well: when Hashem said on the day of the milah: “למועד הזה next year,” it actually referred to the day of the visit. And so Rashi explained on 21:2 [that it refers to the day of the visit]; see Rashi there.

שלקחו את האילן – from those trees that are considered in the first chapter [of our Tractate, Mishnah 5] that are liable for Peah.

Introduction This mishnah deals with giving peah in fields or parts thereof that are owned by two owners.

המוכר קלחי אילן – the roots of the plants that are liable for Peah, but he did not sell him the actual ground, the purchaser gives Peah/corner of the field [for the poor] for each one of them.

[Two] brothers who divided [an inheritance] must give [two] peahs. Once two brothers have divided an inherited field, each section is considered a separate field and peah must be given separately for each field.

בזמן שלא שייר – that is to say, if the owner of the field had not begun to reap or harvest the fruit, then the purchaser is liable to give Peah, but if the owner of the field had begun to reap his field before he sold these, what remains from the field that was not reaped or harvested , the owner of the field is the one who gives the Peah on everything, for since he had begun in reaping or the harvesting of the fruit, he becomes liable for Peah on all of the field. But Rabbi Yehuda comes to explain the words of the First Tanna/teacher, and such is the Halakha.

If they afterwards again become partners they give one peah. If they become partners in the field, then the field is under joint ownership and peah is given for the entire field together. As we shall see, this is the general rule for all jointly owned fields.

Two who purchase a tree, they give one peah. Again, joint ownership over something means that only one peah is given.

If one buys the northern section [of the tree] and the other the southern section, each must give peah separately. In this scenario, the partners each own a defined section of the tree, one the northern side and the other the southern side. Since they have divided the tree, they give a separate peah for each part of tree. According to the Mishnah, dividing a tree is the same, in essence, as dividing a field.

One who sells young saplings in his field, [the one who purchases] must give peah from each sapling. Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? When the owner of the field left nothing [for himself]. But if he did leave something [for himself], he gives one peah for the whole. In this scenario, a person has sold the young trees in his field but not his field. The idea is that eventually the purchaser will uproot the trees and plant them in his own field. Since the purchaser doesn’t own the ground, the ground can’t join the trees into one entity for the laws of peah. He will have to give peah separately for each tree. Rabbi Judah mentions one caveat. If the person bought all of the saplings in the field and the owner left none for himself, then the saplings can be considered as one entity for the sake of peah. It seems that if the owner left saplings for himself, then they block the purchaser’s saplings from being considered one single entity.