Komentarz do Pea 3:9

מלבנות – a square garden-bed, and because they were made like the white frames, they are called garden-beds/plots.

Introduction This mishnah deals with small plots of grain that are planted in between olive trees and with the question of whether he has to give peah from each plot as if it were a separate field or whether he can give one peah from all the plots together.

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.

שבין הזיתים – and the same law applies for all other kinds of trees, and he (i.e., the anonymous Tanna/teacher of the Mishnah) took [the word] “olives,” to teach us, that even olives are liable in Peah/the corner of the field [to be left for the poor], are not from the legal decisions of the School of Hillel, and all the more so, the rest of the trees which are not liable for Peah/the corner of the field, for it is obvious that they did not make this legal decision.

Plots of grain between olive trees: Bet Shammai say: peah from each and every plot. But Bet Hillel says: one peah for them all. According to Bet Shammai since the rows of olive trees break up the plots of grain, he must give peah separately for each and every plot. According to Bet Hillel we still look at the grain as if it was all one field and he can give one peah for all of the plots together.

ב"ש אומרים פאה מכל אחד ואחד – from each small garden-bed/plot and garden-bed/plot, since the small garden-beds/plots stand each piece detached and they do combine with one another, as the School of Shammai holds that the olives are detached. But where the beginnings of the rows are combined with each other, they admit that they are not separate. And at the time when the trees are distant from each other until in the ground, there is a field requiring one Se’ah of seed (a square measure), fifty cubits by fifty cubits and there aren’t ten trees in it, the School of Hillel admits that we give Peah for each and every garden-bed, since the trees are far apart, things appear that it is not for the trees that these small garden-beds were made. And when the trees are joined closely and there are ten trees in less than a field requiring one Se’ah of seed, the School of Shammai admits that we give one Peah for everything, they only disputed when there are ten trees in a field requiring one Se’ah of seed.

And they agree that if the ends of the rows enter one into the other, he gives one peah for them all. Bet Shammai agrees with Bet Hillel that if the plots run into each other, in other words instead of rectangular plots surrounded by olive trees, there are rows where the end of one plot runs into the beginning of the other, then he can give peah for all of the plots together.

המנמר – he harvests his field place by place, that would speckled, from the [Biblical] language (Jeremiah 13:23): “[Can the Cushite change his skin,] Or the leopard his spots?..,” for he reaped the grain that ripened first, the first of the field.

Introduction This mishnah is similar to yesterday’s mishnah in that it deals with a field that is not planted evenly. However, whereas in yesterday’s mishnah the field was a mix of olive trees and grain, the first half of today’s mishnah deals with a field planted solely with grain.

ושייר קלחים לחים – those that had not ripened.

One who gives his field a striped appearance and leaves behind moist stalks: Rabbi Akiva says: he gives peah from each and every stripe. But the sages say: from one stripe for the whole field. This section describes a person who made his field looked striped by fertilizing some places in the field such that the grain in those places grew faster than others, and then harvesting those places when the grain is dry and ready to be harvested, leaving the still-moist stalks behind. According to Rabbi Akiva, he must give a separate peah from each and every stripe. The stripes don’t join up into one field because in between them is unripe grain which serves to divide the field into many fields. The other sages disagree and say that he can give peah from one stripe for the whole field. They look at the harvesting of the ripe stalks as the beginning of the harvesting of the entire field and therefore he can treat the field as one integrated field, leaving one peah for it all.

נותן פאה לכל אחד ואחד – and when he returns to harvest the moist stalks that he left, those that are speckled interrupts and it is not considered the beginning of the harvest.

The sages agree with Rabbi Akiba that one who sows dill or mustard in three places must give peah from each place. It is customary to sow dill and mustard in several different places and therefore the sages agree that if he has one large field with dill or mustard planted in several different areas of the field, he must give peah separately from each patch.

בזרוע שבת – vegetation that we call in the foreign language ANITAV.

שהוא נותן פאה לכל אחת ואחת – because it is not their manner to sow from them one field; therefore, all of these garden-beds are considered as if each one of them are one field, and dill and mustard are liable for Peah, even though we don’t give a corner of the field for vegetation, because it is used for seeding and it is considered for kinds of seeds, and the Halakha is according to the Sages.

המחליק בצלים – there are those who interpret the language [in Biblical terms] (Genesis 27:11): “[Jacob answered his mother Rebekah, ‘But my brother Esau is a hairy man] and I am smooth-skinned,’” for when they were detached/plucked, the place remained smooth/empty. And there are those who interpret it as when he levels [a field by taking out crops], when he takes part of the moist/fresh onions to sell them in the market place and another part he leaves the dry ones for the granary for storage.

Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with a person who harvests part of his field and with the question of whether he can give one peah for the entire field or peah separately for each part that he has harvested.

נותן פאה לאלו לעצמן – they are like two different kinds of wheat.

One who clears [his field] of fresh onions for the market and leaves the dry ones [in the ground] for the [time of the] threshing floor, must give peah from these on their own and these on their own. This section describes someone who has a field of onions. He harvests some of them in order to bring them fresh to the market and the rest he leaves in the ground in order to harvest them later when they are dry. Since some are sold fresh and some are sold dry they are considered to be two different types of onions and he must give peah separately for each type.

וכן בכרם – and similarly one who clears the vineyard, its law is like one who clears out the onions.

The same applies to beans and to a vineyard. The same thing is true for beans and for grapes grown in the vineyard. If he harvests fresh beans to sell in the market and leaves dry beans in the field, he must give peah for each on its own. So too if he harvests grapes to sell in the market and leaves the rest in the field to be used to make wine or raisins, he gives peah for each on its own.

המדל נותן מן המשוייר על מה ששייר – at the time that the onions are sown close together, he takes from one from among them in order that the remainder will grow with open space and become large. That is what is called to thin out the vineyard by lifting up and loosening them from their place and our Mishnah (Tractate Shevi’it, Chapter 4, Mishnah 4) teaches: “Who is one who levels his field? He takes one and leaves two,” and those which he uproots to give space to the rest are not liable for Peah because it is for the repair of the remainder, therefore, he gives Peah from the remainder alone and what has been uprooted is exempt from anything and it is not considered reaping.

If he, however, he only thins it out, then he gives [peah] from the remainder according to the quantity of that which he left. If he thins out some clusters of grapes to make room for more to grow, then this is not considered to be harvesting. He does not have to give peah at all from clusters that he thins out, because he didn’t harvest them for their own sake, only for the sake of those that he left in the vineyard. He will only give peah from the grapes that he left hanging on the vine.

המחליק מאחת יד – that is to say, from one matter, or all of it for the granary or all of it to the market. And Maimonides explains “with a unity of hand” (i.e., all of them for one purpose), that the part which he takes to sell in the marketplace he does take from here and there, but all of it is from one side.

But if he clears [three from one place] at one time, he gives from the remainder according to the entire quantity. In this case he clears out three clusters of grapes at one time from one place. Since he cut down a significant quantity from one place at one time, these grapes count towards the amount from which he will have to give peah.

האמהות של בצלים – large onions that we leave them to grow seeds, and as a result that they remain in the ground and are not worthy for eating other than in the case of an emergency, therefore, Rabbi Yosi exempted them, but the Halakha is not according to him.

Introduction This mishnah deals with some more questions that arise concerning giving peah from onions.

מלבנות הבצלים שבין הירק – Rabbi Yosi holds that the vegetable is considered like a different seed, for it is not the manner for people to bring in onions among the vegetables, and it is taught in the Mishnah above in Chapter two (Mishnah one) interrupts, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yosi.

Onions grown for their seed are liable for peah. But Rabbi Yose exempts them. According to the first opinion, although these onions are harvested not to be food but for their seed to be used to grow more onions, they are still liable for peah. Rabbi Yose disagrees and holds that since when they are harvested they can’t be used for food they are not exempt from peah.

Plots of onions [growing] between vegetables: Rabbi Yose says: peah must be given from each [plot]. But the sages say: from one [plot] for all. This is similar to the rules found in mishnah one of our chapter. Plots of onions are planted between rows of vegetables. According to Rabbi Yose the vegetables serve to break up the field, making him liable to give peah separately from each plot of onions. According to the other sages, since the vegetables are not liable for peah (since they cannot be stored) and the onions are liable for peah, the vegetables do not serve to break up the field of onions.

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.

קרקע בית רובע – a place where it is appropriate to sow in it one-quarter of a Kab, and they explained it as ten and one-half cubits by ten cubits by proportion.

Introduction This mishnah deals with the minimum size that land needs to be for one to be liable to give peah from it.

העושה סאתים – Rabbi Yehoshua does not follow after sowing, but rather the ground that produces two Se’ah which is twelve Kabs.

Rabbi Eliezer says: a piece of ground [large enough to plant] one fourth of a kav is liable for peah. This is estimated to be about 10.5 cubits by 10.5 cubits, or about 35 square meters.

לקצור ולשנות – it is the manner of reapers that he grasps a palm’s worth from the flour and reaps, as it is written (Psalms 129:7): “that affords no handful for the reaper, [no armful for the gatherer of sheaves],” that the reaper did not have a handful. And if there is among the standing corn in order to fill his hand twice, he is liable for Peah.

Rabbi Joshua says: it must [be large enough] to grow two seahs. Rabbi Joshua sets the minimum amount not based on how much seed can be planted but based on how much produce can be grown. A seah is 6 kav, and a kav is about 2 liters, so the amount of grain has to be about 12 liters.

קרקע כל שהוא חייבת בפאה – as he holds, “the corner of your field” (Leviticus 19:9) is implied, and he is in dispute with everyone.

Rabbi Tarfon says: it must be six by six handbreadths. This is a very small piece of land, about one square meter.

ובכורים – as it is written regarding them “your land” (Exodus 23:19, 24:36). And these words concern the first-fruits of wheat and barley, but the first-fruits of trees – he is not liable other than if he has land sixteen cubits around the tree which is the measure of its absorption.

R. Judah ben Batera says: [it must be large enough] for a sickle to cut at least two handfuls and the halakhah is according to his words. According to Rabbi Judah ben Batera the field need only be large enough for a person harvesting to have to grasp two handfuls of stalks while he chops them down with his sickle. The mishnah notes that this is the accepted halakhic position. It is rare for the Mishnah to state this.

ולכתוב עליה פרוזבול – Hillel instituted the Prosbul, when he saw that people were prevented from making loans to the poor because the [upcoming] seventh year cancels the debt, he instituted that one should transfer their documents to the Jewish court and write: “I transfer to you, so-and-so and so-and-so the judges every liable that I have that I will collect at the time when I desire,” and when they have written for him this document the seventh year does not cancel his debt (see Mishnah Shevi’it, Chapter 10, Mishnayot 3-4), and specifically when the borrower has a parcel of land, even a bit, and it is then considered as if the debt is collected already in the hand of the Jewish court, and further, we don’t call it (Deuteronomy 15:2): “he shall not dun,” and we consider the land, however small, as if it is worth the entire debt as there is no overreaching for land.

Rabbi Akiva says: any size of land is liable for peah and for first-fruits, and [is sufficient] for the writing of the prozbul, and also to acquire through it movable property by money, by deed, or by a claim based on undisturbed possession. To Rabbi Akiva, it doesn’t matter how big the plot is, he is always liable for peah. Rabbi Akiva goes on to say that the same is true for a few other halakhot. We shall go through them one at a time. First fruits, or bikkurim, are referred to in Deuteronomy 26. A prozbul is a document written in order to prevent the remittance of debts in the sabbatical year. In order for the creditor to write this document the borrower must have land. We shall learn about the prozbul more fully when we study tractate Sheviit, which deals with all of the laws of the Sabbatical year. The last law refers to something we learned in Kiddushin 1:5. According to halakhah movable property, i.e. things, can only be bought by taking physical possession of them. In contrast, land can be purchased by money, by deed, or by a claim based on undisturbed possession (I shall explain this in a moment). A person may purchase things without taking physical possession of them if he also acquires land at the same time. In other words, I can give you money for your land and at the same time I can buy from you cows and sheep without taking possession of them. “Undisturbed possession” is a concept which we learned about in Bava Batra 3. It means that if Reuven lives on a piece of land for three years and then Shimon comes to him with a deed to the land and says get off my land, and Reuven responds that Shimon sold him the land and that he had lost the sale document, Reuven can stay on the land. Had Shimon thought that the land was his he should have protested within three years. “Undisturbed possession” is one of the three ways through which one can acquire land.

ולקנות עמה נכסים שאין להם אחריות – for movables are acquired with the land, by money, by documentation, or by claim of undisturbed possession (during a legally fixed period).

שכיב מרע – he who lies on his bed on account of illness.

Introduction This mishnah has nothing to do with the laws of peah, but rather continues to discuss cases in which a certain halakhah is effective with even the smallest piece of land.

שייר קרקע כל שהוא – all these he left a bit of land, as is taught in our Mishnah, from here until the end of our chapter, not exactly land as the same law applies with a bit of movables, but since the first part of the Mishnah teaches regarding the corner and First Fruits and Prosbul/a declaration made in court before the execution of a loan to the effect that the law of limitation by the entrance of the Sabbatical year shall not apply to the loan to be transacted – a bit of land is taught in all of these are also a bit of land.

One who is about to die who assigns his property in writing [to another]: If he retains any land [for himself] however small, he renders his gift valid. But if he retains no land whatsoever, his gift is not valid. There is a special halakhah concerning a person who is about to die who wants to give away his property before it gets divided according to the lines of inheritance. He may write a document giving all of his property to another person and if he gets well the present is annulled. In such a case we understand that the reason he was giving his money away was that he thought he was about to die. He did not intend to give his money away and then remain alive. However, if he retains even a small amount of land for himself, then his gift is valid even if he becomes healthy again. Had he been trying to give away his property before he died, he wouldn’t have left some land for himself. Therefore, we assume that his intention was simply to give away his property and he cannot retract his gift. Only if he retains no land whatsoever is his gift invalid, should he become healthy again.

מתנתו קיימת – if they purchased from his hand on the gift even though he rose from his illness, he cannot retract, since he left for himself a bit, he revealed his thinking that it was not on account of death that he wrote the gift.

One who assigns in writing his property to his children, and he assigns to his wife in writing any plot of land, however small, she lost her ketubah. Rabbi Yose says: if she accepted [such an assignment] even though he did not assign it to her in writing she lost her ketubah. When a woman is married, she receives a ketubah, which is in essence a type of debt document which puts a lien on all of her husband’s property. What this means is that whenever he sells property she must agree to the sale. If she does not then the buyer must know that should her husband die or divorce her, she might end up taking the field away from the buyer, if she doesn’t have anything else to collect as her ketubah. In the scenario in our mishnah, a man gives away all of his property to his children and he assigns a small piece of land to his wife. If she agrees to this and then he dies, she will not be able to collect her ketubah (except from the tiny piece of land which she already received) because she agreed to his giving all of his property to his children. She has forgiven the lien that she had on all his property. If she doesn’t receive any land then we can’t assume that she would agree to the arrangement and when he dies she can still collect her ketubah. According to Rabbi Yose, she doesn’t even have to receive the land. All she has to do is agree to this arrangement and then should he die, she will not receive her ketubah.

לא שייר קרקע כל שהוא – for himself, from something undefined, a person does not leave himself poorly dressed, and if he had not thought that he would certainly die, he would not give all his possessions, therefore if he stood, he retracts and even if they purchased it from his hand.

וכתב לאשתו קרקע כל שהוא אבדה כתובתה – we are speaking of someone near death who distributes his possessions to his children and writes to his wife a portion among the children, and she herself heard and was silent and didn’t say, “I am collecting my Ketubah” or something similar, she loses her Ketubah.

רבי יוסי אומר אם קבלה עליה – that she would be a partner among the children, and even if they did not purchase from her hand, and he did not command that they should write such in her presence, she lost her Ketubah and furthermore she is not able to retract, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yosi.

הכותב כל נכסיו לעבדו – that he wrote, “all my property to so-and-so my slave,” for the slave is include in the property and he (the owner) gave him his selfhood and that which when it states, “my slave” that is my slave that was already.

Introduction The final mishnah of chapter three continues to discuss a person who assigns his property in writing (using a document) to someone else, in this case a slave.

שייר קרקע כל שהוא לא יצא בן חורין – all where he puts down a measurement, we say that he also left to himself, and when he said: “all my property is yours,” he is speaking of the rest of his property, but he deceived him that he came and not to free him. Since he (i.e., the owner) did not say to him “yourself and my property, and even if he doesn’t have any property other than the slave and the land that he left, nevertheless, he (i.e., the slave) does not go out to freedom, for since the word “all my property” is not fulfilled, for it comes as “except for” and he annuls it and we don’t argue his words and they are completely annulled, and he (i.e., the slave) did not acquire his self-food nor the property.

One who assigns in writing his possessions to his slave, [the slave] thereby goes free. If he reserved for himself any land, however small, he does not become free. If a master writes a document giving all of his property to his slave, then he has given the slave possession of himself, for the slave is part of his property, and his slave goes free. However, if he retains even a small amount of land for himself, but does not specify what piece of land he is retaining, the slave does not go free. This is because we assume that the land that he retained for himself refers to the slave and therefore he has not set the slave free. Slaves are compared to land in Leviticus 25:45-46. Furthermore, since the slave has not acquired his freedom, he cannot acquire property, for everything that a slave acquires goes over to his master. Therefore the entire deal is off and the master retains ownership over all of his property.

ר"ש אומר לעולם הו בן חורין – whether he has no property other than the slave and the land that he left, or whether he has other property, he (i.e., the slave) is always a free man, and we establish the word, “all my property” with the slave alone, when he doesn’t have other property, and we don’t say when he said, “except for,” this nullifies his word that he said, “all my property,” for we separate his word, and we fulfill him regarding his slave and he goes out as a free man.

Rabbi Shimon says: he always becomes free, unless [the master] says: “Behold, all my goods are given to so-and-so my slave, with the exception of one ten-thousandth part of them.” Rabbi Shimon disagrees and holds that even if he retains a small amount of land for himself, the slave still goes free. The slave only stays a slave if the master specifically states that he is retaining even a small amount of property for himself. In such a case we say that the property that he retained for himself was the slave.

חוץ מאחד מרבוא – and he didn’t explain what he leaves aside, but there we said that one-ten-thousandth part that he said, is the servant, and he is not considered other than one of one-ten-thousandth of his property and even though he is worth more, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.