Comentário sobre Peah 4:13

הפאה ניתנת במחובר – as it is written (Leviticus 19:10): “[You shall not pick your vineyard bare, or gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard;] you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger: …],” lay it down before them and they will plunder it.

Introduction This mishnah deals with the question of whether it is preferable for the owner to simply leave the peah in the field or for him to harvest it and distribute it to the poor.

בדלית – a vine that is suspended on the wood or on the trees.

Peah is given from [the crop] while it is still connected with the soil. It is preferable for peah to be left in the field and for the poor to come and harvest it themselves. This is a more direct fulfillment of the biblical verses that discusses not harvesting the corners of the field.

מוריד ומחלק – as it is written (Leviticus 19:10): “you shall leave them [for the poor and the stranger…],”those which have no danger you leave before them, and if you do not leave them when there is a danger ascending [to get] them, but one brings them down from the tree and distributes it to them.

But in the case of hanging vine-branches and the date-palm, the owner brings down [the fruit] and distributes it among the poor. Rabbi Shimon says: the same applies to smooth nut trees. However, if it would be dangerous for several poor people to come and try to get the peah at the same time, such as in the case of vine-branches that have been hung over a frame of reeds, or a date-palm, then the owner himself should harvest the grapes and dates and distribute them to the poor. According to Rabbi Shimon, the same is true for a smooth nut tree which would be dangerous for the poor people to climb. Note that we are worried that in their desperation to get food the poor will injure themselves, and therefore we make the owner do the work for them.

כחליקי אגוזים – on the name of the smooth nut-trees and they have no connection like the rest of the trees that are called nut trees too smooth for climbing, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

Even if ninety-nine [of the poor] say [to the owner] to distribute it and one says to leave it in the field, this latter is listened to, since he spoke in accordance with the halakhah. What if the poor people want the owner to harvest the crops and distribute them, thereby saving the poor from having to perform the labor themselves? This may also be in the owner’s interests, for perhaps he is not entirely keen on having a bunch of poor people traipsing around in his field. It seems that if all of the poor agree, they can ask the owner to do this. However, if even one poor person says that he would prefer the crops to be left in the field, then the owner must listen to him because that poor person has asked for the law to be followed.

אפילו תשעים ותשעה – it refers to the beginning of the Mishnah, that Peah/the corner is given unharvested.

בדלית ובדקל – that their observance is with something detached.

Introduction This mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday’s mishnah, which dealt with a case where most of the poor ask him to harvest the field and distribute the peah and one says to leave the peah in the field.

With hanging vine-branches and date-palm trees it is not so; even if ninety-nine [of the poor] say [to the owner] to leave it in the field and one says to distribute it, this latter is listened to, since he spoke in accordance with the halakhah. We learned in yesterday’s mishnah two principles relevant to today’s mishnah. The first is that when it comes to vine-branches and date-palm trees, the owner should harvest the peah and distribute it to the poor. The second is that if most of the poor ask the owner to act against the accepted halakhah and one asks him to act according to the halakhah, he should follow the minority because he asks in accordance with the halakhah. Hence, if most of the poor ask him to leave the grapes and dates and one asks him to harvest them and distribute, he must harvest the peah and distribute it, the view which is in accordance with the halakhah.

נטל – one of the poor people [took] part of the Peah that he had already gleaned and he threw/tossed it on the rest in order to acquire it.

Introduction This mishnah deals with how the poor actually collect the peah, meaning what constitutes taking possession of the peah such that it belongs to the specific poor person who took possession of it.

אין לו בה כלום – even with what he had gleaned, for we fine him and remove from him [both] the detached and attached.

If [a poor man] took some of the peah [already collected] and threw it onto the remainder [not yet collected], he gets none of it. Generally, one can “acquire” something by throwing one’s possessions on top of it. By throwing some peah on top of other peah the poor person is trying to take possession of it and at the same time hide it from other poor people. Therefore we penalize him and he doesn’t get to own any of the peah.

נפל לו עליה וכו' – even though four cubits of a person acquires for him in an alley/recess and at the sides of the public domain; here in the field of his fellow the Rabbis did not establish for him that his four cubits would acquire for him; alternatively, since he fell upon it he revealed his intention that through falling it is appropriate that it would acquire for him; in the four cubits it is not appropriate for him that he would acquire it.

If he fell down upon it, or spread his cloak over it, they take the peah away from him. Again, the poor person is attempting to acquire more of the peah than he seems to be able to hold in his hands. Since he is being greedy and taking peah away from other poor people, we penalize him and he loses all of his peah, even the stuff that he already collected.

The same applies to gleanings and the forgotten sheaf. The same laws apply to gleanings, the sheaves that fall when the owner is harvesting, or forgotten sheaves. A poor person cannot acquire them by throwing himself or his possessions on them and if he does, we penalize him.

Introduction This mishnah again reflects the fierce competition among the poor which the rabbis anticipated from them when they came to collect peah.

[The poor] may not harvest peah with scythes or tear it out [of the ground] with spades, so that they might not strike one another [with these implements]. Poor people cannot use metal instruments when they come to harvest the peah from the fields lest when doing so they kill one another with these instruments.

שלש אבעיות ביום – three times the owner revealed/exposed and appeared in his field in order that the poor could take Peah. The word אבעיות – means revealing (Obadiah 1:6): “[How thoroughly rifled is Esau,] How ransacked his hoards!” We translate this [in Aramaic] as revealing a hidden object.

Introduction This mishnah deals with how many times a day the field owner must or should let the poor into his field to harvest the peah.

בשחר – because of those nursing among them who are sleeping in the morning, and then they have the free time to glean.

There are three times a day [the poor] make a search [in the field for peah]: morning, noon, and sunset. According to the standard position outlined here, the owner of a field must make his field available to the poor three times a day. This seems to be a way to make sure that if they are working somewhere else, or perhaps trying to find work, their collection of peah won’t be endangered.

ובחצות – because of the young children who are accustomed to go out at noon and walk to glean Peah.

Rabban Gamaliel says: these [times] were only set lest they reduce them. Rabban Gamaliel says that the rabbis set a number of times at which a field owner must open his field so that field owners won’t reduce the number, thereby making it more difficult for the poor to come and collect.

ובמנחה – because of the elderly who walk with their crutches and they don’t arrive to the field until the afternoon.

Rabbi Akiva says: these were set lest they add to them. On the contrary, says Rabbi Akiva to Rabban Gamaliel. According to Rabbi Akiva, the reason that the fields have to be open three times a day is so that owners won’t open the field more frequently, thereby making the poor check the fields almost constantly. Having the fields open too much might also lead to owners opening them up at odd times and only letting selective poor people know when they come and collect. This might corrupt the entire system, especially if poor people end up having to bribe the field owners to tell them when to come and collect. With set times, this is less of a problem. However, Rabbi Akiva does hold that if the owner wants to open the field only once or twice a day, he may.

שלא יפחתו – from these three times. And the Halakha is that we don’t distribute Peah other than at these three times; we don’t make it any less or any more than this.

[The men] of Bet Namer used to have the poor harvest [the peah] with the aid of a rope, and they left peah at the end of each furrow. This section describes a special way that the people of Bet Namer, either the name of a family or the name of a place, gave peah. They would use a rope to mark off the ends of rows and beyond the rope the poor could collect their peah. Some commentators explain that the Mishnah praises this because the poor would know exactly where the peah was coming from and they wouldn’t have the mental anguish of waiting in anticipation. It seems in general that this is one of the problems with peah it is somewhat subjective, often leaving the poor unsure of their future and also open to potential abuse among field owners.

של בית נמר – It is the name of a place, as it is written (Numbers 32:36): “Beth-nimrah, [and Beth-haran as fortified towns or as enclosures for flocks].” They tie a rope at the same of the standing corn and continue reaping until the rope runs out and place the Peah the entire rope, and they go back and tie and place the Peah, that is from each and every artisan, that is to say, from each and every row and for this reason they mention these for praise.

נכרי שקצר את שדהו וכו' – as it is written concerning gleaning and the corner of the field (Leviticus 19:9): “When you reap [the harvest of your land…],” excluding that when heathens reaped it, and concerning that which is forgotten, 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]..,” from here they said that a heathen which reaped his field and afterwards converted is exempt.

Introduction This mishnah deals with a non-Jew who harvests his field and then converts. Non-Jews are not liable for the laws of peah, but Jews are, so the question is does he have to give the peah after he has already harvested the whole field.

שאין השכחה אלא בשעת עמור – and at the time of carrying sheaves home, he was a convert and liable in all the commandments, but the Rabbis hold that since there is the forgotten sheaf of the Omer, and there is that which is forgotten with the standing corn, as it is written (Deuteronomy 24:19): “and overlook a sheaf in the field,” to include that which is forgotten with the standing corn, that which exists with that which is forgotten of the standing corn exists with that which is forgotten of the grain sheaf, and that convert who harvests while reaped that which was not that which was forgotten of the standing corn for at that time he was a heathen, and even though he has not converted, it is not that which is forgotten of the grain sheaf. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

A non-Jew who harvested his field and then converted, he is exempt from [leaving] gleanings, the forgotten sheaf and peah. The new convert is exempt from giving all of these agricultural offerings for a field that he harvested before he converted because according to the opinion in this section, the obligation to give these offerings is set at the time of the harvest. Since he was not obligated when he harvested them, because he was not Jewish, he does not become obligated after he converts.

Rabbi Judah makes him liable to leave the forgotten sheaf, since he becomes liable for the forgotten sheaf at the time of their binding. Rabbi Judah says that the obligation to give forgotten sheaves is only set at the time at which the sheaves are bound together. Therefore, if he converts before he binds the sheaves, he is obligated to give the ones that are forgotten. We shall learn more about these laws later in this tractate.

קמה ופדה עומרים פטורה – Since the Biblical verse that we exclude the harvest of a heathen, also excludes the harvest of that which is sanctified [to the Temple] for it is not your harvest, but regarding the matter of that which is forgotten, there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis when one sanctified the standing corn and redeemed sheaves of grain just as they disputed regarding a heathen that reaped his field and afterwards converted.

Introduction This mishnah deals with a person who dedicates his grain to the Temple and then redeems it. One does not have to give peah or the other agricultural gifts from fields that have been dedicated to the Temple, so the question is, does he have to give them from a field that has been dedicated and then redeemed.

One who dedicated standing grain [to the Temple] and then redeemed it while it was still standing grain, he is liable [to give the agricultural gifts to the poor]. In this case he dedicated and redeemed the stalks of grain while they were still standing in the field. Since at the time of harvesting they had already lost their sanctity by being redeemed, he must give all of the agricultural offerings.

[If he dedicated] sheaves and redeemed them while they were still sheaves, he is liable. If he dedicated the grain after he had harvested it and bundled it into sheaves, and then redeemed the sheaves, he is liable because at the time of harvest he had not yet dedicated them, and they were his.

[If he dedicated] standing grain and redeemed it [when it was already in] sheaves, he is exempt, since at the time when it became liable it was exempt. In this case he dedicated the grain while it was still in standing in the field, then he harvested it into sheaves and then he redeemed it. Since the grain was exempt from the agricultural gifts at the time of harvesting, he is exempt from giving them even after he has redeemed the grain.

עד שלא באו לעונת המעשרות – that is giving the pile of grain an even shape when he smooths the face of the pile with a winnowing shovel, but if at that same time, if they were in the hand of the [Temple] treasurer, they are exempt, and if not, the Sanctification does not redeem them.

Introduction This mishnah teaches a very similar ruling to the mishnah that we learned yesterday, regarding one who dedicates his agricultural produce and then redeems it. Today’s topic is tithes, whereas yesterday we learned about the gifts that go to the poor.

וגמרן הגזבר – when it had been processed while still in the hand of the treasurer.

Similarly one who dedicates his produce prior to the stage when they are subject to tithes and then redeemed them, they are liable [to be tithed]. Produce becomes liable to be tithed once it has been harvested, processed and made into a pile. Before this point he may eat of it without tithing. In the scenario in this section, he dedicates it before it becomes liable to be tithed and then he redeems it before it comes liable to be tithed. He is then liable to tithe the produce when it becomes liable for tithes.

If [he dedicated them] when they had already become subject to tithes and then redeemed them, they are liable [to be tithed]. In this case he dedicated it and redeemed it after he became liable for tithing, so again, he is liable to tithe the produce before he goes ahead and uses it.

If he dedicated them before they had ripened, and they became ripe while in the possession of the [Temple] treasurer, and he then redeemed them, they are exempt, since at the time when they would have been liable, they were exempt. In this case, he dedicates it before it is even a third ripe and then the produce ripens, is harvested and the Temple treasurer makes the grain into a pile. Since the grain was in the legal possession of the Temple when it became liable for tithes, he is not liable for tithes when he redeems it.

רבי אליעזר אומר זכה לו – a dispute of Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis concerning a rich person that gathered Peah to make assignment to a poor person, for Rabbi Eliezer holds that we say two Miggos (i.e., that a deponent’s statement is accepted as true on the ground that, if he had intended to tell a lie, he might have invented one more advantageous to his case); [the first] Miggo – that if he had wanted to make his possessions ownerless he would be a poor person and that it is appropriate for him, now also, it is appropriate for him. And [the second] Miggo, that if he wanted, he could have taken possession for himself, he also gave possession to his friend, but the Rabbis hold that we say [only] one Miggo; two Miggos we don’t say, but from a poor person to a poor person, everyone says that it is appropriate, and the Halakha is according to the Sages.

Introduction The first section of our mishnah deals with the owner of a field who transfers title over the peah to a poor person without the poor person being present. The second half of the mishnah deals with the fields of non-Jews.

של נכרי חייב במעשרות – for since the heathen is not liable in gleanings, that which is forgotten and the corner of the field/Peah, it is like the other grain of the heathen which is liable for tithes.

One who collected peah and said, “This is for so-and-so a poor man:” Rabbi Eliezer says: he has thus acquired it for him. The sages say: he must give it to the first poor man he finds. According to Rabbi Eliezer, a field owner can harvest his own peah and by mere declaration transfer ownership to a poor person of his choosing. This would seem to follow the general rule that a person can benefit another person even though that person is not in his presence. However, the other rabbis disagree and say that the peah remains peah and can still be taken by the first person who comes across it. This would seem to prevent owners from selecting one poor person over another, and potentially corrupting the system of “first come, first serve.”

אלא אם כן הפקיר – to the ppor and to the rich, for that which is ownerless is exempt from tithes. But our Mishnah is according to Rabbi Meir who said that there is no acquisition in the Land of Israel for a heathen to be released from tithes. But the Halakha is not according to this.

Gleanings, the forgotten sheaf and the peah of non-Jews are subject to tithes, unless he [the non-Jew] had declared them ownerless. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves and peah that are taken from a field of a Jew are not liable to be tithed, meaning the poor person can eat them without tithing them. However, if they are taken from the field of a non-Jew then they are liable for tithes because the non-Jew was not liable to give the gifts to the poor in the first place. In other words, these are not technically considered gleanings, forgotten sheaves or peah, but rather just ordinary produce. The only way that they can be exempt from tithes is if the owner declared them ownerless and gave them to the poor as ownerless property. Ownerless property is always exempt from tithes, as we shall learn when we learn tractate Maasrot.

הנושר בשעת הקצירה – ears of corn that fall at the time of harvesting.

Introduction Having finished discussing peah, the mishnah proceeds to discuss “gleanings” or “leket,” one of the other agricultural gifts given to the poor. Gleanings are mentioned in Leviticus 19:9-10, and 23:22.

הכהו קוץ – whenever it falls on account of an accident, it is not gleaning, as it is written (Leviticus 19:9): “or gather the gleanings of your harvest,” there is no cleaning other that on account of harvesting.

What are gleanings? That which falls down at the time of harvesting. “Gleanings” are produce that falls during the time of harvesting. The owner is not allowed to go back and claim that which falls, but rather he must give it to the poor.

תוך היד – it refers to falling, that is, if it is within the hand and it falls [or] within the sickle and it falls, for that which falls from one’s hand and from the sickle is for the poor, but if it falls from the back of the hand [or] from the shaking of the hand,a nd from the back of the sickle from the power of the movement of the sickle, it belongs to the owner, and this not through the [act of] harvesting.

If while he was harvesting, he harvested a handful, or plucked a fistful, and then a thorn pricked him, and what he had in his hand fell to the ground, it still belongs to the owner. The mishnah now goes on to define what it means to “fall down.” There are going to be several limiting definitions in this mishnah. First of all, if he harvests the grain and grabs it in his hand and then a thorn causes him to drop that which he had just harvested, then that which is dropped does not belong to the poor. The reason is that this didn’t fall during the harvest but after the harvest had already been completed. Once it is securely his hand he has harvested it and if he subsequently drops it, it does not belong to the poor.

ראש היד when his hand is full and here are ears of corn between the tops of his fingers and the palm of his hand, when it falls from there, and similarly when it falls from the top of the sickle.

[That which drops from] inside the hand or the sickle [belongs] to the poor, but [that which falls from] the back of the hand or the sickle [belongs] to the owner. If he was harvesting by hand and as he plucked the stalk, it fell from his hand, or if he was harvesting with a sickle and the stalks of grain fell from the sickle before he got them into his hand, the stalks belong to the poor because they fell while being harvested. If, however, while harvesting, a stalk hits the back of his hand or the back of the sickle and falls to the ground, it still belongs to the owner because this stalk did not fall while he was intending to harvest and neither did it fall during harvesting.

רבי ישמעאל אומר לעניים – it is compared to within one’s hand and within the sickle.

[That which falls from] the top of the hand or sickle: Rabbi Ishmael says: to the poor; But Rabbi Akiva says: to the owner. Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Akiva debate whether a stalk that falls because it struck the top of the hand or the top of the sickle is like one that falls from inside the hand or the front of the sickle, in which case it belongs to the poor, or from the back of the hand or sickle, in which case it still belongs to the owner. Rabbi Ishmael says it belongs to the poor and Rabbi Akiva says it belongs to the owner.

ורבי עקיבא אומר לבעל הבית – that it is compared to the back of he hand and the back of the sickle. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva.

חורי הנמלים – it is the manner of ants to bring grain into their holes/cavities.

Introduction This mishnah deals with grain that is found in ant holes in a field. The question is whether they count as gleanings, which as we saw in yesterday’s mishnah, is grain that falls during the time of the harvest.

שבתוך הקמה – until he had started to reap.

[Grain found in] ant holes where the stalks are still standing, behold it still belongs to the owner. If the stalks are still standing that means that the field has not yet been plowed. In such a case, the grain that has fallen into the ant holes in the ground still belongs to the owner.

של בעל הבית – and he poor have nothing from the standing corn.

After the harvesters [had passed over them], those found in the top parts [of the ant holes belong] to the poor, but [those found] on the bottom parts [belong] to the owner. Rabbi Meir says: it all belongs to the poor, for gleanings about which there is any doubt are regarded as gleanings. If the field has already been harvested then we can assume the top layer of grain in the holes fell out during the harvest and therefore it belongs to the poor. The bottom layer of grain, however, may have fallen out before the harvest and therefore it still belongs to the owner. Rabbi Meir says that when we have a doubt as to whether grain is considered to be gleanings or not, then we regard it as gleanings and it goes to the poor. Generally there is a rule that the burden of proof is upon the claimant. In this case the poor person is the claimant, for he is coming to take the grain from its original owner. This seems to be the rule invoked by the opinion in the previous section. Nevertheless, according to Rabbi Meir, in this case, perhaps because the claimant is poor, this general is not applied.

שלאחר הקוצרים – after they had begun to harvest, and we suspect less the ants brought it there from the gleanings. Therefore, the upper wheat that are in the cavity or the upper ears of corn go to the poor for there is from the gleanings there, but the lower wheat belongs to the owner as it was from the standing corn. And which are the upper parts? The white ones. And which are the lower parts? The greenish ones that turn black and are recognized as being old.

ר"מ אומר הכל לעניים – for it is impossible for a granary without jaundicing/mildew, and lest those green ones from the new grain that was harvested now, there is within it a part for the poor.

שספק לקט לקט – as it is written (Leviticus 19:10): “you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger,” leave before them of your own, and the Halakha is according to Rabbi Meir.