MISHNAH: The following separate [One may not give one peah for two fields separated by one of the enumerated obstacles.] regarding peah: The river [The Halakhah later makes it clear that one speaks of water even though the Biblical word נחל may also mean (dry) wady.] , the water canal [An aqueduct for drinking water or a water conduit that brings water from a river or lake to smaller irrigation canals. The irrigation canal that serves a field directly does not create an interruption.] , a private road, a public road, a private path [A path has no minimal size, but it is required that it should be in use permanently, even in the rainy season when fields are newly seeded. Paths in use only as shortcuts on fields that have been harvested do not count. The Halakhah will discuss why public roads and paths have to be mentioned when private paths and roads already make an interruption. (In most Mishnah manuscripts, private paths are mentioned after public ones, so that the singular הקבוע applies only to private paths. The discussion will show that this is not the Yerushalmi tradition.) In the opinion of Maimonides, private roads are at least 4 cubits wide, public roads at least 16 cubits, while paths are narrower. In this he adopts the definitions of the Babli. In the opinion of R. Abraham ben David, roads are used for travelling, paths for local agricultural use, independent of their width. This latter opinion agrees better with the discussions in the Yerushalmi.] or a public path open both summer and winter, a fallow field, a ploughed field [A field that has been harvested and the stubbles ploughed under while on both sides of it grain is still standing. This creates two distinct fields for purposes of peah.] and [another kind of] [The word אחר translated in brackets is missing in the Mishnah in the Talmud and in one of the Tosephta manuscripts (1:8), but it appears in the separate Mishnah manuscripts and in Sifra Qedošim 2:1, and it is certainly understood here. Two wheat fields separated by a field of peas require two separate peot.] seed. He who cuts [Unripe grain. R. Meïr considers grain grown for animal feed a kind different from grain grown for human consumption, probably because it is exempt from peah.] for animal feed makes a separation, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the sages say it does not create a separation unless he ploughed.
HALAKHAH: “The following separate regarding peah.” Because it has been said (Lev. 19:9, 23:22): “Your field [In the singular, cf. Sifra Qedošim 1:22.] ,” that he should not give from one field for another.
It cannot be connected [One now deals with the features that separate a field from its neighbor, such as a water canal. The problem is whether there must be a clean and total separation of two fields, or whether canals, ponds, fences, and paths separate even if they cover only parts of the boundary. The discussion centers on fences, because only for fences can we find contradictory tannaitic statements.] . If you would say that it is connected, it should separate even a field of trees [An orchard where trees are planted far enough apart that a plough drawn by a pair of oxen may pass between them.] , but we have stated there (Mishnah 3): “Everything separates for seeds but only a fence separates for trees.” Hence, by a fence it is connected and not connected! If you say it is connected, even hair pressing down [This is the expression of the Mishnah. A fence is no interruption if on both sides there grow trees, their branches (the “hairs”) are meshed together, and the lowest branches from both sides lie on the fence (which also may be a wall.)] does not separate, since we have stated: “Hair pressing down does not separate but he gives one peah for all!” That means that it is not connected. If you say it is connected then it should separate if it is one-sided, as we have stated [In a baraita.] : “If the hair was pressing down from both sides it does not separate.” Hence, from one side only it separates [Hence, it is undecided whether the role of the fence as divider is undisputed (unless there are “hairs” from both sides, last argument) or whether it is not better than those of the Mishnah (first argument). It is not unusual that the Yerushalmi leaves questions of this kind undecided.]
Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If someone gave peah from one field for another one [The other field being separated from the first by one of the obstacles enumerated in the Mishnah.] , it does not acquire holiness [It is not peah and, hence, subject to the laws of terumah and tithes.] .
Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Yasa: If he intended to let them acquire from the boundary strip [Every field is surrounded by a strip, mostly of grass, usually slightly elevated over the cultivated area. On this strip one may walk between fields and also deposit agricultural implements. Rebbi Zeïra asks what is the rule if some grain grew on the boundary strip and the owner of the field wants to fulfill his duty by abandoning this grain which cannot usually be harvested. Rebbi Yasa (Rebbi Assi in the Babli) avoided answering, perhaps because he did not know the answer. There is a similar problem in Baba Batra, dealing with real estate left by a convert to Judaism who failed to start a Jewish family. Since by conversion the convert severed his ties to his former family, in the absence of a will his property becomes ownerless at his death and can be acquired by actual possession. Then the question is whether two adjacent fields can be acquired if one performs an act of possession (such as weeding) on one of them. In the Yerushalmi (Baba Batra 3:1, fol. 13d), R. Yasa states in the name of R. Joḥanan that if one weeded on one of two adjacent fields with the intention of thereby acquiring both fields but did not have the explicit intent to acquire the boundary strip also, he acquired only the field he weeded but no more. Then it is reported that R. Zeïra asked R. Yasa about somebody working on the boundary strip only (whether he would acquire both fields), and R. Yasa avoided answering. In the Babli (Baba Batra 55a), R. Assi states in the name of R. Joḥanan that boundary strip and ḥaẓab are dividers in respect to the property of a convert but not for peah whereas Ravin (Rebbi Abun) declares in the name of R. Joḥanan that it is not a divider for peah. For the Yerushalmi, R. Assi himself was not sure whether R. Joḥanan followed the opinion ascribed to himself in the Babli, or that ascribed to R. Abun.] ? He avoided answering him. The opinions of Rebbi Yasa are contradictory since we have stated there (Mishnah 3:2): “The sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba about someone who sowed dill or mustard in three places [The Mishnah deals with someone who spot-harvests his field, cutting at separate places and letting the rest grow for an extended period of time. Rebbi Aqiba requires that each time and at each place peah be given, but the sages require only one peah for the whole field, except for (expensive) spices.] .” (The Mishnah means: dill in three places or mustard in three places.) Samuel said, because the first of them does not wait for the last [Obviously, one plot is harvested at one time; otherwise, there would be no obligation for peah. Samuel asserts that spice plants can be harvested at greatly varying times.] . Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because they are usually sown in separate beds [Spices are never grown in large fields since they belong to intensive agriculture.] . And here he says so [In fact, he refuses to say what he should say, viz., that the boundary strip is never sown intentionally and therefore cannot be counted as peah.] ? It is obvious for him that it separates [This is the opinion ascribed to R. Abun in the Babli.] . What he could not decide is whether it does become sanctified as peah or maybe it does not become sanctified [Since peah is exempt from terumah and tithes, the status of the grain growing on the boundary strip remains in limbo.] ! Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: If someone gave peah from one field for another one, it does not acquire holiness. One understands that this means even the boundary strip [Again supporting the opinion ascribed to R. Abun in the Babli. (In the Babli, Rabin is reputed to give the correct interpretations of sentences of R. Joḥanan.)] .
Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, rue [The identification of חצוּב with rue or harmel (Arabic ח̇יל) is from the Gaonic commentary to Mishnah Kelim 3:6. In modern Hebrew, following Loew and Ben Jehudah, the word denotes the sea onion, sea leek (urginea). It is more likely that bushes such as rue were used as boundary markers rather than bulbous plants whose dispersion by seeds is beyond control. (In Arabic, ח̇צ̇ב is simply “greenery”).] separates for peah. Rav Ḥisda investigated whether they were used by Joshua to divide the Land. Rebbi Ḥanina asserted in the name of Rav Ḥisda: they were used by Joshua to fix the boundaries of the Land.
A [Here starts the discussion of the terms used in the Mishnah.] water canal, whenever it is flowing. A river even though it does not flow [The meaning seems to be that artificial water canals separate only if there is water flowing in them whereas natural waters separate both flowing and stagnant] .
If [The Venice print has נתכװן מכיון which is redundant. All commentators delete the first word as unintelligible but the Rome manuscript shows that the second word has to be deleted and that there is a slight shift of emphasis from the first to the second question.] it is correct that we have stated “a private road,” what is the need for “a public road? [If a private road separates, the mention of a public road is redundant; it might be that there should be no mention of the private road. The answer is that for fields, the mention of public roads is redundant but that it is needed in Mishnah 3 where it is stated that all obstacles mentioned in Mishnah 1 are not separating for trees.] ” I tell you, even a public road does not separate for trees, only a fence does. Since we have stated “a private path,” what is the need for “a public path?” To exclude one that is permanent in summer [I. e., used regularly every summer through many years. Nevertheless, if it is not used during the plowing and planting period it does not count as separation.] but is not permanent in winter.
Rav said [Here starts the discussion of how large the interruption between two crops of the same kind must be so that two separate peot are due.] : Fallow land and ploughed land of a bet rova‘ [In general, surface area measurements are given in the Talmudim by the amount of seed grain needed for the area in cultivation. The measurements are standardized by the tradition that the courtyard of the Tabernacle, which was 50 by 100 cubits (Ex. 27:18), defined the area covered by two seah. One seah are six qab. Hence, the area covered by a quarter qab, the bet rova‘, is an area of 5000:48 = 104 1/6 square cubits. A cubit was at least 45 and at most 61 cm, probably 54.6 cm.] , other produce [For example, if two fields of wheat are separated by a strip of barley.] even the tiniest amount. Rebbi Joḥanan said: Fallow land, ploughed land, and other produce at three preliminary furrows [Three wide parallel furrows. According to Rashi (Is. 28:24), in ploughing an uncultivated field one first ploughs wide and coarse “starter” furrows; for sowing one then ploughs narrow ones adapted to the particular seed. According to Maimonides (Kilaim 3:2), the coarse furrows serve to cover breaks in the soil which developed during the heat of summer. There is no practical difference between the two explanations. In any case, the total width of the three furrows cannot be larger than two cubits.] . Do they disagree [Is it necessary to assume that Rav and R. Joḥanan present different traditions? One tries to avoid disagreements over basic measurements as much as possible.] ? What Rav said [In matters of the separating produce only.] refers to produce subject to peah, what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to produce not subject to peah [In the next paragraph it will be explained that, at least for Rebbis Meïr and Jehudah, plots subject to the obligation of peah are more powerful to interrupt between fields of the same kind than those not subject to it.] . But did we not state that fallow or ploughed land is subject to peah [At least for the Sages who disagree with R. Meïr in the Mishnah. Since here Rav and R. Joḥanan give different measurements for identical situations, they seem to disagree.] ? What Rav said refers to an average field, what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to a plot 50 by 2 [If the entire field, in this example 100 square cubits, is smaller than a bet rova‘, the rule of Rav becomes inapplicable and must be replaced by a smaller limit.] .
Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Both Rebbi Meïr [In our Mishnah, referring to peah.] and Rebbi Jehudah [In Mishnah Menaḥot 10:8, dealing with the prohibition of using grain from the new harvest before the presentation of the ‘omer on the 16th of Nisan. We insist that they follow the same principle in both cases eventhough we have no statement of R. Jehudah on peah and no statement of R. Meïr about cutting green grain as animal fodder.] said the same. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that he who cuts for fodder separates, so Rebbi Jehudah will say that he who cuts for fodder separates. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that an obligation for peah separates [This statement is not obvious and has to be proven later.] , so Rebbi Meïr will say that an obligation for peah separates. But we find that Rebbi Meïr says that an obligation for peah separates [From the Tosephta it will be deduced that everybody, including Rebbi Meïr, agrees that an independent obligation of peah between two fields separates the two fields into two entities from each of which one must give peah.] since we have stated [Tosephta Peah 1:8. A field on which grain grows but which is destroyed during growth is not subject to the obligation of peah.] : “If locusts ate it, ants undermined it, or a storm or animals broke it, it is free [Cf. Mishnah 2:7.] ; everybody agrees that if he ploughed [If he ploughed under the empty stalks remaining after the disaster. “It” in this sentence refers to the ruined field.] it separates, if he did not plough it does not interrupt [If only part of the field was destroyed it is as if the entire field was sown but part of the seed grain did not germinate; it therefore remains one field.] .” Who is “everybody”? Does not Rebbi Meïr say, if it is free from peah [Since it belongs to the same field and without the disaster there would not have been any separate obligation of peah, only separate ploughing will create two obligations. But if there were a separate obligation from the start, as in the example quoted next from R. Jehudah, then it seems that there are two obligations of peah created.] , but if it were obligated it would interrupt even if he did not plough. Parallel to what we stated there [Mishnah Menaḥot 10:8. There is a Biblical prohibition on using new grain for human consumption before the 16th of Nisan (Lev. 23:14) and a rabbinical prohibition to harvest before that time. However, that rabbinical prohibition is waived either if it would cause monetary loss (as for fields in the region of Jericho that ripen very early) or if the grain is not used for humans. R. Simeon permits cutting for fodder anytime, R. Jehudah allows it only if the grain is less than one third ripe (since afterwards it is fit for human consumption as “green kernels”).] : “Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he started before it was one-third ripe, but if it is one-third ripe one is forbidden to cut.” If he cuts [After the grain is one-third ripened and the grain is potential human food. (“R. Yudan” here refers to R. Jehudah bar Illaï.)] he is obligated for peah. And anything that is obligated for peah separates [If he harvested a strip of unripe grain in a field, he has to give peah from this strip. If that strip separated the remaining grain into two disjoint pieces, the two fields now are separately liable for peah.] .
Rebbi Zeïra questioned: Just as Rebbi Jehudah said, if he started before it was one-third ripe, even if he continued after it was one-third ripe he will be freed from collecting, forgotten sheaves, and peah [R. Jehudah, in the Mishnah just quoted, only asks that one has to start cutting for fodder as long as the grain is not yet fit for human consumption, but not that one has to stop at one-third ripeness; it is clear that subsequent cutting for fodder does not turn the fodder into human food and, therefore, the farmer is free from the obligations of letting the poor collect the single stalks not bound in sheaves (Lev. 19:9, Ruth 2) and leaving sheaves forgotten on the field (Deut. 24:19), and peah.] , would Rebbi Meïr say that if he started before it was one-third ripe, even if he continued after it is one-third ripe he will be freed from collecting, forgotten sheaves, and peah [There is no logical necessity which would force R. Meïr to agree that wheat with edible green kernels does not constitute human food. The question is not answered since no other sources are available.] ?
MISHNAH: An irrigation canal that cannot be harvested together [One cannot cut with one movement of a scythe on both banks of the irrigation canal. The exact description will be given in the Halakhah.] , Rebbi Jehudah says it separates. For all hills subject to weeding [The language is from Is. 7:25. It means as long as the obstacle can be used agriculturally, even if it cannot be worked with ploughs or other implements drawn by animals, it does not separate for peah even if such a ridge separates a field into two parts as far as mechanical farming is concerned.] , even if cattle can not pass by with their implements, he gives one peah for everything.
HALAKHAH: They wanted to say that there is no disagreement [The Mishnah does not mention any opinion differing from R. Jehudah. One might therefore think that it expresses a commonly held opinion even though in that case the Mishnah should have been anonymous.] . It was found stated: “A permanent irrigation canal separates [The Mishnah is defective. The parallel in Sifra,Qedošim 3:2 reads: “A permanent irrigation canal separates. Rebbi Jehudah says, if (it) [both banks of the canal] cannot be harvested together, it separates. For all hills subject to weeding, even if cattle cannot pass by with implements, he gives one peah for everything.” Hence, the majority of the Sages agree that a permanently installed irrigation canal separates for peah even if both banks can be cut at the same time; R. Jehudah’s opinion is in the minority.] ”
They wanted to say: What Rebbi Jehudah talks about is one who stands on one bank and cannot cut on the other bank, but if he stands in the middle [In the water of the irrigation canal.] and cuts on both banks it does not separate. It was found stated [Tosephta Peah 1:8: “An irrigation canal that cannot be harvested together, R. Jehudah says if he has to stand in the middle in order to harvest on both banks, it separates, otherwise, it does not separate.” The text before the Yerushalmi must have been similar.] in disagreement: “If he was standing in the middle and harvesting on both banks, it separates; on one bank it does not separate.”
Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If there was a rock along the length of his entire field [Bare rock, not a place for weeding or other agricultural work, not covered by the Mishnah. Here starts the discussion of the second sentence of the Mishnah.] , if he has to lift the plough from one side and transport it to the other side, it separates, from the other side [If he can slide the plough over the rock so that it does not lose contact with the ground.] it does not separate. But did we not state [Tosephta Peah 1:9, together with the quote at the end of the paragraph, forms one sentence there.] : “For terraces which are each ten hand-breadths [One cubit equals six hand-breadths. Ten handbreadths are about one yard difference from one terrace to the next.] higher than the other [On a terraced hillside, if the agricultural machines have to be lifted up from one terrace to the next, they are distinct fields for peah.] , he must give peah for each one separately. Less than that he gives one peah for all of them.” But for less than that [A terrace wall less than three feet high.] , does he not have to lift the plough from one (terrace) and transport it to the other? Even for less than that he has to lift it. We had to state “ten” only because of the concluding statement: “If the heads of the terraces are connected, he gives one peah for all [If on one side there is an incline which connects the different terraces, all counts as one field. One might think that the statement is unnecessary since we already know that anything which can be ploughed together requires one peah for all and the incline makes possible the ploughing without lifting the plough. However, in general we say that a height of 10 handbreadths creates a new domain. For example, regarding the laws of Sabbath, “public domain” in which one may not carry extends only up to a height of 10 handbreadths from the ground. One might have thought that a level difference of 10 handbreadths also creates a new domain for peah, but this is not the case.] .”
MISHNAH: Everything separates for seeds but only a fence separates for trees. But if hair was pressing down it does not separate and he gives one peah for all [This was explained at the beginning of Halakhah 1, notes 12–13.] . [This Mishnah is the continuation of the preceding one.] : But for carob trees all that see one another [According to Maimonides, all the carob trees a man can see standing next to one of them. According to R. Abraham ben David, all the carob trees a man can see while standing on top of one of them. According to the second opinion, fences are never a problem for carob trees.] . Rabban Gamliel [Rabban Gamliel of Jabneh, speaking of the family of Hillel.] said, in my father’s house they used to give one peah for the olive trees they had in every direction [Four peot for all olive trees in all four main directions.] and for all carobs that saw one another. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadoq said in the former’s name: also for all carob trees they had in the entire town.
HALAKHAH: “Everything separates for seeds [Quote from the Mishnah. However, the discussion is purely about the second sentence in the Mishnah.] .” What is pressing down [What is the meaning of the condition that two orchards separated by a fence are subject only to one obligation of peah if the leaves of trees of one orchard come down and lie across the fence to the other orchard? Does it mean that the leaves actually have to press on the fence or may they be in the air and just press down one branch on the other?] ? It rises while pressing as in a mortar [Rabbenu Simson in his commentary to Kilaim 5:3 quotes the text here as כעלי במכתש “like a pestle in the mortar,” and explains, on the basis of the same language in Kilaim, that the branches have to press hard on the stone fence so as to create a dusty surface on the fence. Better is the interpretation of the uncorrected text, preferred by R. Moses Margalit, that the branches on both sides may be enmeshed but be higher than the fence, since the pestle is higher except for the short moments when it touches the bottom of the mortar.] or must it press down on the fence? From the text “hair was pressing down,” the fence does not press [While the “hair” must lie on the fence, it need not act on it. There is no eroding pressure needed on the stone fence.] . That means it presses down on the fence.
Rebbi Mana said: Sometimes they need to be inside four cubits and sometimes they need to be inside ten handbreadths if they are planted ten to a bet se‘ah. How do you understand this? They [The trees have to be planted close to the fence so that the stem of the tree whose branches lie on the fence is not farther than four cubits from the fence.] need to be within four cubits of the fence; the crowns have to be within ten handbreadths of one another [In the entire orchard, the crown of any tree must have the crown of another tree within 10 handbreadths (1 2/3 cubits) distance.] if they are planted ten to a bet se‘ah [If the trees are planted in a regular pattern, each tree gets an area of 250 square cubits, or 15.82 cubits square. This means that the crown of each fruit tree should reach a diameter of slightly over 14.2 cubits. Ten trees to a bet se‘ah are characteristic for a tree nursery (Mishnah Sheviït 1:7); adult trees form an orchard if a minimum of three trees are planted on a bet se‘ah (Mishnah Sheviït 1:2). Since Maimonidesdoes not quote the rules of R. Mana in his code, he seems to consider them non-operative since trees that actually bear fruit are no longer in a tree nursery.] .
“But for carob trees all that see.” What defines the directions for them? The town defines the directions for them [E, S, W, N are defined standing in the center of town. Chapter 5 of Mishnah Erubin explains that each town has to put up markers at the end of the Sabbath territory (2000 cubits from the last house of town) in the four cardinal directions.] . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the family of Rebbi had four oil presses in the four directions of the town and their used to give for each oil press according to its direction [The prescribed percentage of the olives processed in each of the oil presses.] .
If there were three [R. Simson of Sens reads: 30. This would explain the plural used for the three groups of trees.] (groups of) trees, the outer [While all sources have here הראשונים “the first ones”, it is clear from the context that הראשים “the extremities” are meant.] ones see the middle ones, the middle ones see the outer ones, but the outer ones do not see one another, then one may give from the outer ones for the middle ones and from the middle ones for the outer ones but one may not give from the outer ones for the outer ones.
MISHNAH: He who sows one species on his field gives one peah even though he works [Literally: He makes two threshing floors. Not only the act of threshing is involved, but also the collection of threshed grain into orderly heaps. The best translation is: processing (grain on the stalk into a commercial commodity.)] at two different threshing floors. If he sows two species, he gives two peot even though he threshes them together [And puts them together in the same heap.] . He who sows two different kinds of wheat on his field gives one peah if he processes them together [That means that he treats them as one kind of wheat.] , two peot if he threshes them separately. It happened that Rebbi Simeon from Miẓpah [A Mishnah collector in the times of Rabban Gamliel I; one of a very small number of scholars who lived during Second Temple times who is always mentioned with the title “Rebbi.” {It is possible that before the destruction of the Temple, “Rebbi” did not designate a rabbi but a collector of legal statements.} Miẓpah probably is today’s Nebi Samwil, N. W. of Jerusalem.] sowed before Rabban Gamliel; they ascended to the stone hall [The hall on the Temple Mount whose walls were formed by hewn stone and in which the high court held its sessions.] and asked. Naḥum the scribe [Cf. Latin libellaris, “of books.” He was the clerk of Rabban Gamliel I’s court.] said: I have the tradition from Rebbi Miasha, who received it from my father, who received it from the pairs [The pairs of authorities, chiefs and deputy chiefs of the high court in Jerusalem, who are mentioned in the first chapter of Pirqe Avot.] , who received if from the prophets [Ḥaggai, Zachariah, Malachi, who by tradition are counted as members of the “Great Assembly.”] , a practice going back to Moses on Sinai, that he who sows two different kinds of wheat on his field gives one peah if he stores them together, two peot if he stores them separately.
HALAKHAH: If he cut half the fine wheat [The reading of the Venice print here is איגדו, that of the Rome manuscript אגידו. This kind of wheat is usually spelled אגרו, אגורי, אגרי; this is R. Simson’s spelling here. The spelling with r is probably correct. The term corresponds to Syriac איגורי דחיטתא “fine quality wheat” (Payne-Smith vol. I, col. 137). The entire exposition deals only with the case of a field sown with two kinds of wheat, as in the Mishnah.] and half the coarse wheat [Everywhere else, this kind of wheat is called שחמתית. The elision of ḥ shows that these rules were formulated in the region between Haifa and Beth She‘an where ח was identified with ה. The root of the word is שחם “to be darkish” (Arabic سخم، سحم; cf. also شخم “spoiled”). This is the coarser kind of wheat.] to process them together and then he changed his mind and processed them separately he cannot give from the fine wheat for the coarse either the first time [When he cuts half of the field, since we require that the poor have a clear sign when peah will be given and that is at the end of the total harvest.] or at the end [Since actions count more than intentions.] . If he cut half the fine wheat and half the coarse wheat to process them separately and then he changed his mind and processed them together, he may give from the fine wheat at the end for the coarse wheat at the end, from the fine wheat the first time for the coarse wheat the first time [Here also the action cancels the prior intention. He may not give from the coarse wheat for the fine since that would be stealing from the poor. He may give from the fine wheat for the coarse since he gives to the poor more than they would be entitled to.] . He gives from fine wheat for fine wheat if he finished harvesting his field, but if he did not finish harvesting, he may not give even from fine wheat for fine wheat [As explained before, all peah has to be given at the end.] . If he cut half the fine wheat and all the coarse wheat to process them together and he changed his mind and processed them separately [Not the fine and the coarse kinds separately but the first and the second harvests separately. In that case, since peah has to be given at the end, there is only fine wheat to be given (for the entire field) and the farmer is not obligated to separate peah from the coarse wheat kernels in his heap. {The emendations proposed by the commentators are unconvincing.}] then he gives from the fine wheat for the fine wheat and all the coarse wheat is exempted [A Mishnah collector in the times of Rabban Gamliel I; one of a very small number of scholars who lived during Second Temple times who is always mentioned with the title “Rebbi.” {It is possible that before the destruction of the Temple, “Rebbi” did not designate a rabbi but a collector of legal statements.} Miẓpah probably is today’s Nebi Samwil, N. W. of Jerusalem.] .
Rebbi [The entire following discussion on oral tradition is also in Taäniot 1:8.] Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If you come to notice a practice of which you do not know the reason, do not push it aside as something alien since many practices were shown to Moses on Sinai and all of them were absorbed into the Mishnah. Rebbi Abin said, that is correct! If Naḥum had not come and explained it to us about the two kinds of wheat, could we have known [That the rule of two kinds of wheat in one field is a practice revealed to Moses.] ?
Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: (Hos. 8:12) “I [Words of God.] wrote down for him most of My teaching.” [In the Babli (Giṭṭin 60b), this is the definite statement of R. Eleazar. The later statement of R. Samuel bar Naḥman is attributed in the Babli to R. Joḥanan, and R. Zeïra follows the latter’s argument.] But was most of the Torah written down? Rather, more things are derived from what is written than what is (only) oral tradition. Is that so? But so it is: Things derived from what is transmitted orally are preferred over those written.
Rebbi Judah ben Pazi says: “I wrote down for him most of My teaching,” these are the admonitions [Lev. 26:14–46, Deut. 28:15–69.] . Nevertheless, is it not that (Hos. 8:12) “they were considered foreign”.
Rebbi Avin said: If I had written down for you most of my teaching, would it not be considered Gentile? What is the difference between us and the Gentiles? These produce their books and those produce their books. These produce their parchments [Greek διφθέρα, ἡ, “leather prepared for writing.” The argument is: If there were no oral Torah Jewish law would not differ from any Gentile law. Babli Giṭṭin 60b briefly alludes to this argument.] and those produce their parchments.
Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani: Things have been said orally and things have been said in writing, and we do not know which ones are preferred. From what is written (Ex. 34:27): “By the mouth of these words I concluded a covenant with you and Israel [This argument is somewhat specious since the full verse reads: “The Eternal said to Moses, write down these words for yourself, because by the mouth of these words I concluded a covenant with you and Israel.” In Babli Giṭṭin 60b, R. Simeon ben Laqish explains the verse as part of the covenant and states that written verses may not be recited by heart and oral traditions not written down.] ;” it follows that the oral traditions are preferred [A similar argument in the name of R. Joḥanan is reported in Babli Giṭṭin 60b.] .
Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Yudan bar Rebbi Simeon [He is Rebbi Jehudah bar Simon. The verse this homily refers to is the one quoted in the preceding paragraph.] . One said that if you kept what is oral tradition and kept what is written I will conclude a covenant with you, otherwise I shall not conclude a covenant with you. The other one said, if you watched all that is oral tradition and kept all that is written you will receive your reward, otherwise you will not receive any reward.
Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said [The reference is to Deut. 9:10: “The Eternal gave to me the two stone tablets, written by the Divine Finger, and on them like all the words that the Eternal spoke to you on the mountain at the day of assembly.” The three italicized expressions are all unnecessary for the understanding of the sentence; these are interpreted as referring to the three divisions of oral law contained in the complete Torah. {The same derivation is found in Megillah fol. 74d, and in very shortened form with different emphasis in Babli Megillah 19b.}] : On them, and on them; all, like all; words, the words; Bible, Mishnah, Talmud, and Aggadah. Even what a competent [Arabic ות̇יק “strong, safe, secure, dependable, reliable”. The interpretations of the untrained and incompetent are worthless.] student will discover [Since a student may not rule, or teach, before his teacher, the root of the word להורות must be “to become pregnant,” in this case, with an idea.] before his teacher was said to Moses on Sinai. What is the reason? (Eccl. 1:10) “There is something about which one would say, look, this is new!” His colleague will answer, “it already has been forever.”
Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Samuel: One makes inferences neither from practices [Rules of practice declared in the Mishnah; these may be overridden by arguments in the Talmud. The interpretation of this paragraph follows R. Samuel ben Meïr (Ṛashbam) to Babli Baba batra 130b,s. v.עד.] , nor from homiletics [Homiletics, whether incorporated in the Talmud or given in separate midrashim. Unfortunately, since the sixteenth century this principle has been violated by Kabbalists in favor of practices mentioned in Zohar.] , nor from extraneous sources [Rashbam reads תוספתות instead of תוספות, but that may be a scribal error. The “additional sources” are tannaïtic materials not given in the Mishnah, either as single traditions or as part of a collection.] , but only from study [From the Talmud which fixes the reasons for each ruling, or from a decision made in the Talmud that practice follows the opinion of such-and-such.] . Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: The case of two kinds of wheat is the same as the case of two kinds of barley [If R. Ḥalaphta ben Shaul makes the inference that the rules for barley are identical with those for wheat, does he not violate Samuel’s statement that one does not draw inferences from stated practices but only from an argument about the underlying principles?] . Rebbi Zeïra said, that was part of the original practice and it was forgotten: The case of two kinds of wheat is the same as the case of two kinds of barley. But did we not state (Mishnah 3:3): “He who strips moist onions for the market and stores dry ones [He has to give peah two times; this rule cannot be deduced from the stated practice regarding two kinds of wheat since one deals here with only one kind of onion. Since this Mishnah cannot be a consequence of the original Halakhah, neither may one assert that the ruling of R. Ḥalaphta ben Shaul was part of the original Halakhah. Hence, neither the statement of R. Halaphta nor the Mishnah are exempt from logical scrutiny on the basis of accepted general principles.] ;” can you say about market and storage that this was of the original practice and was forgotten?
Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Samuel: One makes no inferences from a ruling [If a rabbi was asked about a practical problem and he gave a certain decision, a third party may make no practical applications of that decision unless he understands the reasoning behind the decision and agrees with it.] . Everybody agrees that one makes no inferences from an action [If one saw a rabbinic authority act in a certain way, one may not act in the same way or make inferences from this action unless one knows both the background of and the reasoning for the particular action.] . Rebbi Mana said to him, that means somebody who does not understand [The reasoning of the rabbinic authority.] , but he who understands may act. He said to him, whether one understands or one does not understand, if there is a disagreement [If in the Mishnah or another source there is mention of a disagreement between rabbis about the correct course, action is permitted only if there is an explicit understanding of and agreement with the reasoning behind the ruling.] . But if there is no disagreement, whether one understands or one does not understand [In this case, one may act on the decision or imitate the action of a competent rabbinic authority even without a detailed inquiry into the arguments leading to decision or action.] .
MISHNAH: A field harvested by Gentiles [Illegally, or that they bought the crop from the Jewish farmer while the grain was still standing.] or robbers [Greek λῃστής; in Galilean dialect, final m for s is certainly a scribal error. Since Gentiles who rob are mentioned first, the robber here is a Jew.] , undermined by ants, ruined by a storm or animals, is free [Since the farmer gets nothing of the yield, he has no obligation to give from another field for the lost crop.] . If he harvested half of it and robbers harvested the other half, it is free since the obligation of produce is when it is standing [The obligation of peah arises at the end of the harvest, when some grain is still standing. Since at that moment the grain is in the hands of the robbers, no obligation is incurred by the owner of the field.] . If robbers cut half of it and he harvested the other half, he must give peah from what he cut. If he harvested half and sold half, the buyer gives peah for everything [Since the obligation of peah did arise from his cutting. However, he may ask to deduct the value of the seller’s peah, 1⅔% of the seller’s harvest, from the selling price.] . If he cut half and dedicated half [(Tosephta Peah 3:1). The Mishnah does not have to mention that the Gentiles harvest for themselves and not for the Jew, since for the grain harvest one may not hire Gentile workers who would pick up the single stalks not bound in sheaves.] , he who redeemed it from the treasurer gives peah for everything.
HALAKHAH: The Mishnah [Dealing with the first case, if the field was harvested by Gentiles.] , if they cut for themselves, but if they cut for a Jew it is obligated. And we have formulated regarding this [(Tosephta Peah 3:1). The Mishnah does not have to mention that the Gentiles harvest for themselves and not for the Jew, since for the grain harvest one may not hire Gentile workers who would pick up the single stalks not bound in sheaves.] : One does not hire Gentile workers because they do not know about gleanings.
The Mishnah [Dealing with the second case, if the field was harvested by Jewish robbers.] , if they cut to destroy it. But if they do not cut to destroy it, it is obligated [Since the robbers, while they are Jewish, are not expected to follow Jewish law and give peah from what they are cutting, the farmer has to give peah from any grain that he manages to obtain from the field. This might apply in particular to the next case, discussed in the next paragraph, when he harvested the first half of the field, in which case the language of the Mishnah may be read to mean that the farmer is totally freed from his obligation.] . Rebbi Hoshaia ben Shammai [A fifth generation Galilean Amora from Caesarea Philippi (קצרין), a colleague of R. Mana II.] said, even if you say that they do not cut to destroy it, it is free since peah is given from standing produce and real estate cannot be robbed [This is a principle repeated many times in both Talmudim, cf. Kilaim 7:5, Babli Sukkah 30b. The reason is that ownership of real estate is always documented; hence, real estate taken by force in a time of anarchy can always be recovered in court when the rule of law is reestablished. According to R. S. Cirillo, since the robbers are not owners of the field, they are not owners of the grain as long as it stands. It is true that they become owners of the grain as soon as they cut it; the legal owner then has a claim for damages against them but not a claim to the actual grain. Hence, when the robbers cut the grain, there is no obligation of peah incurred by the farmer since neither he nor his employees are doing the harvesting. There also is no obligation on the robbers since the grain comes into their possession only after it is cut and the obligation of peah is already a past event. As a consequence, the field is cut without anybody incurring the obligation of peah.] .
Because [The Mishnah must deal separately with the cases of robbers cutting the entire field or only part of the field because the obligation of peah, once incurred, may be discharged also from cut grain as explained in Mishnah and Halakhah 1:6.] he separates [Meaning that he sets aside as peah for the poor.] from cut grain for standing grain and from standing grain for cut grain but he does not [If everything is done correctly.] separate from cut grain for either cut or standing grain. Sometimes he has to separate from cut grain for standing grain. How can this be? If he finished his field and left something standing on it for peah, at the moment he cuts the first stalk from this, peah returns to the sheaves; he has to give from cut grain [Since he stole from the poor by his action, some obligation is transferred to the grain already harvested as explained in Mishnah 1:6.] . Not only if he finished his field but even if he cut some and said: “From here and further on I give for peah,” at the moment he cuts the first stalk from this, peah returns to the sheaves and he separates from cut grain for standing grain.
May the seller get the peah which permits the sheaves [This refers to the case when the farmer cuts half the harvest and then sells the field with the remaining crop. If the seller is legally below the poverty line, may he take from the peah the buyer is obligated to give also for the grain he himself cut? The problem is that nobody is permitted to take his own peah.] ? Let us hear it from the following (Mishnah 5:4): “ [The Mishnah deals with the case of the sharecropper who is not permitted to take from the peah of the field he is working on. Then Rebbi Jehudah explains (nobody dissenting) that this is only true for the sharecropper who has leased the field and has property rights to 50%, 33%, or 25% of the crop. But if the landlord acts as the owner of the field at all times and the sharecropper has no property rights to the crop except that he will receive 50%, 33%, or 25% of the harvest after it is harvested, then the peah was never his and, being poor, he may go and collect from the peah with the rest of the poor.] Rebbi Jehudah said: When is this, if he received it for a half, a third, or a quarter.” What is the difference between this and the first case [Of the usual sharecropper.] ? It must be, “if you cut it, a third will be yours [Only after the harvest is completed does the sharecropper have a claim.] .” Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, this implies that the seller may get the peah which permits the sheaves [Since at the moment of the actual obligation of peah the field is already sold, the peah was never the seller’s and he may take his part among the other poor who come to collect.] . Rebbi Yose [He shows that the argument of R. Abin bar Ḥiyya is faulty. While the actual obligation of peah arises during the buyer’s harvest, the potential obligation started with the seller’s harvest. Hence, the seller should be barred from taking his part of the peah. In contrast, the sharecropper who is given ownership only of a part of the harvest, not of the standing grain, has nothing at all to do with the obligation of peah.] said, there the obligation of the field did not come during his ownership, but here the obligation of the field started during his ownership. It is correct that if he cut half of the field and sold what he cut, the buyer [Since he is poor and never acquired any ownership of the real estate, he may take everything a poor person is entitled to. This sentence is R. Yose’s analysis of the correct parallel to the Mishnah of the sharecropper.] is allowed gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah. May the buyer get the peah which permits the sheaves of the seller [If the buyer is legally poor, may he take for himself the peah that he will give for the seller’s harvest? The answer might be yes, unless we are afraid of unfair competition. This is the essence of the last argument in the quarrel between Rebbi and Rebbi Jehudah II the Prince as explained at the end of Halakhah 1:6.] ? That is the disagreement of Rebbi and Rebbi Jehudah the Prince.
Rebbi Phineas asked [Here starts the discussion of the last case of the Mishnah, if part of the field was dedicated to the upkeep of the Temple.] : Can a harvest outside of the Land become subject to peah? Could you not say that a dedicated crop is exempt and (a crop) outside the Land is exempt; just as a dedicated crop may become obligated [As explained in the Mishnah, if the field is sold by the Temple officials with the crop still standing.] , so from outside the Land it may become obligated? He found it stated: (Lev. 19:9, 23:22) “When you harvest the harvest of your Land,” and not the harvest outside of the Land [Under any circumstance.] .
If the treasurer cut half of the half but did not finish to harvest the rest before somebody redeemed everything, he gives from the harvest for what was harvested [As explained in the Mishnah, the buyer has to give peah also for the harvest of the original owner. However, since the verse speaks to individuals, “when you cut the harvest of your land”, the obligation is only on private individuals. It does not apply to the Temple which is the collective property of all of Israel.] but all that was harvested in the possession of the Temple is already exempted.