MISHNAH: Peah is given connected to the ground [Unharvested.] . From a climbing vine [Climbing on a high pole or tree so that the grapes cannot be reached from the ground.] and a date palm, the owner brings it down and divides it up among the poor. Rebbi Simeon says, also for smooth [This is the reading of the Leyden manuscript and the Yerushalmi print. Some Mishnah manuscripts have חֲלַקֵּי, meaning the same, and some חֲלוּקֵי “distributed”. The majority seems to follow the reading “smooth”, which according to Tiferet Israel means trees without branches to hold on to, which cannot safely be harvested without a ladder.] nut trees. Even if 99 poor people say to distribute and one says to grab [Harvest from standing crop.] , one listens to him whose request is in keeping with practice. But for a climbing vine and a date palm it is not so; even if 99 say to grab and one says to distribute, one listens to him whose request is in keeping with practice.
HALAKHAH: (Lev. 23:22) “Do not finish off the corner of your field during your harvest.” This shows that peah is given standing on the ground. One might think this also includes climbing vine and date palms, but the verse says “harvest.” Harvest is special in that a small person can do it as well as a tall person; this excludes climbing vine and date palm where a small person cannot do it as well as a tall person [This tannaïtic statement is not found in any of the parallel collections.] .
Some [Sifra Qedošim 2(5–7).] want to understand it from the verse (Lev. 19:10, 23:22) “abandon [Lev. 19:10: “Do not glean in your vineyard, neither collect single berries, abandon them for the poor and the stranger; I am the Eternal, your God.” Lev. 23:22: “When you are harvesting the harvest of your land, do not finish off the corner of your field during your harvest, neither collect the gleanings of your harvest, abandon them for the poor and the stranger; I am the Eternal, your God.” The implication is that peah has to be given before any further processing.] ,” put before them grain in its straw, fenugreek in bundles, dates in brooms [Dates grow in bunches that sit on the trunk; if the bunch is cut at the trunk and the dates are taken, the remainder may be used as a broom.] . I might think that this also includes climbing vine and date palms, but the verse says “them [Only those items that are described by the term “harvest”.] .” What argument do you have to include these and to exclude those? After the verse included, it excluded. I include those that are not dangerous and exclude those that are dangerous [“Connected” here means “still hanging on the tree.” Then the plucking cannot be described as “harvest”. Since this derivation by inclusion and exclusion follows the method of R. Ismael, the preceding paragraph must represent the opinion of R. Aqiba.] .
Is it not connected [The fruits still are connected to the tree. This paragraph discusses whether climbing vines and dates are an exception to the rule that peah has to be given for the standing crop, or whether it is only a technicality requiring the owner to harvest the peah himself. The answer is that there is no exception; it may well be that the name peah has to be given when the fruits are still hanging on the tree, but this does not change the fact that the owner must pay for taking them down.] ? He calls it by the name peah when it is on the tree [Since produce is not exempt from tithes and may not be taken by the poor until the farmer has designated it as such, giving it the name “peah”.] . If you say not from standing produce, he calls it by the name peah when it is taken down. If you say he calls it by the name peah when it is on the tree, the removal is charged to the poor. If you say he calls it by the name peah when it is taken down, the removal is the obligation of the owner. But even if you say that he calls it by the name peah when it is on the tree, they [The religious authorities of earlier times.] charge the owner with taking it down because of the danger.
It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr [Reading of the Rome and Cirillo manuscripts. The Venice print has “Rebbi Immi”; that reading is impossible since Rebbi Immi was an Amora, not a Tanna, and the statement is a tannaïtic one. The further discussion is in the name of R. Meïr even in the Venice text.] : All trees are dangerous. Does Rebbi Meïr not infer from “harvest” while the rabbis likewise infer from “harvest [The inference drawn in the first paragraph of this Halakhah from Lev. 23:22.] ?” Everybody infers from “harvest”, except that Rebbi Meïr says that all trees are dangerous and the rabbis say only the climbing vine and the date palm are dangerous. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It has happened that five brothers died climbing five smooth nut trees [Accordingly, practice must follow Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon against the Mishnah. However, Maimonides follows the Mishnah both in his commentary and in his Code.] .
If the owner called it peah [The last part of the grain on his field; this makes it legally the property of the poor. Then he proceeded to cut it.] and nevertheless finished harvesting the entire field, I read for him: “Do not finish off the corner of your field during your harvest. [Again, the entire verse is to be understood, including the second part: “Leave it for the poor and the stranger.” Even though he has transgressed the first part of the injunction, he still is obligated for the second part, viz., to leave the cut peah to the poor by abandoning it on the field.] ” If he did not call it peah and finished harvesting the entire field, I read for him: “Do not finish off the corner of your field during your harvest.”
If they agreed among themselves [The poor demanding that either the farmer should divide the produce instead of them harvesting it, or declaring that they want to climb the tree when he would be obligated to get the peah and give it to them. Since the Mishnah says that if 99 want to differ from the rule and one wants to comply with it (even if he acts out of selfishness because he would be able to grab more than the others), it follows that if all of them agree the agreement is valid. The Halakha notes that one does not listen to him, i. e., if the farmer is part of the agreement (and presumably its originator, but in any case a person of overriding influence over the poor) then the agreement is void. [This is the explanation of R. Simson of Sens. It seems that Maimonides reads הִתְנוּ בֵּינֵיהֶן שׁוֹמְעִין לָהֶן or a similar text, since in his Code (Mattenot Aniïm 2:16,17) he repeats twice that agreements among the poor about the manner of distribution are valid.]] , even so one does not listen to him.
The owner has to distribute by hand to avoid that he would see a poor person of his acquaintance and throw it before him [The Mishnah notes that the owner of the tree must divide peah; this means that he cannot simply take the fruits down and let the poor take them. Since we have the general rule of “abandon”, any exception needs a justification.] . Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon questioned [He asks whether the obligation to distribute only applies to those fruits which never fall under the category of “grabbing” or whether it extends to all cases where the farmer has to bring the produce before the poor, as in the case of grain already bound in sheaves. The question remains unanswered.] : If he finished harvesting his field, you say that peah returned to the sheaves. Even so, does the owner have to distribute by hand to avoid that he would see a poor person of his acquaintance and throw it before him?
MISHNAH: If he [A poor man entitled to collect peah.] took some of the peah and threw it on the rest [In order to claim possession. Since peah has the legal status of abandoned property, the slightest action of acquisition should be valid.] , he has nothing of it [As punishment, since all poor should have equal access to any produce left by the farmer. According to R. Simson of Sens, the Mishnah means that he retains what he already had but his action is invalid as acquisition.] . If he fell on it or spread his talith on it, one removes him from it [For the reasons given above.] . The same is valid for gleanings and the forgotten sheaf.
HALAKHAH: It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: “One punishes him and takes away from him both the cut and the standing produce. [Tosephta Peah 2:1 reads: “If he took some of the peah and threw it on the rest, he has no claim to it. Rebbi Meïr says, one punishes him and takes away from him both the cut and the standing produce.” This proves that the language of the Mishnah, the first sentence of the Tosephta, implies that he does not lose the peah he previously collected. Maimonides, who in his commentary to the Mishnah writes that he loses that peah also, explains the Halakhah, not the Mishnah.] ” That refers to intentional misconduct; does it apply even to action in error or even to small sheaves [If the poor collector already had made a small sheaf of his peah. The question is not answered; for practical purposes, it is answered in the negative.] ?
Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Abba Cohen Bar Dalaia [A Tanna of the first generations: Abba, a priest of the course of Dalaiahu, the 23rd of the 24 priestly divisions.] : A person acquires a find within four cubits of himself [If somebody sees an abandoned object and intends to acquire it, it becomes his property when he is closer than 4 cubits to it, and nobody has the right to run past him and grab it. Since the Mishnah obviously declares that principle inoperative with regard to peah, there seems to be a contradiction between two rabbinic principles. The Babli (Baba Meẓi‘a 10a/b) resolves the problem by restricting the principle of Abba Cohen to the public domain; it does not apply to private property such as a field. The Yerushalmi disagrees; since peah is abandoned property, as proved in the preceding Halakhah, it must be assumed that the ground on which peah grows is temporarily also abandoned to the poor. The expression “himself” will be given special importance in the following discussion.] . What is the reason? (1Chr. 22:14) “Look, in my poverty [How can anybody (King David) who has the means of dedicating such enormous wealth, call himself “poor”? The explanation is that the wealth never actually came into his possession but that he dedicated it as soon as it became his property by intent and proximity.] I prepared for the House of the Eternal 100’000 kikkar [One kikkar equals 3’000 sheqel, and, since the sheqel in the Talmud is defined as 2 drachmas, the kikkar is equal to the Greek talent of 6’000 drachmas. The 14 g silver sheqalim from the Jewish revolt were “sacred sheqalim” of double weight, or four civil denars. Honest silver denars or drachmae from the early principate weigh about 3.5 g. Taking civil sheqalim, one kikkar would be about 21 kg and David would have prepared 2 metric tons of gold and 20 metric tons of silver for the Temple.] of gold, 1’000’000 kikkar of silver, bronze and iron unweighed because it was so much, I prepared wood and stones, and you [Solomon.] should add to them.”
Rebbi Jonah said that Rebbi Hoshaiah asked: What are we talking about? If this was within four cubits from him, he was rich [After he dedicated all he had, he was poor. But if one has the means to dedicate billions, he cannot say that he is in poverty at the act of dedication.] . If it was outside of four cubits, may anybody dedicate anything that is not his [If A says to B that he dedicated a piece of B’s property for charity or religious purposes, his words are null and void and have neither legal nor religious implications.] ? We confirmed it [The argument in the previous paragraph is still valid if David never came to possess a single piece of gold or silver worth more than 200 zuz; then he could assemble all this wealth for the Temple without ever ceasing to be legally poor.] if he dedicated it piece by piece.
Rebbi Abun said, what means “in my poverty?” That there is no wealth before Him Who commanded and the world came into existence [The expression “in my poverty” is homiletic and carries no legal meaning; the verse is inapplicable to our situation and the statement about the four cubits is a rabbinical institution without Biblical foundation.] ! Another explanation: בְּעוֹנְיִי “in my deprivation [The other uses of עוני in the Bible show that this is the usual meaning of the word. This also excludes the verse from being used as proof in our context.] ,” because he fasted and donated the price of his meal to Heaven.
Rebbi Jacob bar Idi objected before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Did we not state: (Mishnah Baba Meẓi‘a 1:4) “If somebody saw a find and fell on it, when another person came and grabbed it, he who grabbed it had the rights to it?” He answered him: Explain it if the first one did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him [The Babli (Baba Meẓi‘a 10b) explains that deeds speak louder than words and that by falling on the object the finder showed that he did not wish to acquire it by simple speech. In that case, it can be acquired only by grabbing, i. e., holding on to it and moving it. The Yerushalmi does not go so far; it only requires that an object should be within four cubits of the finder and that the latter should clearly express his intention of acquiring the object. Afterwards, he can do as he wishes.] . But did we not state [In our Mishnah.] : “If he fell on it or spread his talith on it, one removes him from it?” He said to him, that is the same, if he did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state [In our Tosephta, the statement is anonymous. The tradition that the Tosephta is originally from the school of Rebbi Ḥiyya seems to be an old Yerushalmi one.] : (Tosephta Peah 2:2) “If two [In the Tosephta: “Two poor persons.”] were pushing [Since כתש means “to hew to pieces”, probably the translation should be: “Thrash one another.” In any case, they quarrel by physical force rather than words; it may be assumed that neither of them intended to acquire the forgotten sheaf by speech.] one another because of a sheaf and another poor person came and grabbed it from before them, he is entitled to it. He said to him, it is the same, he [Neither of the first two quarellers.] did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him.
Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan [The entire discussion belongs to the parallel in Giṭṭin 8:3 (fol. 49c), where it is stated in Mishnah 2 that a divorce document, of which it is written (Deut. 24:1): “He wrote her a divorce document and delivered it into her hands,” can be delivered by the husband’s throwing the document close to her (within four cubits) in the public domain, with the wife’s knowledge. Then Mishnah 3 adds: “The same rule applies to marriage and the settlement of debts,” meaning that if a woman agrees to marry a certain man and the groom, while declaring that the wedding gift is given for the purpose of marriage, instead of delivering it into the bride’s hand throws it close to her in the public domain in front of two witnesses, the marriage is valid. Similarly, if the creditor asks the debtor to throw to him the amount owed, if the debtor did that and it landed within the creditor’s four cubits in the public domain, the debtor has discharged all his obligations. On this, Rebbi Joḥanan comments that a gift can be acquired only by actual possession, not by four cubits in the public domain.] : That refers to divorce documents, but it does not apply to a gift. Rebbi Joḥanan adds something [His statement about gifts is far from trivial.] , Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish adds something. Rebbi Joḥanan adds something. Since a find which cannot be acquired by the knowledge of another person [If two persons walk together, one sees a find and tells the second one to take it up for him, and the second one lifts it up with the intention of acting as the first person’s agent, the first one acquired it (Mishnah Baba Meẓi‘a 1:3). However, in that case the find must actually be taken up; the four cubits of the agent and his declaration are invalid. If the second person decides to take the find for himself, the four cubits and his declaration of intent of acquisition are valid and the find is his.] can be acquired within four cubits, should this rule not apply a fortiori [Hence, his statement excluding gifts is necessary.] to a gift that is acquired by the knowledge of another person [Without the donor’s intent of giving the gift, there is no gift and, hence, none can be acquired. [However, if A says to B: acquire the gift for C, the action of B is valid for C since one may let another person profit without the latter’s knowledge (explanation of R. Moses ben Ḥabib)].] ? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish adds something. Since a gift which cannot be acquired within four cubits [R. Simeon ben Laqish’s premise is R. Joḥanan’s conclusion and vice-versa. If the arguments were made by one person, they would be self-contradictory; for the position of two people they are acceptable.] can be acquired by the knowledge of another person, should this not a fortiori apply to a find [Hence, the statement of R. Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Abba Cohen, that four cubits acquire for a person, is necessary insofar as it means acquisition for himself and not for another individual.] ?
Rebbi Zeïra objected before Rebbi Yasa: But did we not state [Mishnah Giṭṭin 8:3.] : The same applies to marriage? He answered him, divorce documents and marriage contracts have the same rules [The statement of R. Joḥanan about exclusion of gifts could as well have been formulated for marriage contracts.] . But did we not state: The same applies to debt? He said to him, because if he [The creditor tells the debtor to throw the repayment into the sea. If the debtor follows instructions, he has discharged his obligations.] said to him: Throw it into the sea and your debt will be forgiven, it would be forgiven. But if that is true, even if it fell down close to the debtor, the debtor should have the benefit! But we have stated [In the same Mishnah, speaking of the debtor throwing the money to the creditor. Nothing of four cubits was mentioned in the first explanation.] , if it falls down close to the debtor, the debtor is still obligated. For he said to him, throw it so that it will enter my domain, and it did not yet enter his domain [If the money fell outside the creditor’s four cubits in the public domain, the debt is not discharged since the condition was not satisfied. However, if the creditor stands on the seashore and the money falls close to him into the sea, the debtor has discharged his obligation. The problem raised in the return question is considered to be different and receives a different answer.] . Rebbi Abbahu said, all those objections that Rebbi Zeïra raised before Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish raised before Rebbi Joḥanan. Did he accept them from him? He solved them with those same solutions.
MISHNAH: One does not harvest peah with sickles and one does not uproot it with axes so that they should not injure one another. Three investigation periods [Periods when the poor will go to the fields to see where they may collect peah. According to the interpretation of Maimonides (Mattenot Aniïm 2:17), the poor are not permitted to collect at other times. The root of the word is בעי “to question”. (The Halakhah reads אבעיות). The Halakhah will clarify the meaning of the three periods.] are there during the day, in the morning, at noontime, and in the evening. Rabban Gamliel says, they decreed this only to say that one may not do less. Rebbi Aqiba says, they decreed this only to say that one may not do more [The farmer is not allowed to declare peah at any other time, when not all poor have the opportunity to be present.] . In Bet Namer [Identified with Biblical Bet Nimrah (Num. 32:2) on the Jordanian side of the Jordan, a tell called Nymreïn.] they insisted on collecting [The hiph‘il form, given by the overwhelming majority of manuscript sources, is a causative: The farmer made his farmhands cut the grain along ropes stretched lengthwise along the field. In this way, the entire end-strip of the field became peah, given piecemeal during the harvest.] along a rope and were giving peah from every strip [Greek ὄγμος, Byzantine pronunciation oymos, “furrow in plowing, swathe in reaping,” also ὤγμος, “strip of cultivated land.”] .
HALAKHAH: What are אֹבָּעְיוֹת? Rebbi Abun said, just as you say (Ob. 6): “How was Esau searched out, his hidden places investigated [The root בעה in Obadiah has a meaning close to Rabbinic Aramaic בעי.] .”
“In the morning, at noontime, and in the evening.” In the morning because of nursing women. At noontime because of the children. In the evening, because of the decrepit [The old people; from the root משש “to totter.”] .
“Rabban Gamliel says, they decreed this only to say that one may not do less;” if he wants to add, he may add. “Rebbi Aqiba says, they decreed this only to say that one may not do more;” does this mean that if he wants to give less frequently he may not do so?
“Those of Bet Namer insisted on collecting along a rope and were giving peah from every strip.” It was stated: Abba Shaul says, one mentions them disapprovingly and one mentions them approvingly. One mentions them disapprovingly because they only gave peah of one percent [And not 1⅔% as required by rabbinical ordinance.] . And one mentions them approvingly because they insisted on collecting along a rope and were giving peah from every strip.
It was stated [There are parallels in Tosephta Peah 1:6, Sifra Qedošim 1:10, Babli Šabbat 23a. In all these parallels, there are four reasons given, meaning that R. Simeon explains the reason of the Biblical law. In the Babli, R. Simeon is reputed to deduce laws from the reasoning behind Biblical precepts; the Yerushalmi does not seem to accept this but gives reasons separate from the verse. (The Tosephta in our hands is essentially a Babylonian compilation; Sifra is Palestinian material edited in Babylonia.) It is clear that R. Simeon supports here his argument in Mishnah 1:3 that peah must be given at the end, because of Biblical precept and rabbinical ordinance.] in the name of Rebbi Simeon: For five reasons one should give peah only at the end of one’s field, because of robbing the poor, because of idling the poor, because of cheats, because of bad impression, and because the Torah said (Lev. 19:9): “Do not finish off the corner of your field.” Because of robbing the poor, that no man should see a free hour and say to his poor relative: Come, and take this peah for yourself. Because of idling the poor, that the poor should not sit around, watch the entire day, and say: Now he is giving peah, now he is giving peah, but rather they should go, collect on another field, and come at the moment of finishing. Because of the cheats, that one should not say: I already gave, and then he chooses the good and brings out the bad [We are not concerned here with people who willingly transgress the ordinances of the Torah. Rather, we speak about so-called pious people who find ways to minimize their obligations. In this case, the farmer harvests the entire field without giving peah. Then he is obligated to give peah from the cut grain but here he has the possibility to select stalks with small kernels for the poor, whereas he has no such control if he refrains from cutting the last corner.] . Because of bad impression, that the passers-by should not say: Look, this man harvested his field and did not leave peah for the poor. And because the Torah said: “Do not finish off the corner of your field.”
MISHNAH: A Non-Jew who harvested his field and later converted is free from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah [For peak and gleanings it is written: “At your harvesting,” and for the forgotten sheaf it says: “If you harvest your harvest,” and at the time of the harvest he still was an outsider.] . Rebbi Jehudah obligates him for forgotten sheaves because that applies only at the time of binding the sheaves [To refrain from going back to collect a forgotten sheaf cannot apply as long as there are no sheaves. Hence, if the man converts between cutting the grain and binding the sheaves, the obligation comes to him as a Jew and he is bound by it.] .
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jehudah said it well, what is the reason of the Rabbis? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav, Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: It is written (Deut. 24:19): “If you forget a sheaf on the field.” If you forget the standing grain [The verse reads: “If you cut your harvest on your field and then you forget a sheaf on the field, do not return to collect it.” The obligation attaches not to sheafmaking but to harvesting. The Sifri Debarim 282 reads: “‘Your harvest,’ except if it was cut by Gentiles. From that they said: A Non-Jew who harvested his field and later converted is free from gleanings, forgotten sheaves and peah. Rebbi Jehudah obliges him for forgotten sheaves because that applies only at the time of binding the sheaves.”] . What applies to forgetting while it is standing also applies to forgetting sheaves, but what does not apply to forgetting while it is standing, does not apply to forgetting sheaves.
If a Jew and a Gentile were partners in the standing grain, the part of the Jew is obligated but the part of the Gentile is free. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rav Jeremiah: If it was divided up [The parallel in Tosephta Peah2:9 reads: “If a Jew and a Gentile were partners in the standing grain, the part of the Jew is obligated but the part of the Gentile is free. Rebbi Ismael said: If a Jew and a Gentile were partners in standing grain, it is free from peah. When is that? Only if the Gentile has veto power; if the Gentile has no veto power then it is obligated for peah.” This means that if the Jew may harvest his part without getting the Gentile’s permission, it is not a partnership as far as harvest is concerned but only a partnership for the growing period; accordingly, it is totally the Jew’s harvest and is obligated. The Yerushalmi seems to apply the expression “when is that?” and the following to the beginning statement, not to the opinion of Rebbi Ismael.] .
MISHNAH: If somebody dedicated [As a monetary gift to the Temple. The Temple is the common property of all of Israel, hence the specific term “your (personal) harvest” is not applicable and produce harvested by the Temple administration is free from all obligations. The Temple did acquire real estate and other valuables only for redemption or sale, to be converted into currency.] standing produce and redeemed it standing, it is obligated [Since at harvest time it is in private hands. The same applies in the next case; produce already obligated does not lose the obligation by dedication.] ; in sheaves and redeemed in sheaves, it is obligated; standing and redeemed in sheaves it is free since at the time of obligation [I. e., at harvest time.] it was free. Parallel to this, if somebody dedicated his produce before the time of tithes [This will be explained in the Halakhah.] and redeemed it, it is obligated; after the time of tithes, it is obligated. But if he dedicated it before it was finished, the treasurer finished it [Or, depending on the case, it grew to become obligated while in the hand of the Temple treasurer.] , and then the owner redeemed it, it is free since at the time of obligation it was free.
HALAKHAH: And why is it stated twice [The statement about tithes appears both here and in Mishnah Ḥallah 3:3. The entire discussion also appears there in Halakhah 3.] ? Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Ḥiyya [Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba.] , Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah [Rebbi Jehudah bar Pedaiah, Amora of the first generation in Galilee, nephew of Bar Qappara and teacher of R. Joshua ben Levi (and also R. Joḥanan).] : One for smoothing [The total obligation for heave and tithes starts only at the end of the harvest, when the grain is put into orderly heaps whose surface is smoothed (so that theft can easily be detected.) In modern terms, it would mean that the grain is stored in a silo.] , one for one third [Grain that is one-third ripe may be used as food, Grünkern. From this moment on, grain kernels may be eaten on the spot without giving heave and tithes, but they may not be used for household purposes without first separating the dues for Cohen and Levite.] . Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Abba and the colleagues. The colleagues say, one for smoothing, one for one third [But they do not know which refers to what.] . Rebbi Abba explains: At Ḥallah for smoothing [Since ḥallah is the heave of bread dough (in a sizeable amount), it does not qualify for “eating on the spot” but must refer to the finished harvest.] , at Peah for one third.
Our Mishnah is from Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that you go after the first third. And they differed: A field that was one-third ripened in the possession of a Gentile, and a Jew bought it after that time, Rebbi Aqiba said it is free [The produce was in the hands of the Gentile at the time of the start of the obligation; so there is no obligation.] , but the Sages say he is obligated for the additional growth [In the Babli, Ḥullin 137a, Giṭṭin77a, the positions of R. Aqiba and the Sages are inverted.] . How is that? Explain it for Rebbi Aqiba (after smoothing [In Maäserot 5:4, the same statement is quoted and there it is said in the name of R. Eleazar that even the Sages obligate only for the Second Tithe or the tithe of the poor. These two alternative obligations are attached only to smoothed, stored grain; their obligation does not start with grain that is only one-third ripe.] ) [in a disagreement [That our Mishnah really follows the opinion of R. Aqiba, which, therefore, becomes the operative practice. [Since the Babli switches the names in the statement, it is the position of the Babli that our Mishnah represents the majority opinion of the Sages.]] ], or according to everybody if he harvested immediately [And there is no additional growth during the ownership of the Jew.] .
MISHNAH: He [The owner of the field.] who collected peah and said: “This is for X, the poor man,” Rebbi Eliezer says, he made him acquire it; but the Sages say, he should give it to the first poor person he meets. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah of a Non-Jew [From the language of the Mishnah it is not clear whether this is from a field (in the Land of Israel) belonging to a Non-Jew, or whether these are gleanings from the field of a Jew collected by a Non-Jew and given to a poor Jew. The first possibility is preferred by the Yerushalmi, the second by the Babli (Giṭṭin 47a). Regularly collected peah, gleanings, and forgotten sheaves are exempt from heave and tithes.] are obligated for tithes, except if the Non-Jew declared it to be abandoned property.
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joshua ben Levi says: They disagree about a rich owner [Since he may not take peah for himself, he may not take it for others. The Babli (Baba Meẓi‘a 9b) explains that R. Eliezer disagrees: since everybody can make himself poor by giving away all his property, he is a potential receiver of charity and may collect, but he may not keep it as long as he is not poor.] . But a poor owner, since he has the right to take it [For himself; he may acquire it legally even according to the Sages. That the poor farmer may not keep his own peah is a rabbinic institution that does not influence the status of the peah taken by any poor person.] , the other person acquired it.
Rebbi Zeïra said: Rebbi Eleazar [The Amora.] (about one’s friend), Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said the same thing. Rebbi Eleazar, as Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: A man may acquire a find for his friend [If a man finds abandoned or lost property, he may pick it up to acquire it for another person. This essentially is giving a gift of something that is not his property while it was lying in the street, and he picked it up with the intention of not acquiring it himself. It is enough that he could have picked it up for himself to empower him to give it directly to the beneficiary. This is the exact parallel to the poor farmer collecting peah, not to give later to somebody else, but so that the other should be the immediate owner of every collected stalk. [Later in this Halakhah and in the Babli (Baba Meẓi‘a 10a), this appears as a statement of R. Joḥanan. Since a statement X in the name of Y usually means that X did not hear the statement directly from Y, it is to be assumed that R. Zeïra heard the statement of R. Eleazar in the yeshivah of R. Joḥanan.]] . Rebbi Joḥanan, as we have stated there (Mishnah Baba Meẓiah 1:5): “The finds of his minor sons and daughters [They have no independent legal status but can act for their father. The same holds for slaves and their master.] , of his Gentile slaves and slave girls, and of his wife [It is a rabbinic ordinance that the wife’s finds and earnings belong to the husband, in exchange for his obligation to totally support his wife. If the wife is an earner, that clause may be abrogated by mutual consent.] , belong to him. The finds of his adult sons and daughters [Who are legal persons in their own right.] , of his Jewish slaves and slave girls [They are not really slaves but indentured servants for at most 6 years and do not lose their legal status. (The institution of Jewish slavery ended with the deportation of the first of the 10 tribes, since it was valid only as long as the distribution of land under Joshua was in force.)] , and of his divorced wife in case that he had not yet paid her ketubah [Cf. Chapter 3, Note 151. As long as the ketubah is not paid, the ex-husband has to support his ex-wife, but her earnings and finds are hers to keep.] , belong to them. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if they [The adult children. If they live in the father’s house and are supported by him, their earnings go to the father. Hence, if they find something, it is automatically assumed that they acquire the found property for their father.] are not dependents. But if they are dependent on their father, their finds belong to him. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, as Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: They disagree about a rich owner. But if the owner is poor, since he has the right to take it, the other person acquired it.
It was stated: If one hires a worker to do all kinds of work [The duties are not specified. If the worker is hired for a specific kind of work, e. g., for ploughing, the find belongs to the worker (Babli Baba Meẓi‘a 10a, 12b, 118a).] for him, the worker’s findings belong to his employer. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked: If he wants to quit, he may quit [In the Yerushalmi, this is a statement of R. Joḥanan (Baba Meẓi‘a6:2); there Rav is of the opinion that in a hiring contract both parties may dissolve the relationship without notice (but the party that changes the contract is liable for damages arising for the other party.) In the Babli (Baba Meẓi‘a10a), Rav states that a worker can quit without notice since it is written (Lev. 25:42): “(The Children of Israel) are My slaves,” and not slaves of slaves. Hence, any contract that restricts the ability of the worker to leave his place of work is invalid.] ; and you say that the find belongs to the employer [If the findings are worth more than the daily wages, the finder could simply quit his job before picking up the find and then the employer would have no rights.] ? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa [Since R. Jacob bar Aḥa quotes himself in our text, his name here seems to be a scribal error.] said that Rebbi Yasa asked, why do we need that of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, did we not understand that Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree? Rebbi Joḥanan said, a man may acquire a find for his friend. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a man cannot acquire a find for his friend [R. Simeon ben Laqish has no need for his objection since, for him, the question does not arise at all. In the Babli (loc. cit.), the objection to R. Joḥanan’s rule is raised and answered, that as long as the journeyman does not quit, all he does that day is to the employer’s benefit.] .
Rebbi Redifa [An Amora of the last generation of Galilean Amoraïm who collected sayings of the Sages of the preceding generation.] : Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose disagree. One says, he who may take may acquire [He who may take for himself may acquire for another person without first taking possession himself.] ; the other says, he who may give may acquire [He who may distribute property may acquire for a third person directly since he could acquire and then give it away.] . He who says “he who may take” certainly includes him who may give. He who says “he who may give,” excludes him who may take.
A Mishnah disagrees with him who says that he who may take may acquire, since we have stated [Giṭṭin 1:6. This paragraph is elliptic and almost incomprehensible. The Mishnah reads: “If someone says, give this divorce document to my wife or this document of manumission to my slave, and then wants to change his mind in either case, he may do so in the opinion of R. Meïr. But the Sages say, in the case of a wife, but not in the manumission of slaves since one may favor a person without his knowledge.” Since the divorce is considered bad for the wife, it can become valid only with her knowledge. R. Meïr thinks that manumission also may be bad for the slave who will have to accept all duties of a free Jew; the Sages consider manumission always to be good. With the wife’s knowledge, however, the emissary, a man, can acquire the divorce document for her. But as a man, he is not in a position ever to receive a divorce document.] : “Give this divorce document to my wife …,” because he may receive the divorce document of his minor daughter [The minor daughter who was formally betrothed (קידושין) but not yet actually married, can become free to marry another man only by divorce. The bill of divorce must be accepted by her father, or by herself on the instruction of the father, since she becomes of age only by actual marriage. Hence, a man, while he cannot receive the document in question, is in theory able to receive some bills of divorce.] . “And the document of manumission to my slave …,” since he may receive his own document of manumission [We have to assume that the emissary is a fellow slave who could receive his own manumission.] . But did we not state [Mishnah Giṭṭin 6:1: “If someone says: Receive this divorce document for my wife, or convey this divorce document to my wife, and wants to change his mind, he may do so. If the woman said: Receive the divorce document for me, if he {the husband} wants to change his mind {after handing over the document}, he may not do so {since the transaction was done with the wife’s knowledge.}” That is the case if the emissary of the wife is a free man; she is divorced the moment the document comes into her emissary’s hand. But since a slave has no “hand” in the legal sense, how can this Mishnah be reconciled with the one quoted first?] : “Receive this divorce document for my wife or bring this divorce document to my wife; if he wants to change his mind … he may not do so.” Is a slave empowered to bring a divorce document? Explain it by different cases [The minor daughter who was formally betrothed (קידושין) but not yet actually married, can become free to marry another man only by divorce. The bill of divorce must be accepted by her father, or by herself on the instruction of the father, since she becomes of age only by actual marriage. Hence, a man, while he cannot receive the document in question, is in theory able to receive some bills of divorce.] .
The following Mishnah disagrees with him who says that he who may take may acquire, since we have stated there [Maäser Šeni 5:9. The Mishnah discusses the case of a man who was away on a trip at the time (Passover Eve) when the tithes must be given. Rabban Gamliel, Rebbi Joshua, Rebbi Aqiba, and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah were travelling on a ship on that day (probably to or from Rome on official business) when Rabban Gamliel designated the first tithe to Rebbi Joshua, a Levite, and the tithe of the poor to Rebbi Aqiba. In order not to transgress the Biblical command of distributing the tithes, Rebbi Aqiba must have been able to let the poor acquire their tithe while on the ship.] : “One tithe that I will measure in the future is given to Aqiba ben Joseph that he should let the poor acquire it, and its place is rented to him.” But is Rebbi Aqiba entitled to take? Explain it, before he got rich [When he was a student, his wife supported him because she wanted him to become a scholar. But because he was poor, his very rich father-in-law disowned them.] . And even if you say, after he became rich [This is the more likely scenario because in this setting he already was one of the most prominent rabbis.] , when he was an administrator [Of the public charity funds. Cf. Greek πρόνοος, ον adj., “careful, prudent”; also late form προνοητής, οῦ, ὁ, “supervisor, administrator” (E. G.).] , and the hand of the administrator is equal to the hand of the poor.
The word of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi is that he who may take may acquire, since Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: They disagree about a rich owner. But in the case of a poor owner, since he has the right to take it, the other person acquired it.
Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jeremiah, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan [Here starts the discussion of the last part of the Mishnah: Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah of a Gentile are obligated for tithes, except if the Gentile declared it to be abandoned property.] : [Add: “The Mishnah is only understandable …”] According to him [The opinions of R. Jehudah and R. Simeon in Demaï 3:4, 5:9. The opposite opinion in Demaï 5:9 (fol. 24d), Kilaïm 7:4 (fol. 30d) and in the Babli, Giṭṭin 47a, is attributed to R. Meïr. The Yerushalmi clearly accepts the opinion of RR. Jedudah and Simeon. Cf. also Demay, Chapter 5, Note 102.] who says that a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes [It is explained in Demaï(loc. cit.) and elsewhere that the Biblical duties of heave and tithes ceased with the Babylonian exile. The returnees from Babylonia took these duties upon themselves and future generations in a solemn covenant with God (Neh. 10:1) in those regions (Judea, the Southern Plains, Galilee, and Golan Heights) settled by the returnees; hence the problem is not one of Biblical precepts but of the meaning of this covenant. According to the position taken here, the obligation of peah, gleanings, and forgotten sheaves is a later Rabbinic obligation on the land as far as Jews are concerned (Demaï 3:4, fol. 23d). Since the Gentile has no obligation to give to the poor, he cannot designate anything under these names. But since he is the owner, he may legally abandon the produce just as a Jew might abandon it.] . But according to him who says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes, even if he declared it abandoned property it is obligated [According to R. Meīr, the obligation is on the Land, not on the owner. If the agricultural real estate is owned by a Gentile, the obligation obviously cannot be enforced since the Gentile has no obligation to abide by the covenant. However, if the produce is then bought by a Jew, it will be a deadly sin for him to consume anything from it before he has given the heave and, at least, the priest’s part of the tithe. The only exception is abandoned property (by Mishnah 6:1, this must be abandoned to any taker, not just the poor.) Now, peah, gleanings, and forgotten sheaves also are free of heave and tithes but these can be given only by persons obligated to give. Hence, peah, gleanings, and forgotten sheaves designated by Gentiles do not have the legal status of peah, gleanings, and forgotten sheaves, and are not exempt; neither does abandoning the property help since nothing the Gentile does can possibly influence the duties upon the produce.] . Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan [Note that “in the name of” always implies an indirect transmission of statements; it might be that R. Jeremiah deals only with the statement about abandoned property and R. Yose with that about peah, gleanings, and forgotten sheaves.] : [Add: “The Mishnah is only understandable …”] According to him who says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes [The obligation of peah, gleanings, and forgotten sheaves is on the Land and is activated as soon as the produce comes into Jewish hands. R. Yose is of the opinion that the Gentile owner still may legally abandon the produce.] . But according to him who says that a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes, the Sages decreed special leniency for gleanings [If the Gentile designated some produce as peah, or left gleanings on the field, he clearly abandoned this to the poor. The general rule is that abandoned property must be abandoned to rich and poor alike (Mishnah 6:1), but in the case before us the rabbis made an exception; it is the leniency mentioned here. This is part of Nehemiah’s covenant; such a leniency would be impossible for a Biblical obligation.] .
Rebbi Eleazar [As student and colleague of R. Joḥanan, he certainly cannot quarrel with Rebbis Ḥizqiah and Ḥanina, but he must question R. Joḥanan directly. In the first version, one accepts only the statement of R. Ḥizqiah as authoritative; in the second version, one accepts both statements of R. Joḥanan as genuine but referring to different parts of the Mishnah, as explained above.] asked, does he not acquire movables? Not on the last statement this was asked, but on the following: Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jeremiah, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: According to him who says that a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes. But according to him who says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes, on this Rebbi Eleazar asked, does he not acquire movables [It cannot be said that even abandoned property is subject to tithes since everybody agrees that the yield of the Land legally belongs to the Gentile owner and his declaration of abandoned property is unquestionably valid in Jewish law.] ? Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Phineas, also on the preceding one, on that of Rebbi Yose he asked: Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: According to him who says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes. But according to him who says that a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes, on this Rebbi Eleazar asked, does he not acquire movables [Since the produce belongs to the Gentile according to everybody (Demaï5:9), even for R. Meïr, and certainly for RR. Jehudah and Simeon, there cannot be an obligation for heave and tithes on any peah, against the statement in the Mishnah. Since the question is not answered, R. Eleazar’s position is accepted.] ?
MISHNAH: [From here to Mishnah 5:6 follow the rules of gleanings.] : What are gleanings? That which falls down at harvest time. If in harvesting he cut what his hands grabbed, or he uprooted a handful, when he was stung by a thorn and it fell to the ground, this belongs to the owner [Anything falling down in an accident is not “gleanings from your harvest.” This reason is given in an extended version of the text of the Mishnah in Sifra Qedošim 2:5. The somewhat awkward wording היה קוצר קצר is also used there; it cannot be emended away.] . From inside the hand and/or [Whether to translate “and” or “or” is discussed in the Halakhah.] inside the sickle it belongs to the poor [Since this falls down in the course of a professional harvest. From the back of hand or sickle it is accidental. From the tip it is a matter of opinion.] . From the back of his hand or the back of the sickle, it belongs to the owner. From fingertips and the tip of the sickle, Rebbi Ismael says, to the poor, Rebby Aqiba says, to the owner. Antholes inside the standing produce belong to the owner [I. e., the kernels taken by the ants and stored in their holes.] . In those appearing after the harvesters left, the tops are for the poor [The kernels which can be seen from the outside should have been picked up at harvest time; those for which the hole has to be dug out are out of the reach of the poor and, hence, belong to the owner.] and the bottoms for the owner. Rebbi Meïr says, everything is for the poor because gleanings in doubt [Since the lower lying grains become visible when the upper layer is taken, the boundary between upper and lower grains is not fixable and, hence, cannot legally exist.] are gleanings.
HALAKHAH: It was stated: The gleanings of your harvest, not what anybody harvests with his bare hands [See Chapter 3, Halakhah 3: The gathering of your harvest, not the gathering of your plucking.] . And equally, the dropped berries of your vineyard, and not what drops from hand-picking [If single berries are plucked rather than whole bunches cut off with a knife.] .
Rav Cahana and Rav Taḥlifa [This probably should be Rebbi Taḥlifa, a colleague of Rav Cahana (II) in the yeshivah of Rebbi Joḥanan.] . One said, both from inside the hand and inside the sickle; the other one said, from inside the hand, even if it is from behind the sickle.
Rebbi Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Samuel [It probably should read: Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel. It is very unlikely that the reference should be to the fourth generation Rebbi Jehudah (Yudan) and the third generation Rebbi Samuel, student of Rebbi Abbahu.] : The tops are for the poor, viz., white ones [Completely dry kernels belong to the poor if they were not picked up before the surrounding grain was harvested. Green kernels were taken by the ants before the harvest and, therefore, are not possibly gleanings that fell down during harvest time. Hence, “top” and “bottom” do not have to be taken literally.] . The bottom ones are for the owner, viz., green ones. Rebbi Meïr says, everything is for the poor because gleanings in doubt are gleanings, since no threshing will end without some green ones [Accordingly, all green kernels lying on the ground also belong to the poor. Rebbi Meïr considers an event as legally possible even if the probability of the event is much smaller than 50%; the statement “that it is impossible” is not to be taken too literally.] .
Rebbi Joḥanan said: It is by Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥagra [In the parallel in Babli Ḥulin134a, he appears as R. Jehudah bar Agra (from Kefar Acco), a Tanna of the fourth generation. There in Ḥulin, R. Jehudah ben Agra explicitly formulates that peah, gleanings, and forgotten sheaves in case of doubt belong to the poor, confirming the interpretation of R. Joḥanan.] , as it was stated: “A Gentile who converted but had cut grain before he converted is free [From the obligation of gleanings, even if he converted before the grain was bound into sheaves. The poor may collect gleanings only after the cut grain is bound into sheaves.] ; after he converted, he is obligated. If it is in doubt, he is free. Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥagra obligates him [If he is Jewish at the moment the field is ready to be searched by the poor, he cannot collect gleanings after his conversion.] .” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it [Even Rebbi Meïr will agree with the Sages against R. Jehudah ben Ḥagra since our question is not one of doubt but of principle.] agrees with everybody: A Jew, who is obligated in principle, is also obligated in doubtful cases; a Gentile, who is not obligated in principle, is not obligated in doubt. Rebbi Joḥanan said: So did Rebbi Meïr argue with Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥagra, do you not agree with me that gleanings in doubt are gleanings [And you obligate the convert because of a legal doubt, viz., whether the obligation of leaving the gleanings is incurred at the moment of cutting, in which case there would be no obligation, or at the moment the field is abandoned to the poor, in which case the convert is obligated.] ? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: So did Rebbi Meïr argue with the Sages, do you not agree with me that gleanings in doubt are gleanings [But the case of R. Jehudah ben Ḥagra is not comparable to that of the Mishnah.] ?
From where that gleanings in doubt are gleanings? Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: “Poor and rich, justify him [There is no such verse in Scripture. The consensus of the commentators is that it should read: (Ps. 82:3) “Do justice for the poor and needy.” One does justice in also giving him the gifts that are in doubt.] ” in his gifts. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Bar Qappara: (Ex. 23:6) “Do not bend the lawsuit of your destitute.” In his lawsuit, you may not bend [The judge may not say: His opponent has deep pockets; let me rule for the poor; then he will need no public assistance.] , but you may bend for him in his gifts [To rule for him also in doubtful cases.] . Rebbi Joḥanan said, he [The poor acquires as his right, not as a possibility as in the previous argument.] acquires in this case, as Rebbi instructed us (Lev. 19:10, 23:22): “abandon,” put something before him of your own [The term “abandon” first refers to the gifts that belong to the poor as of right; the second mention in the same verse refers to the doubtful cases when one has to renounce his rights; a similar argument is found in Sifra Qedošim 2:7. The same applies for the triple expression quoted by R. La. It is clear from here that Practice has to follow R. Meïr; this is also the decision of Maimonides (Mattenot Aniïm 4:9).] . Rebbi La said, it is written (Deut. 24:19–21): “It shall be the sojourner’s, the orphan’s, and the widow’s;” give him both from yours and from his!