Jerusalem Peah

MISHNAH: These are the matters that have no measure1These are obligations spelled out in the Torah, so one has to fulfill them; but the Torah did not specify either minimum or maximum obligation. However, there are rabbinic minima and sometimes maxima established for all obligations.: Peah2In harvesting a field, one is not permitted to harvest the last corner (פאה); that must be abandoned to be harvested by the poor (Lev. 19:9,23:22). There is no minimum mentioned in the Torah; the Talmud will discuss whether one may declare one’s entire field as Peah., first fruits3There is an obligation to bring the first fruits of one’s land to the Temple, Lev. 23:19, 34:26; Neh. 10:36. No amount has been specified. This obligation is the subject of tractate Bikkurim., appearance4There is an obligation to appear in the Temple on the three holidays of pilgrimage (Ex. 23:17, 34:23–24, Deut. 16:16). It is forbidden to appear in the Temple emptyhanded (Ex. 23:15, 34:20, Deut. 16:16), i. e., without bringing a sacrifice. The Torah does not directly spell out the value of the sacrifice, but the verse in Deuteronomy requires it to be “proportional to the blessing that the Eternal has bestowed on you.” The Talmud will discuss which of the two obligations (appearance or sacrifice) is meant here., works of kindness5Charity has two aspects: one is giving money and valuables to the needy; this has no explicit lower and upper limit, but it does have rabbinic limits in both directions. This, in addition to the laws of Peah, is one of the topics of the tractate. The other aspect is giving one’s time to attend funerals, weddings, visiting the sick and mourners, to work for the public good, and similar deeds. That aspect has no limits, upper or lower, expressed anywhere., and Torah study6It is written of the Torah (Jos. 1:8): “You should meditate upon it day and night.” Hence, there is no upper limit. The obligation of Torah study can be fulfilled by the recitation of Shema‘, but that recitation is also an independent obligation. Hence, Torah study per se has no lower limit.. These are the matters whose product a person eats in this world and whose capital remains for him7As deeds which merit reward in the future life. in the future world: Honoring father and mother, works of kindness, making peace between people; the study of Torah is worth all of these. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Benjamin ben Levi7As deeds which merit reward in the future life. said: Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi8He is Rebbi Ammi. were sitting and asking: Why did they not state terumah9The gift to the Cohen from the harvest, cf. Berakhot, Chapter 1, Note 3. There are two kinds of terumah. The first one, terumah gedolah “the great terumah” must be given to the Cohen as absolutely first gift after the completion of the harvest. Then a tithe of ten percent, maäser, must be given to the Levite who in turn has to give ten percent, one percent of the original, to the Cohen. The two terumot must be eaten in ritual purity by the priestly families; in contrast the tithe is a civil obligation and is profane food in the hands of the Levite. An infraction of the rules of purity for terumah is a deadly sin. One speaks here about terumah gedolah for the quantity of which the Torah does not give any rules; hence, one grain may be given for an entire silo full of grain. Today, this grain, being ritually impure, has to be burned. with these? Rebbi Immi said, because of the disagreement10In Mishnah Terumot 3:5 we find a disagreement between Tannaïm. Rebbi Eliezer is of the opinion that one may not give more than 10% of the crop as terumah gedolah. Rebbi Ismael gives 50% as upper limit, and Rebbis Aqiba and Tarphon permit one to give as much as one likes on condition that some profane food be left over. Hence, one cannot say that terumah gedolah has no upper limit from the Torah, at least not according to Rebbis Eliezer and Ismael.. Rebbi Yose said11Rebbi Yose (the fourth generation Amora) explains that even according to Rebbis Aqiba and Tarphon, who are followed in practice, terumah has no place in the Mishnah., one may declare one’s entire field first fruits but one may not declare one’s entire field terumah. They objected: Look, it mentions peah, but nobody may make his entire field peah12Tosephta 1:1., but it was stated! Rebbi Yose said: The cutting of the first ear is compared to smoothing13In harvesting grain, the last operation is smoothing the heap of grain (so that theft could be easily detected. In modern terms, the equivalent would be storing the grain in a silo.) Terumah is not due before the end of the harvesting process since it is an obligation only for food. The implication is that workers may eat from the kernels before the end of the harvesting process (cutting, threshing, winnowing, and storing); after that one may not eat from it before terumot are separated.. Before he cut the first ear, the field was not obligated for peah. After he cut the first ear, the entire field became obligated for peah and if he then wants to declare his entire field as peah he may do so14It is not “the entire field,” only “the entire field that is obligated for peah;” hence, the Tosephta that forbids the entire field will permit the field minus one stalk.. But here, before he smoothed his grain heap, the heap was not obligated for terumah. When he wants to declare his entire heap as terumah, he may not do so since we have stated there (Ḥallah 1:9): “He who says: My whole threshing floor shall be terumah or my entire dough shall be ḥallah15Ḥallah is the obligatory gift to the Cohen from a (large enough) batch of bread dough, discussed in tractate Ḥallah. It has the status of terumah; hence, today is must be burned. did not say anything unless he reserves part of it16Even though the remainder may be a single grain; the difference to peah is in the theoretical basis, not the practical side..” Is the first ear obligated for peah? It is impossible to say that it obligated the entire field for peah and itself should be obligated for peah17As explained in the preceding paragraph.. If he cut the first ear and it was burned, does he have to cut another one a second time18If he wants to give his entire field to the poor as peah, must the ear he cut first be in existence at the moment of dedication?? Let us hear it from the following19A statement similar to this baraita is in Tosephta 1:9; the reference is to Mishnah 2:7: “If he cut half the field and sold the other half, the buyer gives peah for everything. If he cut half the field and dedicated the other half, the one who redeems it gives peah for everything.” In both cases, the field is given or dedicated as is, with all obligations on the harvest, since peah must be given at the last corner to be harvested.: “If he cut half the field and sold the other half, or he sold what he had cut, if he cut half the field and dedicated20To the Temple, the proceeds to be used for the upkeep of the Temple. While the material is in the hands of the Temple authorities, any private use of it is forbidden. what he had cut, he gives from the leftover for everything.” If it is dedicated is it not as if it was burned21Since no benefit whatsoever may be derived from it at this stage.? This says that if he cut the first ear and it was burned, he does not have to cut a second time22Because if he dedicated the first half and cut the second half for himself, he must give peah for the entire field from his part. If we replace the dedicated half by the burned ear, we have exactly the case that we are dealing with.. If he finished the field23He harvested the entire field without leaving peah for the poor. The reference is to Tosephta 1:5: “If he did not give from standing grain, he must give from sheaves. If he did not give from sheaves, he must give from stacks. If he did not give from stacks, he must give from the grain heap. If he did not give from the grain heap before it was smoothed, he must first give terumah and tithes and only then peah.” See also Mishnah 1:6, Halakha 7:2, 4:1; an extended version is in Babli Baba qama94a., you say that peah devolves on the sheaves. Would peah turn back to the first ear24That the first cut also may be peah from its sheaf if the entire field was cut.? Rebbi Yose said, let us learn peah of sheaves from peah of standing grain. Since peah from standing grain does not return to the first ear25As explained in the preceding paragraph, the first cut is not subject to the laws of peah at all since it enables the laws to be applied., peah of sheaves likewise should not return to the first ear. Peah has a minimum measure but no maximum measure. First fruits and appearance have neither minimum nor maximum measures. There are those who state: Peah, first fruits and appearance have no measure, neither minimum nor maximum. What is the difference between them, is it not one in sixty26Mishnah 2 states that the rabbinic minimum for peah is one sixtieth of the field, 1 2/3 percent. In both formulations it is agreed that peah has no minimum from the Torah but it has a minimum by rabbinic usage.? According to him who says that peah has a minimum measure but no maximum measure: What he gave27When he harvested but left less than 1 2/3% of the harvest standing on the field. The standing grain certainly has the status of peah and, no longer being the property of the farmer, is not subject to the requirement of terumah and tithes. [The interpretation of R. Simson of Sens is that, while as Biblical commandment there is no lower limit to what he must give, by rabbinic decree any gift of less than 1⅔% is not considered peah and is subject to the laws of tithes even though it is the property of the poor and not of the farmer.], he gave; if he had second thoughts and added to it, it is subject to tithes until he makes up for it28Any amount he adds which together with the standing peah does not add up to 1 2/3% of the yield of the entire field, is a voluntary gift, rather than peah, and has the status of grain given after threshing and smoothing the heap. The farmer is obliged to separate from it terumah and tithes. Only if he reaches the rabbinic threshhold of 1 2/3% [according to R. Simson of Sens, only if he gives all of 1 2/3% at one time] does the rule of peah apply again and the produce may be taken by the poor without further obligation.. According to him who says peah, first fruits and appearance sacrifices have no measure, neither minimum nor maximum: What he gave already freed from the obligation; if he has second thoughts and adds, that is subject to tithes20To the Temple, the proceeds to be used for the upkeep of the Temple. While the material is in the hands of the Temple authorities, any private use of it is forbidden.. Rebbi Berekhiah asked: Why did we not state the dust for the straying30The straying wife who was seen in a secret rendez-vous with another man. The jealous husband may bring his wife to the Temple where she has to drink water mixed with some dust from the Temple floor as an ordeal (Num. 5). There is no minimum amount of that dust prescribed.? Why did we not state the ashes of the heifer31The ashes of the red heifer must be strewn on the water with which people defiled by contact with a dead body could be purified for entrance to the Temple (Num. 19). Since these ashes are extremely valuable, using more than a minimum amount is a misdeed.? Why did we not state the spittle of the sister-in-law32The childless widow who is not married by her brother-in-law becomes free to marry outside the family only by removing a shoe from the foot of the unwilling brother-in-law and spitting out before him (Deut. 25:9). The spittle falling to the earth must be seen by the court but no minimum is established.? Why did we not state the blood of the bird for the “leper”33The bird needed for the ritual cleansing of the “leper” (Lev. 14:1–7). The symptoms of the “leper” have no relation to what today is called leprosy.? Our34In old French sources, R. Simson of Sens and Tosaphot Ḥagigah 7a, this is a statement of the Amora R. Yose mentioned in the previous paragraphs, contemporary of R. Berekhiah. Mishnah deals only with things to which he may add and adding is a worthy deed. As for those, even though he may add to them, doing so is no worthy deed. “Appearance”35Quote from the Mishnah that introduces a new subject.. Our Mishnah36R. Simson of Sens already noted that this is a scribal error and that the subsequent discussion shows that it is the value of the obligatory sacrifice which has a fixed minimum. Hence, one should read: “Our Mishnah is about appearance with a sacrifice but appearance in person has no measure.” is about appearance with a sacrifice, but appearance in person has a measure. This agrees with what R. Joḥanan said: “One silver obolus and two silver coins are words of the Torah”37Mishnah Ḥagigah 1:2 fixes the minimum amount to be spent on the two obligatory sacrifices as, respectively, one silver obolus and two silver coins. [The two sacrifices are the holocaust for the altar and a family sacrifice of which only a small part was burned on the altar. The houses of Shammai and Hillel disagree on the distribution of these sums but not on the principle that the first has to be a silver obolus and the second two silver coins.] According to most commentators, the “silver coins” mentioned also are oboli [6 oboli equal one drachma (denar) and four drachmas equal one tetradrachma (סלע)]. In the Roman empire only the emperor could mint silver coins. The Eastern mint was at Tyre; hence, silver coins are also called Tyrian money. Before the inflation of the military anarchy, local coinage was of copper and worth one eighth of the corresponding silver coinage.The following discussion will determine whether these minimal amounts have rabbinic or biblical status.. Rebbi Yasa stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: The appearance is with anything38One may appear in the Temple with one sacrifice for the appearance and one for the family holiday; no minimal expenditure is required. The monetary minimum is purely a rabbinic one.; the sages only said: “One silver obolus, two silver coins.” He said to him: Is there anything like39Yerushalmi כן is contracted from כְּעֵין “in the kind of.” that? Rebbi Jonah said, are not all measures determined by the sages40There are many biblical precepts that are applied only to some minimal amount and volume. None of these are spelled out in the Torah; they are all rabbinic formulations.? They said: “The volume of an olive from a corpse41All rules of defilement by parts of a corpse apply only if a minimum size of the volume of one olive is present. Hence, somebody in a house in which less than that volume of a corpse is present may go to the Temple without the purification procedure of the ashes of the red heifer even though going there in impurity is a strict biblical prohibition., the volume of an olive from a cadaver42To bring a sin offering for having eaten from a cadaver needs this minimum amount; the same minimum applies to the impurity caused by touching or carrying pieces of the cadaver of an otherwise kosher animal., the volume of a lentil from a dead reptile43The minimum volume from a carcass that causes the severe impurity incurred by touching dead reptiles..” The question here is only what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: (Ex. 23:15, 34:20) “They should not be seen before Me empty-handed,” with anything44No minimal amount required.; the sages only said: “A silver obolus, two silver coins.” The difficulty is that this45Two verses (and an additional one in Deut.) insist that one may not appear empty-handed; this must mean that a negligible amount is counted as nothing and, therefore, forbidden by the Torah. is support for the opinion that [the rule] is based on words of the Torah. He said that only the sages instituted46The text in parentheses is the one of the Venice print here; the text in brackets is from the word-by-word parallel in Ḥagigah 1:2 (fol. 76b). The translation is that of the Ḥagigah text which alone makes sense. It may be assumed that the copyist of the manuscript used for printing had before him a manuscript in which the entire sentence was only indicated by “etc.” and the copyist chose the wrong statement to complete.: “One silver obolus, two silver coins.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Rebbi Johanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Joḥanan said that all measures47Including those stated by R. Jonah and all similar ones. are practice taught by Moses at Sinai; he says that “one obolus and two silver coins are the word of the Torah.” Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion since Rebbi Hoshaia said: He who eats forbidden food in the present time has to note down the quantities48Since one is required to bring a sin-offering only if he ate more than the volume of an olive, he is forbidden to bring one if he ate less than that volume. Hence, the determination of that volume is essential. The statement of R. Hoshaia here is attributed to R. Eleazar, student and colleague of R. Johanan, in Babli Yoma 80a. There, the interpretation is that not the rule of “volume of an olive” might change but rather its interpretation. A. Y. Greenfield, in his article “The Connection Between the Measures of an Olive and an Egg,” תחומין 14 (5754) 396–411 shows that modern interpretations of the “volume of an olive” vary on a scale of 1 to 30. Hence, once the Temple is rebuilt, an authoritative interpretation is needed even according to R. Joḥanan.; maybe a new court will arise and change the measures for him; then he will know what measure he ate. They said, Rebbi Joḥanan changed his mind about this. Rebbis Jonah and Yose said, he did not change his mind; additionally, Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. Ḥizqiah said, a man may split his obligation for two animals49He has to spend an obolus and two silver coins on animals for his pilgrimage but, since this is a rabbinic ordinance, it does not matter if the amount is split to pay for several animals.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, nobody may split his obligation for two animals, but for each one he has to have two silver coins in his hand50Since it is the practice from the days of Moses to spend two silver coins for one sacrifice of the larger kind, this has the status of a biblical command and cannot be abrogated. Similarly, a full obolus must be spend on one animal of the smaller kind.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: A person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money51The parallel is in Babli Ḥagigah8a (and Yerushalmi Ḥagigah 1:2). In the Babli, it is explained that the obligation to spend an obolus and two silver coins must be satisfied by unencumbered money. Now four years out of seven there is a second tithe on agricultural produce of the Land of Israel. That second tithe is the property of the farmer but it must be consumed in Jerusalem; it also may be redeemed by money and the money taken to Jerusalem and there spent on food to be consumed in Jerusalem. In addition, the tenth newborn calf or lamb in a herd must be taken to Jerusalem and offered as a sacrifice (only some blood is sprinkled on the altar, the rest is to be eaten by the family of the rancher.) So one may assume that many people on their pilgrimage for the holiday have money and animals of the tithe that they want to eat in Jerusalem to absolve themselves at the same time of the obligations of pilgrimage and (second) tithe. According to Ḥizqiah, on the first day of the holiday one may bring small and cheap animals as obligatory sacrifices and then use the money or the animal of tithes for additional ḥagigah offerings but one may not add the money of second tithes to profane money to buy one large animal for any of the two obligations.In the text, the corresponding statement by R. Joḥanan is missing, viz., that one may add money (if only the basic amount is profane) but not animals (since no animal worth less than two pieces of silver is acceptable as ḥagigah). The statement appears in Ḥagigah.. What may be done52A rhetorical introduction to the main question, corresponding to: “They asked themselves” in the Babli.? There were before him ten animals, he sacrificed five of them on the first holiday. May the remainder push aside the last holiday53If these animals retain the status of ḥagigah, they may be sacrificed on the last day of Pesaḥ or Sukkot which are also full holidays. If, however, they have only the status of sacrifices in fulfillment of a vow (since any dedication as sacrifice is a vow to bring the animal to the Temple), then they may be slaughtered only during the intermediate days of the holiday or after its conclusion, and they do not push aside holiday prohibitions.? Rebbi Crispus said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish have differing opinions. One said, they push; the other one said, they do not push. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeïra said, we may explain the words of the rabbis through the words of Rebbi Joḥanan, who54Aramaic דּוּ is a contraction of דְּהוּא. said: A person may adjoin coins to coins but not animals to an animal. He must say, they push55Since each animal was bought with money dedicated for ḥagigah, they all have the status of ḥagigah.. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money. He must say, they do not push56Since one may not adjoin money, only the first animal was ḥagigah, the rest are not and cannot be used for holiday sacrifices.. Simeon bar Abba came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He adds57Even during the intermediate days of the holiday, when one’s biblical obligation of appearing in the Temple with a sacrifice has already been satisfied, he can add money to the original money and still the animals bought will fall under the category of ḥagigah. But when he declares that it is enough, the next money spent will no longer buy ḥagigah sacrifices. This extension of R. Joḥanan’s statement is not a logical consequence of his earlier one. and pushes the holiday further until he says: I do not intend to add further. “Works of kindness.58Quote from the Mishnah, introduction of the next subject.” That means with his person5Charity has two aspects: one is giving money and valuables to the needy; this has no explicit lower and upper limit, but it does have rabbinic limits in both directions. This, in addition to the laws of Peah, is one of the topics of the tractate. The other aspect is giving one’s time to attend funerals, weddings, visiting the sick and mourners, to work for the public good, and similar deeds. That aspect has no limits, upper or lower, expressed anywhere.. But with his money it has a measure. This parallels what Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥanina59An Israeli Amora of the first generation. All his known statements were transmitted by R. Simeon bar Laqish. [In the Babli, the Amora is Rebbi Illaï, i. e., R. La who was mentioned earlier in this Halakha, a student of R. Simeon ben Laqish.]: They voted at Usha60Usha in lower Galilee was the place of residence of R. Jehudah bar Illaï who, through his good relations with the Roman authorities, obtained permission for the reconstitution of the Synhedrion. This decree must have been one of the first acts of the new Synhedrion; it is explained later that the formal decree was only a formalization or reaffirmation of earlier practice. that a person may give a fifth of his property for good deeds. How far down? Rebbi Gamliel bar Ininia61A Galilean Amora of the third generation, student of R. Mana I. and Rebbi Abba bar Cahana; one said corresponding to terumah and the terumah of the tithe62Terumah gedolah has to be given by estimate, not by measure (Terumot 1:7). A generous farmer will give one part in forty (2.5%), the average person one in fifty (2%), the stingy person one in sixty (1 2/3%) (Terumot 4:3). The terumah of the tithe has to be given exactly as 1%. Hence, the minimal amount of charity one is obliged to give from his gross income varies between 2.67% and 3.5%, with 3% recommended., the other said (Prov. 3:9): “Honor the Eternal with your property and with the first of all your yield;” corresponding to the first of all your yield63Terumah gedolah is called “first of your grain and oil” in Deut. 18:4; in this opinion one is only required to spend for charity the 2% of his gross earnings equivalent to terumah gedolah.. Rebbi Gamliel bar Ininia asked before Rebbi Mana: Does it mean one fifth every year? In five years he will have lost everything64But, as Rashi explains in Babli Ketubot 50a, the entire rule was only enacted to make sure that nobody would bring on himself the need to accept welfare.! He said to him: The first time from the capital, from there on from net gain. Rav Huna65In the parallel in the Babli (Bava qama 9a), the statements of Rav Huna and Rav Ḥabiba are both reported in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, student of Rav Huna. said, for religious purposes up to a third. What does he mean, for all religious purposes or just for one purpose? They thought that this means, for all religious purposes up to one third66For religious articles one may spend up to one third of one’s net worth. In that interpretation, Rav Huna would exempt religious articles from the decree of Usha.. Rebbi Abun said, even for one purpose only. Rav Ḥabiba67He must have been a Babylonian Amora of the third generation, a student of Rav Huna. The Rav Ḥabiba mentioned in the Babli belongs to the sixth generation, after the compilation of the Jerusalem Talmud and, therefore, he cannot be identical with the Rav Ḥabiba mentioned here. in the name of the rabbis from there: What means “up to a third?” For its cost! How is that done? A man buys a religious article and sees another one which is more beautiful, until when does one bother him? Up to one third68Of the original cost. If one has a religious object, such as an etrog or tefillin, he should not spend for another one more than 133% of the cost of the object he already has. In this interpretation, the statement of Rav Huna has no relation to the decree of Usha.. Rebbi Ismael stated69This is a side remark: why should one spend much money on religious articles? It is a short quote of a long statement in Mekhilta deR. Ismael, Parshat Hashirah 3 (6 authors mentioned), Mekhilta deR. Simeon bar Ioḥai pp. 78–79, shortened in Massekhet Sopherim 3:12, Massekhet Sepher Torah3:10, in Babli sources Sabbath 133b, Nazir 2b, and, very much shortened, Sukkah 11b. In the latter sources, the name of R. Ismael is never mentioned.: (Ex. 15:2) “This is my God and I will glorify Him!” Is it possible for a human to glorify his God? Rather I shall appear beautiful before Him with religious articles. I shall make before Him a beautiful lulab, a beautiful sukkah, a beautiful shofar, beautiful ẓiẓit, beautiful tefillin. Abba Shaul70A Tanna of the generation of students of R. Aqiba who collected the traditions of prior generations; his collection is one of the sources of the Mishnah. said, I want to be like Him! Just as He is merciful and gracious, so you also should be merciful and gracious! It happened that Rebbi Yeshebab71A Tanna of the third generation, student of R. Joshua and colleague of R. Aqiba. He was one of the Ten Martyrs and was executed after the war of Bar Kokhba, at age 90, probably because he continued to teach in Judea. went and let his entire property be distributed to the poor. Rabban Gamliel72In the parallel Babli, Ketubot 50a, it is R. Aqiba who objects and prevents him from executing his wishes. sent to him: Did they not say one fifth of one’s property for good deeds? And was not Rabban Gamliel before Usha73Rabban Gamliel died before the war of Bar Kokhba but the assembly at Usha was long after that war. In addition, the language of Rabban Gamliel implies that “they”, not “we”, instituted the limitation; hence, it was an old rule (but, as the text here shows, not one that was generally observed.)? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Levi: That was the current practice, they forgot it74The first two generations after the destruction of the Temple, at the least. The same statement by R. Yose ben R. Abun and R. Levi is quoted in Ketubot 8:11 (fol. 32c) on another practice., but the later ones got up and agreed to the opinion of the earlier ones, to teach you that everything the Court75The Synhedrion or any court whose authority is accepted by all of Israel. insists on will come to be in the end, just as Moses was told on Sinai; as Rebbi Mana said (Deut. 32:47): “For it is not an empty word, from you,” if it is empty it is from you because you do not exert yourself about it. “Because it is your life,” when is it your life? At the time that you exert yourself! Rebbi Tanḥuma76These homilies are inserted as examples of the previous statement that deep involvement with the words of the Torah leads to such a way of life that even in situations not covered by what one has learned, he will act as it was indicated to Moses on Mount Sinai. in the name of Rav Huna: It does not say (Ex. 38:22) “Bezalel ben Uri ben Ḥur of the tribe of Judah made everything Moses had commanded him,” but “that the Eternal had commanded Moses.” Even matters he did not hear from Moses he did by himself in the way it was said to Moses on Sinai. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Benaiah77A scholar of the generation of transition between Tannaïm and Amoraïm who, in the Babylonian form ר׳ בנאה, is quoted in halakhic baraitot. His homilies are transmitted mostly by R. Joḥanan. (Jos. 11:15): “As the Eternal had commanded His servant Moses, so Moses commanded Joshua, and so Joshua executed it.” It does not say “he did not omit anything Moses had commanded him,” but “everything the Eternal commanded Moses.” Even matters he did not hear from his teacher, he did by himself in the way it was said to Moses on Sinai. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Benaiah, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi78In Yalqut Shim‘oni Prophets#588, the reading is “R. Jehudah” instead of Rebbi (Jehudah the Prince.): (Mal. 2:6) “True teaching was in his mouth79While the person described is called “Levi” by the prophet, the traditional interpretation is that the reference is to Aaron who learned Torah from Moses.,” these80It seems that אפילוּ here and in the next clause is a scribal error by dittography from the earlier homilies and that one should read אלוּ. This is the reading of Yalqut Shim‘oni Prophets#588. In the next clause this reading is also supported by the Rome manuscript of the Yerushalmi. are the things he heard from his teacher, “injustice was not found on his lips,” even in matters he did not hear from his teacher.” And the rabbis say (Prov. 3:26): “For the Eternal will stand by your confidence and prevent your foot from being caught.” Even in matters in which you are stupid, He will prevent your foot from being caught. Rebbi Dosa said, in religious decisions81The verse is one of a group praising the student of Torah. The explanation is based on identifying כסל “confidence” with כסל “stupidity”. The different opinions define the object in which one’s foot might otherwise be caught. R. Dosa’s opinion continues the statements of the earlier homilies that the true student of Torah will render the correct decision if confronted with a religious question for which he knows no precedent.. The rabbis say, in sin. Rebbi Levi said, from damaging spirits. Rebbi Abba said, if you gave charity from your wallet82Replacing כסל “confidence, hope” by כיס “wallet.” This opinion is mentioned last because it leads back to the main theme, the importance of charity and charitable works., the Holy One, praise to Him, will guard you from taxes83An Aramaic (Syriac) word, פסא, “piece, portion”, here used in the sense of the amount apportioned by the local council among the different householders to pay the taxes imposed en bloc on the community by the government., penalties84Greek ζημία., head taxes, and contributions85Latin annona, obligations to deliver provisions, usually for the army.. King Monobaz86A king of Adiabene, in modern Kurdistan, who converted to Judaism together with his mother Helena during the last century of existence of the Second Temple. In the parallel sources, Tosephta Peah 4:18, Babli Baba batra 11a, it is spelled out that he spent his treasures on emergency relief during a famine. Hence, the story here does not contradict the rule, declared as much older than Usha, that one should not give away more than one fifth of one’s property. It is rather an endorsement of deficit spending by the government during times of emergency. distributed all his property to the poor. His relatives sent to him: Your forefathers added to what they had and to what their forefathers had, and you wasted yours and that of your forefathers. He said to them, that is correct! My forefathers locked it up in the earth, I locked it up in Heaven, as it is said (Ps. 85:12): “Truth will sprout from the earth, but charity87In the entire paragraph, צדק “justice” is identified with צדקה “charity”, and צדיק “the just” is taken to mean “giver of charity.” will gaze from Heaven.” My fathers locked up treasures that bring no interest, but I locked up treasures that bring interest as it is said (Is. 3:10): “Say to the giver of charity that he did a good deed, that they will eat the fruits of their intentions.” My forefathers collected in a place over which a (human) hand rules, but I collected in a place over which no hand rules, as it is said (Ps. 97:2): “Charity and truth are the foundations of His throne.” My forefathers collected money but I collected souls, as it is said (Prov. 11:30): “He who acquires souls is wise88The entire verse reads: “The fruit of the giver of charity is a tree of life and he who buys souls is wise.”.” My forefathers collected for others but I collected for myself, as it is said (Deut. 24:13): “Charity will be your property89The plain sense of the clause is: It will be considered a good deed by you (before the Eternal, your God.).” My forefathers collected in this world but I collected for the future world, as it is said (Prov. 10:2): “But charity will save from death.” And does he not die90The last three sentences are not in the (Babylonian) parallels, where the argument is based on Is. 58:8 (speaking about him who breaks his bread with the poor): “Your charity will walk before you, the glory of the Eternal will gather you in.” The Aramaic sentence ולא מית should not be corrected into Hebrew in order to remain in style with the rest of the paragraph.? But that he should not die an eternal death in the future world. Charity and works of kindness91This paragraph also appears in Babli Sukkah 39b, Tosephta Peah 4:19. In both sources the formulation is such that the rhetorical question of the next paragraph is answered before it may be asked. are as important as all commandments of the Torah. Charity applies to the living, works of kindness apply to the living and the dead. Charity applies to the poor, works of kindness apply to poor and rich. Charity is through a person's money, works of kindness through his money and his person. Rebbi Johanan bar Maria92A Galilean Amora of the fourth generation. in the name of Rebbi Johanan: We do not know what is more beloved, charity or works of kindness. Since it says (Ps. 103:17): "The kindness of the Eternal is from eternity to eternity on those who fear Him, and His charity towards men," that means that works of kindness are more beloved than charity. And Torah study93Quote from the Mishnah.. They asked Rebbi Joshua94This also appears in Yerushalmi Soṭa 9:9, the first sentence also in Tosephta Avodah zarah 1:20. In Babli Menaḥot 59b, not only are different persons involved but there the question is about Greek wisdom, not the Greek language.: May a person teach Greek to his son? He said to them, he may teach him at an hour that is neither day nor night as it is written (Jos. 1:8): “You shall meditate about it day and night.” If it is so, a man would be forbidden to teach a profession to his son since it is written: “You shall meditate about it day and night.” But Rebbi Ismael stated (Deut. 30:19): “Choose life!” That refers to a profession95Since only a profession will sustain a person; otherwise he will be forced to become a robber and commit capital crimes.. Rebbi Abba, son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of informants96Greek-speaking Jews become intimate with Greek-speaking officials and will be hired as government officials. In the Babli, the verse in Joshua is explained not as a commandment but as a blessing, that Joshua will be able to meditate about Torah day and night.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A person may teach Greek to his daughter since it is an ornament for her. Simeon bar Abba heard that and said: Because he wants to teach his daughters, he attaches it to Rebbi Joḥanan. It should come over me97A curse: if I now say that R. Joḥanan never said this but I really heard it from him and forgot. In the parallel Sabbat 6:1 (fol. 7c), Rebbi Abbahu retorts that a curse should come over him if he said that and did not hear it from Rebbi Joḥanan. [It seems that R. Joḥanan made that statement only in Caesarea, never in Tiberias.] if I ever heard it from Rebbi Joḥanan. “Honoring father and brother.98Quote from the Mishnah to start a new section.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They asked Rebbi Eliezer, how far does honoring father and mother go? He said to them, you are asking me? Go and ask Dama ben Netinah. Dama ben Netinah was the head of the city council99A mixed expression, ראש πατὴρ βουλής, “head, father of the Senate.” Cf. the Hebrew אב בית דין “father of the court,” used for the president of Jewish courts of law, and the Latin pater senatus. [The two stories here also appear in Yerushalmi Qiddushin 1:7 in slightly improved spelling (here the title is an unintelligible פטרכולי) and, in a shortened and less natural version, in Babli Qiddushin 31a/b.]. Once his mother was slapping him in front of the entire council and a slipper100The Arukh explains the word as Italian pappucce “houseshoes”. Rashi explains in Yebamot 102b: “Thin sandals one binds under thick shoes to protect them from water; they are called underschuoch in (Middle High) German.” Also cf. Latin chorda, Greek χορδή “string, rope” (E. G.), see below, Note 105. [In a papyrus from Oxyrhynchus from Mishnaic times, κορδίκιον is mentioned as “an article of furniture”.] fell from her hand, and he handed it back to her so that she should feel no inconvenience. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said: He was a Gentile from Ascalon and the head of the city council. He never sat on the stone on which his father used to sit and when his father died, he worshipped the stone. Once the jaspis of Benjamin was lost101From the breast-plate of the High priest.. They102The Temple authorities. inquired, who would have one of similar quality? They were informed that Dama ben Netinah did. They went to him and and agreed on 100 denars103In early Roman imperial money, when the coins were still honest, this amounted to 22 oz. of gold, an enormous sum since the buying power of gold was much larger than it is today. The amount mentioned in the Babli by authors living during the early military anarchy is 60’000 or 80’000 denar. According to the monetary reform of Diocletian, one Roman pound (12 ounces), 500 fine, would be 48’000 denar. At the end of the inflationary period, 100 early denar would therefore be the equivalent of 880’000 denar. Hence, the sums mentioned in the Babli are rather on the low side.. He went to the upper floor to bring it and found his father sleeping. Some say that the key to the chest was in his father’s fingers; some say his father’s foot was resting on the chest. He descended to them and told them: I could not bring it to you. They thought, maybe he wants wore money, and raised the price to two hundred, then to a thousand. When his father woke up from his sleep, he went up and brought it to them. They wanted to give him according to the amount mentioned last, but he refused. He said: Do I sell my father’s honor for money? I will not have any advantage from honoring my father. What reward did the Holy One, praise to Him, give him? Rebbi Yose bar Abun said: The following night, his cow gave birth to a red heifer and Israel gave him its weight in gold and took it. Rebbi Sabbatai said (Job 37:23): “Justice and much charity He will not suppress.” The Holy One, praise to Him, will not wait to give the reward for good deeds to the Gentiles104Since they do not believe in the Future World and, therefore, do not have part in it and must be rewarded in this word.. Rebbi Tarphon’s mother went to promenade in her backyard on the Sabbath105“And her shoe-string (or, her slippers) broke.” This is missing here but appears in the parallel Qiddushin1:7 (fol. 61b): נפסק קורדייקין שלה. [A different story is in Babli Qiddushin31b.] Since we cannot assume that an authority of the stature of R. Tarphon had no eruv made if one was needed for the backyard, one might ask why he could not bring a new pair of slippers to his mother. But if the word means “shoe-string”, the reason would be clear since repairing the slippers on the Sabbath by putting in a new string would be a desecration of the Sabbath.. Rebbi Tarphon went and put his two hands under her feet and she walked on them until she got to her couch. Once he fell ill and the sages came to visit him. She told them: Pray for my son Tarphon because he honors me too much. They asked her106Although she spoke to them in Hebrew, they answered in Aramaic; it seems that they did not expect a woman to be educated enough to converse in Hebrew. Her explanation must have been in Hebrew since their final answer was again in Hebrew., what did he do for you? She told them what had happened. They said to her, even if he did this a million times, he did not yet reach even half of the honor that the Torah requires. Rebbi Ismael’s mother came and complained to our teachers about him. She said to them: Scold my son Ismael because he does not honor me! At that, the faces of our teachers became saffron colored107כַּרְכּוֹם “saffron,” also used as yellow dye.. They said, is it possible that Rebbi Ismael does not honor his parents? They said to her, what did he do to you? She said, when he108כְּדוּ = כְּשֶׁהוּא. comes from the house of assembly, I want to wash his feet and drink from it109The water used for washing. It is clear that R. Ismael’s mother was uneducated; she spoke Aramaic and did not know the rules of good taste. (“Water” is always a plural in Hebrew and Aramaic.), and he refuses. They said to him, since it is her wish it is her honor. Rebbi Mana said: The millers are correct when they say that each and every person has in his chest that which is appropriate for him111In moral matters, there are no universally valid standards, only individual circumstances.. Rebbi Tarphon’s mother said so and they answered her appropriately, Rebbi Ismael’s mother said so and they answered her appropriately. Rebbi Zeïra was sorry and said, if only I had father or mother that I could honor them and inherit paradise112In the second version of the Ten Commandments (Deut. 5:16), honoring father and mother is explicitly rewarded with the promise that “one will be well off” in the future world. Rebbi Zeïra’s case is identical with R. Abun’s.. When he heard these two instructions, he said: Praise to the All-Merciful that I have neither father nor mother. I could not have done as Rebbi Tarphon did and I could not accept what Rebbi Ismael accepted. Rebbi Abun said, I am free from honoring father and mother. They said, his father died when his mother was pregnant and she died in giving birth. Some person might serve his father fattened meat and inherit hell. Some person might bind his father to the grindstone and inherit paradise. How does one serve his father fattened meat and inherit hell? A person used to serve his father fattened chickens. One day, his father said to him: My son, from where do you get the money for these? He said to him: Old man, old man, eat and shut up just as dogs eat and are silent. It turns out that he serves his father fattened meat and inherits hell. How does one bind his father to the grindstone and inherits paradise? A person was a miller at a grindstone; there came a requisition for millers. He said: Father, go and grind in my stead. If it should come to pass that someone is degraded, it is better that it should happen to me rather than to you. If it should come to pass that someone is beaten, it is better that it should happen to me rather than to you. It turns out that he binds his father to the grindstone and inherits paradise. It114The exact parallel is in Sifra Qedoshim 2–7; an almost identical quote is in Babli Qidddushin 30b. is said (Lev. 19:3): “Everybody must fear his mother and his father,” and it is said (Deut. 6:13): “You must fear the Eternal, your God, and serve Him.” This brackets the fear of father and mother with the fear of Heaven. It is said (Ex. 20:12): “Honor your father and your mother,” and it is said (Prov. 3:9): “Honor the Eternal with your property.” This brackets the honor of father and mother with the honor of the Omnipresent. Is is said (Ex. 21:17): “He who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death,” and it is said (Lev. 24:19): “Everybody who curses his God must bear his sin.” This brackets cursing father and mother with cursing the Omnipresent. It is impossible to speak about hitting relative to the Deity115It is written (Ex. 21:15): “He who hits his father or mother must be put to death.” This law cannot have a parallel in relation to the Deity.. All this is logical since all three of them are partners in his creation116Since father and mother contribute the animal part of his being and God gives soul, spirit, and life (Babli Niddah 31a).. What is fear117Sifra Qedoshim 10, Babli Qiddushin 61b. What is classified here as “honor” is described in Tosephta Qiddushin 1:11 as “obligation of the son towards his parents.”? He may not sit in his place and may not speak in his stead118If the father is present. nor contradict his words. What is honor? He feeds and gives him to drink, clothes him and puts on his shoes, leads him out and in119If the parent can no longer do these things.. From whose money? Huna bar Ḥiyya120A Babylonian Amora of the second/third generation, student of Rav Huna and Rav Jehudah, and son-in-law of Rav Jeremiah bar Abba. In the Babli, his statement is attributed to Rav Nathan bar Oshaia, a minor authority contemporary with Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya, and the statement that “some want to say” is attributed to Rav Jehudah. Even though Rav Jehudah is the much more important authority, his opinion is rejected in the Babli, in contrast to the Yerushalmi two paragraphs down. said, from the old man’s. Some want to say, from his own. Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: From where do we know that even if his father tells him to throw the wallet into the sea that he should obey him121In the Babli, this is one of the examples of Rebbi Eliezer about the seriousness of the obligation of honoring father and mother. The question is, why should the son be obliged to throw his own wallet (full of money) into the sea when he has to feed and clothe his parents from his own money? Hence, R. Abbahu must agree that the old parents must be cared for from their own money.? That is122The proof from the statement of R. Abbahu is not conclusive. There are two conditions to be fulfilled in order that the son should follow his father’s command: First, that the implications for the wealth of either parent or child are negligible and, second, that the act will have a positive influence on the mental health of the disturbed parent [otherwise, as the Babli points out explicitly, the son would infringe on the Biblical prohibition of wanton destruction and, as the verse Lev. 19:3 makes clear, one is not permitted to follow one’s parents orders to commit a sin.], if he has another one and if it helps to quiet his father’s spirit. Both men and women123Even though the verse Lev. 19:3 is formulated: “A man must fear his mother and his father,” a woman is also obligated. It is then explained why the obligation of the man only is unconditional and spelled out.. Only the man has the power in his hand, but the woman does not have the power in her own hand because others have disposition over her124She can only care for her parents with the consent of her husband who has the administration of her property.. If she is widowed or divorced, the power is in her own hand. The words of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba disagree125The text of the first sentence is that of the parallel Qiddušin 1:7, fol. 61b. R. Ḥiyya bar Abba disagrees with the words of Huna bar Ḥiyya that all the children have to give to their parents is their time and attention but not their money., for Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rebbi Yudan, son of Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai’s daughter126He is not mentioned anywhere else in the Talmud., stated that Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai stated: Honoring father and mother is great because the Holy One, praise to Him, preferred it over His own honor. It is said (Ex. 20:12): “Honor your father and your mother,” and it is said (Prov. 3:9): “Honor the Eternal with your property.” When do you start to honor Him? When He was gracious to you! One gives gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah, one gives terumah, the First and Second Tithes127The Second Tithe is not for the poor but for one’s own family, to be eaten in Jerusalem. It is supposed that at any family festival one also lets the poor eat from the festive meal. The Second Tithe is due in years 1,2,4,5 of the shemiṭṭah cycle, the tithe for the poor in years 3,6. and the tithe for the poor, ḥallah, one makes a sukkah,lulav, and shofar,tefillin and ẓiẓit, one feeds the poor and hungry and gives to drink to the thirsty. If you have the wherewhithal, you are obliged for all of these; if you have nothing, you are not obliged even for one of them. But when it comes to honoring father and mother, whether you own property or you do not own property, you must honor father and mother, even if you are a beggar at people’s doors128Who takes charity instead of giving it. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Cahana: It is written (Prov.5:6): “She129The strange woman, symbolizing non-Jewish attitudes. The rewards of good deeds have been removed to the World to Come. does not smooth the way of life, her tracks deviate and you will not notice it.” The Holy One, praise to Him, moved the rewards of those who fulfill the commandments (to the future world) so that they should act in faith. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Isaac: It is written (Prov. 4:23): “Observe carefully all which must be kept, for from it comes life,” observe carefully all you were told in the Torah, for you do not know from which of them will life come to you. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, the verse equals the easiest commandment with the most difficult one. The easiest commandment is sending away the mother130If one happens to find a bird’s nest, one may take the eggs or the chicks but not the mother (Deut. 22:6–7).. The most difficult one is honoring father and mother. For both of them it is written: “Your days will be lengthened.” Rebbi Abun said, if for something that is repayment of debt131Honoring father and mother for raising the child. it is written (Deut. 5:16): “That you shall be well and that your days shall be lengthened,” so much more something that involves monetary loss and personal danger132Sending away the mother is a potential loss; climbing a ladder to get the eggs or the chicks is a potential danger. [Rebbi Abun was in personal danger for refusing to worship the Roman emperor as a god; Yerushalmi Berakhot 5:1).]. Rebbi Levi said, this one is greater; repaying a debt is greater than fulfilling an obligation that does not involve repaying a debt. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: Just as their rewards are the same, so their punishments are identical. (Prov.30:17) “The eye that scoffs at the father and despises to obey the mother,” the eye that scoffs about honoring father and mother and despises the commandment not to take the mother with the chicks133In the verse it is written ליקהת “referring to obeying;” in the Talmud text, this is shortened to לקהת and, apparently under the influence of the dialect of lower Galilee, which makes no difference between ה and ת, reads לקחת “to take.” It must be noted that the writing of the letter hē as ה is a new development; in old texts its left leg touches the top but is displaced towards the right; it looks very much like ח., “the river ravens should pick it out,” the cruel raven134Which is reputed not to feed its young (Ps. 147:9, cf. Babli Ketubot 49b). should come, pick it out, and not have any enjoyment from it, “the sons of the eagle should eat it,” the merciful eagle should come and enjoy it. Rebbi Jonathan and Rebbi Yannai were sitting together135In Babli Ketubot 49b/50a, a similar story is told about Rebbi Jonathan and Rebbi Ḥanina, but there one deals with a special situation that does not imply anything for our case here.. There came a man and kissed Rebbi Jonathan’s foot. Rebbi Yannai said to him: What kindness did he pay you back for from former days? He said to him: He once came and complained to me about his son that he should support him and I told him, go, assemble a congregation and humiliate him136Apply moral force to get him to support his penniless father. According to a Gaonic responsum edited by S. Asaf, the meaning of the sentence is: Prevent the congregation from praying until they deal with his complaint (Addenda and Corrigenda by Guggenheimer).. He said to him, why did you not force him137By a decree of the Rabbinical court, following R. Simeon bar Ioḥai.? He said to him, does one force him? He said to him, you still have questions about that? Rebbi Jonathan changed his opinion and fixed it as a tradition in his own name. The result is: Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, one forces the son to feed his father. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, if only all traditions were so clear to me as this one: One forces the son to feed his father. “Works of kindness138Quote from the Mishnah, to introduce the next theme..” As it is written (Prov. 21:21): “He who pursues charitable donations and works of kindness will find life, justification, and honor.” Honor in this world and life in the world to come. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac139The story is told at length in Bereshit rabba 59, and in a shortened version, which shows R. Zeïra in a better light, in Babli Ketubot 17a. The essence of the story is that personal effort, in particular for weddings and burials, will not go unrewarded. used to take branches and danced while singing140From a root that appears inArabic as קלס “to dance while singing, from the standards of dignity upheld singing harmoniously.” He deviated by rabbis. before brides. Rebbi Zeïra saw him and hid himself before him; he said, look at that old man, how does he make us ashamed! But when he died there were three hours of thunder and lightning in the world. An echo came from Heaven and said: Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, the worker of charity, died, come out to do charity for him! Fire came down from Heaven that was formed like a fiery branch and separated between the bier and the people; the creatures were saying: Look, his branch stood up for the old man! “Making peace between people.138Quote from the Mishnah, to introduce the next theme.” It is written (Ps. 34:15): “Move away from evil and do good, look for peace and pursue it.” Look for peace at your place, pursue it at another place. Rebbi Tavyome said: It says pursuing, pursuing141Both the verse from Psalms here and the verse from Proverbs in the preceding paragraph use the root רדף “to pursue.” Hence, one may assume that the meaning is the same in both cases.. Just as it was said there, honor in this world and life in the world to come. “And Torah study.138Quote from the Mishnah, to introduce the next theme.” Rebbi Berekhiah and Rebbi Ḥiyya from Kefar Teḥumin142An Amora of the third generation, possibly from Capernaum. The statement here is the only one preserved from him (unless he is identical with R. Ḥama from Kefar Teḥumin, mentioned sometimes in Midrashim.). One said that the entire world is not worth even one saying of the Torah. The other said that even all commandments of the Torah are not worth even one saying of the Torah143He asserts that study is more important than doing, an attitude that is challenged below. [The contrary position is quoted without opposition in the Babli.]. Rebbi Tanḥuma and Rebbi Yose ben Zimra, one said like the first and one said like the second. Rebbi Abba, father of Rebbi Abba bar Mari144At first glance, it seems impossible that Rebbi Abba should be the father of Rebbi Abba bar Mari. Now it is possible that one should read: “Rebbi Abba, father of Rebbi Abba Mari.” It is also possible that Rebbi Abba bar Mari is the posthumous son of Rebbi Abba but did not want to be called Abba bar Abba to indicate by his name the unhappy circumstance of his birth; Mari would not be a personal name but a word meaning “my lord (father).”, in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: One verse says (Prov. 8:11) “all desirables do not equal it;” the other verse says (Prov. 3:15) “your desirables do not equal it.” “Desirables” are gems and pearls, “your desirables” are the words of the Torah, for it is written (Jer. 9:23): “For these I desire - saying of the Eternal.145The verse ends: “understanding and knowing Me,” i. e., studying Torah. Even the words of the Torah are not equal to the commandments of the Torah and executing these is of higher value than study only, parallel to the position of the Babli.” Artaban146Artaban IV, the last ruler of the Parthian empire. sent a priceless147Greek ἀτίμητος, adj., “priceless”; τιμή “worth, price.” precious pearl to our holy teacher148Rav, who has this title in several passages of the Yerushalmi. and said to him: Send me a thing of equal value. He sent him a mezuzah. He said to him: I sent you a priceless thing and you send me something worth a follis149Latin follis, Greek φόλλις, -εως, ὁ, in the late Roman empire a small copper coin (1/288 of a solidus or 1/1728 of an ounce of gold), under the (much later) Byzantine emperor Anastasius equal to 40 units of the smallest coin called nummus. Originally, follis means “bellows”, then “bag, small coin”, later “money bag” representing a standard value. Follis as a coin appears only after Diocletian’s currency reform. The use of the term reflects the time of the edition of the Yerushalmi, not the time of the actors in the story. (For a similar adaptation in a Babylonian source, cf. Note 102.)! He said to him, your possessions and mine together are not equal to it! Not only that, but you sent me something that I have to watch over and I sent you something that watches over you while you are sleeping, as it is written (Prov. 6:22): “I will make you rest when you are rambling.” Rebbi Mana understood all of them from this verse (Deut. 32:47): “Because it is not an empty word from you,” that is the study of Torah, “because it is your life,” that is honoring father and mother, “and by this you will have a long life,” that are works of kindness, “on the earth,” that is making peace between men. Correspondingly150Tosephta Peah 1:2., there are four things that a person has to pay for in this world and the principal remains for him in the future world: Idolatry, incest and adultery, and murder. But slander is equivalent to all of these. Idolatry from where? (Num. 15:31) “This soul shall certainly be cut off, its sin is inside it.” Why does the verse say “its sin is inside it?” This teaches that the soul is destroyed and its sin is still inside it. And it is written (Ex.32:21): “Please, this people has committed a grave sin, they made for themselves golden gods.151The first verse proves that the sin stays in the soul at death, the second verse is a paradigm that such a sin is called “grave;” the latter expression is then used to characterize the other deadly sins.” Incest and adultery from where? (Gen. 39:9) “How can I commit that grave evil and sin before God.” Murder from where? (Gen. 4:13) “Cain said to the Eternal, my sin is grave, it cannot be removed.” When he comes to calumny, it does not say in the singular “grave” or “the grave” but in the plural “grave” (Ps. 12:4): “May the Eternal cut off all slippery lips, all tongues peaking grave words152This is the introduction to a lengthy section on the sin of calumny..” In its written (Gen. 37:2): “And Joseph reported their evil slander to their father.” What did he say? Rebbi Meir, Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Meir said, they are suspected of eating flesh from a living animal153This is forbidden for all mankind as one of the Seven Commandments to the Sons of Noah.. Rebbi Jehudah said, they abuse the sons of the handmaidens and treat them like slaves. Rebbi Simeon said, they are infatuated with local girls154Canaanites whom they are forbidden to marry.. Rebbi Judah ben Pazi said, (Prov. 16:11) “Balance and scales of justice are the Eternal’s; all weight-stones are His work. “What did he say, they are suspected of eating flesh from a living animal? The Holy One, praise to Him, said: So I testify for them that they first slaughter and then eat, (Gen. 37:31) “they slaughtered the he-goat and dipped the coat into the blood.” What did he say, they abuse the sons of the handmaidens and treat them like slaves? (Ps. 105:17) “Joseph was sold as a slave.” What did he say, they are infatuated with local girls? Lo, a she-bear will attack you, (Gen. 39:7) “his master’s wife lifted her eyes to Joseph, etc.” Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who calumniates does not speak until he has disowned the principle155The principle of the Jewish faith, that God is the Ultimate Judge.. What is the reason? (Ps.12:5) “Who said, by our tongues we shall overcome, our lips are with us, who is master over us156This is a declaration of atheism.?” All sins a person commits on earth, but this one they commit both in heaven and on earth. What is the reason? (Ps.73:9) “They put their mouths in heaven and their tongue wanders about the earth.” Rebbi Isaac said157 (Ps. 50:22): “Understand that, those who are forgetting God, lest He will tear158In the Biblical text: Lest I shall tear. and nobody may rescue.” Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said (Ps. 50:20): "You sit, talk against your brother, you find fault with your mother’s son.” What is written there? (Ps. 50:16) “God said to the evildoer, what right do you have to speak about My laws, to keep My covenant in your mouth?” Where is a warning about calumny159? (Deut. 23:10) “Keep yourself from every evil word!” Rebbi La said that Rebbi Ismaël stated (Lev.19:10): “Do not walk around as slanderer among your people,” that is slandering, calumny. Rebbi Nehemiah stated that you should not be like a trader who carries things from one person to another and vice versa. Rebbi Ḥanina said: Come and see, how hard is even a hint of calumny that the verses spoke untruth in order to make peace between Abraham and Sarah. (Gen. 18:12) “Sarah laughed to herself, saying: After having wilted I became dainty160Her wrinkles had disappeared and her period restarted., but my master is old.” To Abraham He does not say so, but rather (Gen. 18:13): “Why now did Sarah laugh, saying how can I give birth, being old?” It is not written “my master is old” but “I am old”. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said161The formulation in Bereshit rabba 100(9) is easier to understand: We have stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, peace is great because even the tribes spoke untruth to obtain peace between themselves and Joseph.: Come and see, how hard is even a hint of calumny that the verses spoke untruth in order to make peace between Joseph and his brothers. That is what is written (Gen.50:16–17): “They empowered [a messenger] to Joseph to say: Your father commanded before his death, saying: So you shall say to Joseph, please forgive etc.” We do not find that he (Jacob) commanded anything. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: One may calumniate disruptive persons. What is the reason? (1K. 1:14) “I shall come after you and confirm your words.162While Bat Sheba told the truth, the intervention of Nathan is intended to cause trouble to Adoniah. Hence, the sin of calumny extends even to true statements unless their publication has some value for the public peace.” Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Yasa: Why was Adoniah ben Ḥaggit killed? Because he asked for Avishag of Shunem163What was a problem for the Yerushalmi was none for the Babli, Sanhedrin 22b, where the Galilean Rebbi Jacob in the name of R. Joḥanan explains that Avishag, while she was not a concubine of David, had the legal status of one and, therefore, could not be married to anybody but a king.? He said to him, they were looking for a pretext to proscribe the lives of disruptive persons. They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Who is guilty of calumny? He who says it and he accepts it164The person who accepts information which he recognizes as calumny without protesting is as guilty as the one who disseminates it. The linen traders had an assembly165The root is צמת “to take, squeeze, together.”. There was one whose nickname was Bar Ḥovez (son of the cheesemaker) who did not appear. They said: What are we going to eat today? One said: cheese, then the cheeser will come. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this one was calumniating in secret166By making fun of a nickname.. The city councilmen167Greek βουλευταί “councilmen”. of Sepphoris had an assembly. There was one by the name of Joḥanan who did not appear. One said to the other, let us visit Rebbi Joḥanan today. They said168This seems to be a scribal error since it follows from the next remark that a single person said so., Joḥanan will come169When he hears that he is given the title of Rebbi.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this one calumniated justly. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, the generation of David were all just170At least on the surface they were no idolaters. but because there were informers171Latin delator “informer,” delatio, later form delatura “denunciation.” among them they went to war and were falling. That is what David said (Ps. 57:9–10): “My soul, among lions I am lying down with blazing fires.” “My soul, among lions,” these are Abner and Amasah who were lions in Torah; “I am lying down with blazing fires;” these are Doeg and Aḥitophel who were eager for calumny. “The people, their teeth are spear and arrows,” these are the owners of Qe‘ilah, as it is written (1Sam. 23:11): “Will the owners of Qe‘ilah deliver me in his hand, will Saul come?” “Their tongue is a sharp sword,” these are the people of Ziph (Ps. 54:1): “When the people of Ziph came and told Saul. “At that moment, David said before the Holy One, praised be He: Master of the Universe, why should Your glory descend among them? Remove Your glory from them! That is what is written (Ps. 57:6): “Rise over the Heavens, o God, higher than all earth Your glory!” The generation of Ahab were idolaters but since there was no informing among them they went to war and were victorious. That is what Obadiahu said to Elijah (1K. 18:13): “Certainly it was told to my lord what I did when Izebel slew all prophets of the Eternal etc., and I provided them with bread and water.” [If bread, why does he have to mention water172Since “bread” may mean “food”., and if water, why does he have to mention bread. This teaches you that it was more difficult for him to provide them with water than with bread.] But Elijah was standing on Mount Carmel and declaring (1K.18:22): “I remained alone as prophet for the Eternal,” and everybody knew and nobody informed the king173That there were another hundred prophets hidden by Obadiahu. Why is it called “triple174In all Yerushalmi Targumim, calumny is called לִישָׁן תְּלִיתָאִי “triple tongue.” The same explanation is given in Babli Arakhin 15b.?” Because it kills three: The one who says it, the one who accepts it, and the one calumniated. And in the days of Saul, four were killed: Doeg who said it175That the priests of Nob had given David the holy bread., Saul who accepted it, Aḥimelekh who was calumniated, and Abner. Why was Abner killed? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, and the rabbis. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, because he made fun of the lives of his squires as it is said (2Sam. 2:14): “Let the squires get up and play before us, and Joab176The reading of the text, אבנר, not only contradicts the reading of the verse but makes no sense here since Abner was the instigator of the duel. said, let them get up.” R. Simeon ben Laqish, because he prefaced his name before that of David; that is what is written (2Sam. 3:12) “Abner sent messengers to David the underling, saying: Whose is the land?” He wrote: From Abner to David177A letter addressed to the king would read: “To David from Abner.” The supposed inversion is intended to show that Abner considered himself a king maker, not an executor of God’s will as declared by Samuel.. The rabbis say, because he did not let Shaul make peace with David. That is what is written (1Sam. 24:5): “My father, see, but see the corner of your coat in my hand!” He said to him, what do you want from the prattling178It seems that Yerushalmi גלגל is the same as Babylonian לגלג. of this one, it was torn off by thorns179Rabbinic feminine סירה is the same as Biblical masculine to סיר “thorn.”. But when they came to the circle, he said to him (1Sam. 26:14): “Can you answer, Abner?” About the corner, you said it was torn off by a thorn; were spear and pitcher cut off by a thorn? But some say, because he had it in his power to intervene for Nob, the city of priests, and he did not intervene. (Ps. 120:4) “The arrows of a hero are sharpened over hot broom coals.” All weapons kill at their place but this kills179Rabbinic feminine סירה is the same as Biblical masculine to סיר “thorn.” at a distance. All other charcoal that is extinguished on the outside, is also extinguished on the inside, but these, even though they are extinguished on the outside, are still burning on the inside. It happened to one that he put down burning charcoal on Sukkot and came and found them still burning on Pesaḥ. Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman said: One says to the snake, why when you move does your tongue flow? It said to them, that180דְּהוּא = דּוּ. caused it for me181Because of my evil talk (and calumny about God) I was turned into a snake.. What profit do you have from biting? A lion tears up and eats, a wolf tears up and eats; you, what profit do you have from biting182A human who is much too big to swallow.? It said to them (Eccl. 10:11): “If the snake would bite without a whisper,” I would not bite unless it was said to me from heaven: bite! Why do you bite one limb and all limbs feel it? It said to them: Why do you ask me? Ask the master of the tongue183The calumniator. who speaks here and kills in Rome184Hebrew spelling perhaps derived from Greek Ρ́ώμη, “Rome”. The Latin locative Romae, “in Rome”, since the word is preceded by בְּ, “in”, is probably not meant. But redundant constructions involving foreign words are found in the Yerushalmi., speaks in Rome and kills in Syria. Why are you found among fences? It said to them, I broke the fence of the world185By being the first to commit adultery [cf. the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah (Northvale 1995), pp. 308–309.] Merit has capital186It determines the reward in the world to come. (The entire paragraph is from Tosephta Peah, 1:2–3, also quoted Babli Qiddušin 40a). and yield187The rewards in this world that are given without diminishing the rewards in the world to come.; sin has capital but no yield. Merit has capital and has yield, as it is said (Is. 3:10): “Tell the just that it is very well, that they will eat the fruit of their actions.” Sin has capital but no yield, as it is said (Is. 3:11): “Woe to the bad criminal, the retribution for his actions will be come upon him.” How can I confirm (Prov. 1:31): “They188Evildoers. will eat from the fruits of their way?” Every sin that produces fruit has yield189The adulterer who produces a bastard child will be punished for the child in this world while all the punishment for adultery is reserved for the future world., that which does not produce fruit has no yield. The190The first clause of this paragraph is also in the Tosephta and Babli mentioned in Note 186. The second part is different both in the Babli and the Tosephta which both make a difference between good deeds that produced yield and those that did not. The Tosephta clearly represents the position of the Babli. Holy One, praise to Him, adds good intention to deeds; the Holy One, praise to Him, does not add bad intention to deeds. The Holy One, praise to Him, adds good intention to deeds as it is written (Mal. 3:16): “Then those who fear the Eternal will speak together, each man with his neighbor191The proof is from the part of the verse not quoted: “The Eternal will be attentive and listen and write it into a book of remembrance before Him,” simply for the good intention..” The Holy One, praise to Him, does not add bad intention to deeds (Ps. 66:12): “If I saw mischief in my heart, the Eternal would not listen.” That refers to Israel, but for Gentiles it is the reverse; the Holy One, praise to Him, does not add good intention; bad intention the Holy One, praise to Him, does add. The Holy One, praise to Him, does not add good intention, as it is written (Dan. 6:15): “Until sundown he tried to rescue him;” it does not say “to save him192Even though the first part of the verse, not quoted here, declares that Darius tried to save Daniel from the lions’ den..” The Holy One, praise to Him, adds bad intention: (Obad. 9–10) “From killing193In the masoretic text, the word belongs to the previous verse, stating that nobody from Mount Seïr will escape being killed. Here the word is taken as explanation of the following verse.. Because of the oppression of your brother Jacob.” But did he kill him? This teaches that he thought about killing him and the verse counts it as if he had killed him. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: If a person was perfectly just all his days and at the end he rebelled, he lost all he worked for his entire life. What is the reason? (Ez. 33:18) “If a just person reverts from his justness and does mischief194His prior merit will not be counted..” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he wonders about his earlier deeds. If a person was perfectly evil all his days and at the end he repents, the Holy One, praise to Him, receives him. What is the reason? (Ez. 33:27) “If a sinner returns from his wickedness195His prior wickedness will not be counted..” Rebbi Joḥanan said, not only that but all transgressions are counted as merits for him. What is the reason? (Ps. 45:9) “Myrrh, aloe, cassia, all your faithlessness196In the context of the verse, the word means “your clothes.” The Hebrew double root בגד “clothing-dealing treacherously” cannot be explained from cognate languages..” All faithless acts in which you were faithless towards Me are like myrrh, aloe, and cassia. From one who has mostly merit and a minority of sins they197The Heavenly Court. collect in this world for the minority of light sins in order to give him his complete reward in the future. But to one who has mostly sins and a minority of merits they give the reward for light merits in this world in order to collect from him his complete punishment in the future world. But198Similar but different statements in the name of R. Eliezer Hamodaï are in Mishnah Avot 3:11, Avot dRebbi Natan A 26. The meaning of the terms in this statement is explained in the next paragraph. from one who tears away the yoke, who breaks the covenant, and who finds aspects in the Torah, even though he has meritorious deeds to his credit, they exact payment in this world and the capital remains for him in the future world. Idolatry and incest and adultery, Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose: One says, among the easy ones199The easy sins are punished in this world, the hard ones in the World to Come., and one says, among the hard ones. What are we talking about? If he repented, there is nothing that stands in the way of those who repent. But what we are talking about is one who did not repent but died in pain200The question is whether an idolater or adulterer who dies in pain has received his punishment or whether he has to expect his main punishment in the World to Come. The Babli, Yoma 86a, sides with the first opinion and reserves eternal punishment only for those who desecrate the Holy Name, i. e., bring disgrace upon the Jewish religion.. There (Sanhedrin 10:1) we have stated: The following have no part in the Future World: He who says there is no resurrection of the dead201However, in the Mishnah in Sanhedrin, the reading of the Yerushalmi is like the Babli, “He who says that there is no resurrection of the dead from the Torah.” The entire paragraph also appears in Sanhedrin., that the Torah is not from Heaven, and the Epicurean202Epicure was an avowed atheist; hence, in Jewish sources, an Epicurean is an atheist.. Rebbi Aqiba says, also he who reads apocryphal books203Books that pretend to Biblical status but have been excluded from the canon as spurious and pernicious.. And he who recites magical spells over a wound and says (Ex. 15:26): “Any disease that I put upon Egypt I shall not put on you because I am the Eternal, your Healer.204Using the Torah for magic or exorcisms is equivalent to not believing in the Torah.” Abba Saul205A Tanna of the third generation, younger than Rebbi Aqiba. says, also he who pronounces the Name206The Divine Name YHWH whose vocalization is a secret not following grammatical rules. by its letters. They added him who tears away the yoke, him who breaks the Covenant, and him who finds aspects in the Torah to those who have no part in the Future World. He who breaks the yoke is one who says the Torah is obligatory but I cannot stand it. He who breaks the Covenant is one who pulls himself a prepuce. He who finds aspects in the Torah is one who says that the Torah was not given from Heaven. But did we not state separately: “He who says that the Torah is not from Heaven207Has no part in the Future World.?” Rebbi Ḥanania208In Berakhot and Sanhedrin he is called R. Ḥanina Entanayah. Entanayah stated before Rebbi Mana: That is one who publicly transgresses the words of the Torah in the manner of Joiakim, king of Judah, and his circle. He who has a preponderance of merit inherits paradise. He who has a preponderance of sins inherits hell. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said: It does not say “He lifts sins,” but rather (Ex. 34:7, Michah 7:18) “He lifts sin.” The Holy One, praise to Him, seizes one document from the sins and the merits tilt209The merits tilt the scales of justice to their side. This argument is given in cryptic brevity in Babli Rosh Hashanah 17a. The text follows the parallel in Sanhedrin 10:1 (in the Venice text, .נושה עון אין כתיב כאן). Rebbi Eleazar said (Ps. 62:13): “Kindness is Yours, o Master, because You repay to everyone according to his deeds,” and if he has none, You give him from Yours. That is the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, because Rebbi Eleazar said210In Babli Rosh Hashanah 17a, this is quoted in the name of the House of Hillel. (Ex. 34:7): “And much kindness,” He turns towards kindness. Rebbi Jeremiah said that Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: (Pr. 13:6) “Justice protects the one on the straight path but sin destroys the sinner.” (Pr. 13:21) “Evil deeds will pursue sinners but He will reward the just.” (Pr. 3:4) “While He makes scoffers targets of scoffing, He will bestow grace on the meek.” (1Sam. 2:9) “He will watch over the feet of His pious, but evildoers will be silent in the darkness.” (Pr. 3:35) “The wise will inherit honor, but shame will mark the stupid ones.” Fences are made fences and doors doors211A similar thought is expressed in Babli Shabbat 104a: “If somebody wants to live in sin, one opens for him the door [to sin] from Heaven; if he wants to live in purity, one helps him from Heaven.”. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: If a person watches himself the first, second, and third times not to commit a sin, then in the future the Holy One, praise to Him, will watch over him. What is the reason? (Job 33:29) “All this God will do twice, three times, with a man.” Rebbi Zeïra said, but only if the person does not revert212Change his ways from good to bad.. What is the reason? It does not say “The triple thread will never snap” but rather (Eccl. 4:12) “The triple thread will not quickly snap.” If you work on it, it will split. Rebbi Ḥuna said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: There is no forgetting before the Holy One, but for Israel He becomes forgetful. What is the reason? It is written (Ex. 34:7, Michah 7:18) “He forgets213Replacing נשׂא “to lift, carry” by נשׁה “to forget”. sin.” And so David says (Ps. 85:3): “You forgot your people’s sin, You covered up all their misdeeds, Selah.”

MISHNAH: One never gives peah less than one in sixty2141 2/3% of the yield of the field.. Even though they said that peah has no measure, everything is according to the size of the field, the poor, and the humility215In the Rome manuscript הענבה “the size of the berries;” in the Munich manuscript of the Babli as well as the Code of Maimonides, הענייה “the answer” (of the field to the farmer’s effort.) Both Maimonides and R. Simson explain that if one part of the field has a large yield and another part a meager one, one should not give all of peah from the meager part. The two readings imply that the religiosity of the farmer is no matter to consider here.. HALAKHAH: It was stated: One does not say to him, bring camels and load up. The baraita speaks if he wants to give more than the measure216The measure is the amount fixed by the rabbis, 1 2/3%. If there is a large field and only one poor person one tells the poor to bring camels and load up the peah. The restriction on more than 1 2/3% is introduced because peah is not subject to the laws of terumah and tithes; hence, what is given to the poor diminishes what is given to priests and Levites. On the other hand, one does not allow the farmer to get away with less than 1 2/3% peah., but if he gives according to the measure then one says to the poor to bring camels and load up. If his field is large and the poor few, he gives according to the field. His field is small and the poor many, he gives according to the poor. Rebbi Simeon explained two things to make it easy for the owner: If his field is large and the poor few, he gives according to the poor; if his field is small and the poor many, he gives according to the field. The Mishnah does not say so, but “everything is according to the size of the field, the poor, and the humility (yield).217The implication is that the Mishnah, which is followed in practice, requires the farmer to give more than the minimum 1 2/3% unless there is only one poor person and he would need a camel to remove the peah. This is also the interpretation of Maimonides (Mattenot ‘Aniïm 1:16).”

MISHNAH: One may give peah from the head of the field and from its middle218At the start and during the actual harvest.. Rebbi Simeon says, only on condition that he give the measure219The rabbinically prescribed 1 2/3%; the Halakhah will discuss how this peah is computed. In the Tosephta (1:6), quoted later (4:3), Rebbi Simeon explains his position that peah must be given at the end only, because not only is this the simple meaning of the verses speaking of the obligation of peah(that one may not finish cutting one’s field) but also to exclude favoritism and give all poor the same chance by setting a reasonably fixed time-table when they may come and pluck the remaining stalks from the field.Maimonides is of the opinion that R. Simeon makes the view of the tanna explicit, not that he disagrees with the first statement. at the end. Rebbi Jehudah says, if he left one stalk standing he adds to it220The Halakhah will explain what he may add as peah. for peah; otherwise, he gives only as abandoned property221Peah is reserved for the poor (with the legal definition of the poor entitled to charitable gifts given in the last chapter); the House of Hillel rules that abandoned property is abandoned (and free from terumah and tithes) only if it is ownerless and abandoned to absolutely everybody. Arukh brings Aramaic expressions to show that the root בקר means “to be without master,” in a human moral sense also “licentious.”. HALAKHAH: “One may give peah from the head of the field and from its middle.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish: (Lev. 19:9) “And at your harvesting,” why does the verse have to say “to harvest”222The expression is considered redundant: “And on the occasion of your harvesting the harvest of your land, do not finish the corner of your field during your harvesting but abandon it for the poor and the stranger.”? Even if he has still more to harvest223Hence, peah can be given at any time after the harvest has started. (It was already discussed in Halakha 1 that the very first stalk can never be peah).. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish: (Lev. 19:9) “And at your harvesting,” why does the verse have to say “to harvest”? One for the beginning and one for the end224The disagreement seems to be that according to R. Jonah some peah must be given at the end (as explained by R. Simeon bar Ioḥai in the Mishnah) but that according R. Yose all peah might be given earlier. According to R. Jonah, R. Simeon explains the first sentence; according to R. Yose, he disagrees with the first sentence.. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: (Lev. 19:9) “And at your harvesting,” why does the verse have to say “to harvest”? One for sacred property and one for private persons225R. Joshua ben Levi does not consider the second “to harvest” redundant but referring to a different kind of harvest.הדיוֹט “private person”, Greek ἰδιώτης.. Rebbi Yudan asked, do not coins redeem sacred property only when it is cut; maybe when it is standing226While real estate donated to the Temple may be sold to private persons (and the proceeds used for the needs of the Temple), it is clear from many sources (e. g. Mishnah 4:5) that as long as the field is in the possession of the Temple, the rules of peah do not apply. Hence, any peah taken would have to come from a field that was bought with the grain standing, not after harvest when the grain was already cut by the Temple staff and is exempt.? Rebbi Ḥaninah said, you should not say that harvest of sacred property should be treated like harvest of a private person227The argument of R. Joshua ben Levi differs from that of R. Simeon ben Laqish that the second “to harvest” adds something; it eliminates harvest that is not “yours” but public property. Hence, anybody who buys a field with its crop from the Temple is required to leave peah, but anybody who buys the field with its crop after it was cut by the personnel of the Temple has no obligation to give peah from his grain (Chapter 4, Mishnah 5).. What is the standing of the first batch228According to Rebbi Simeon, who says that in any case one has to give peah in full measure at the end, does the amount given earlier have the status of peah or is it simply abandoned property, not reserved for the poor?? Since we have stated 229In the name of Rebbi Simeon himself. The implication is that the peah given at the end has to add up to 1⅔% of the yield cut after the earlier peah was given. (Tosephta 1:5): “It is peah and he has to give the measure at the end.” That means it becomes holy as peah. What means “the measure?” The measure of the entire field or the measure of the remainder? Is it possible to say, this lot becomes holy as peah and say, according to the measure of the entire field? Certainly the remaining measure! Rebbi Ḥiyya230R. Ḥiyya bar Abba. This paragraph deals with the last part of the Mishnah, the statement of R. Jehudah that one may add to peah as long as at least one stalk remains uncut on the field (and the additional peah is not subject to the laws of terumah and tithes.) Cf. also Mishnah 6. in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: when it is still standing231One may only add standing patches of grain, not cut grain. Rebbi Yasa is of the opinion that one even may designate grain already cut as peah.. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: when it is cut. What is his intention232Does R. Jehudah only say that one may add until one has given the required 1⅔% of the yield (implying that if one starts out with less than 1⅔% and then adds in one batch over that limit it is acceptable and even commendable) or does R. Jehudah apply the laws of peah even to produce given after the rabbinic threshold of 1⅔% clearly has already been exceeded?, to free his field from the obligation or not? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He may always add. What are we talking about? If it is his intention to free his field from the obligation, it already has been freed233One could not say מוֹסיף והוֹלך “he keeps adding” if he had to stop after reaching the threshold.. So we must speak about the case where it is not his intention to free his field from the obligation234But the obligation was already fulfilled before he started to add.!

MISHNAH: They established a principle for peah: Everything that is food235But not industrial plants like flax, cotton, or indigo., is treated as private property236Not anything that is usually taken only from the commons., grows from the earth237Not mushrooms that grow on rotting wood, nor hydroponics., is harvested at one time238Not produce that ripens slowly so that the same field or tree has to be harvested many times; as, for example, figs., and is stored239But not vegetables that are only sold green., is subject to peah. Grain240Since קציר means not only “harvest” but also “grain”, the characteristics of crops subject to peah are derived from those of grain. “Grain” in the Talmud means only grain that may be leavened to make bread and in a leavened state is forbidden on Passover. and legumes241The talmudic definition of legumes covers all fruits other than grains which can be ground into a kind of flour: rice, millet, peas, beans, etc. are included.And among trees242In the opinion of Maimonides, all peah of trees is a Biblical obligation. According to Rabbenu Simson, the only peah that is a Biblical obligation is that of grain, wine, and olives. Everything else is a rabbinical obligation. sumac243Identification of Maimonides. The leaves of the sumac (Rhus coriaria L.) were used in tanning leather and as black dye but the fruits, very rich in citric and related acids, were eaten and used for the preparation of lemonade. Today, ground sumac seeds mixed with thyme are used as condiment (sa‘tar). Hence, the fruits are subject to peah but not the leaves. and carob, walnut and almond, vine and pomegranate, olive and date palm are subject to peah. HALAKHAH: (Lev. 19:9)244The derivation is given, with some variations, in Sifra Kedoshim,Pereq1, Babli Ḥullin137a, Yalqut Shim‘oni #604. “And at your reaping,245The full verse reads: “At your reaping the harvest of your land, do not finish reaping the corner of your field, and do not pick up isolated stalks; do abandon them to the poor and the sojourner; I am the Eternal, your God.””not only reaping; from where do we add plucking? The verse says “to harvest.” From where do we add uprooting246This is the reading of the parallel sources and of S. Cirillo; the Venice print has “reaping”, which certainly is incorrect.? The verse says “your harvest.” Not only grain, from where do we add legumes? The verse says “in your land.” From where do we add trees, the verse says “your field247An orchard in which the trees allow for plowing between them is called “a field of trees.”.” It was stated249Tosephta Kilaïm 1:15.: One may sow vegetable seeds and tree seeds together. But he who sows with grape kernels is whipped 40 times250“40 times” means 39 times, the maximal punishment for the transgression of a Biblical prohibition (Deut. 25:3).. Rebbi Zeïra said, it is written (Deut. 22:9): “Do not sow your vineyard with two kinds;” the main produce251The main produce are grapes and the part used for sowing is grape seed. of your vineyard you should not sow with two kinds. Rebbi Yudan from Kappadokia asked before Rebbi Yose: There252In the rules of ritual impurity, e. g. Mishnah Makhshirin 1:2, all rules that apply to vegetables and grain also apply to tree fruits. “Here” refers to the rules of kilaïm. This shows that the main place of these paragraphs is in tractate Kilaïm (8:1). they say that tree seeds are called seeds but here you say that tree seeds are not called seeds. He said to him: There253In the answer, “there” and “here” should be switched; the first answer deals with kilaïm (and refers to the question dealt with there whether one transgresses the prohibition of sowing different kinds in a vineyard only if one sows there two kinds different from vines or only one.) the verse excluded them since usually people do not call them “seeds,” but here the verse added (Lev. 11:37) “any sown seed that may be sown.” Some would understand it from here: (Deut. 24:21) “When you harvest your vineyard.” How do you understand this254The entire verse reads: “If you harvest your vineyard, you should not go back to pluck the single berries; it should be for the convert, the orphan, and the widow.” The definition of a single berry is given in Mishnah Peah 7:4. The question is about the meaning of the word עוֹלל “to go over it a second time”. The root עלל means “go over a second time, do anything a second time.” In Arabic, علل means “to harvest fruits a second time”. For example, עלילה means doing something following a well thought-out plan. Rebbi Jonah reads the verse in Lamentations as: “May all their evil come before You and may You repeatedly punish them, just as You repeatedly punished me for all my sins.” One is not allowed to go over the vines a second time after one has harvested the bunched grapes; that is the equivalent of peah for vines, (מתעלל is usually translated “to abuse, to mistreat,” it should be taken to mean “to mistreat repeatedly” with emphasis on the repetition of abuse.)? Rebbi Jonah said, do not be punctilious, as you say (Lament. 1:22) “to punish them repeatedly.” (Deut. 24:21) “When you shake your olive tree.” How do you understand this255The verse reads: “If you shake your olive tree, do not investigate every branch afterwards; it should be for the convert, the orphan and the widow.” The way of harvesting olives for pressing oil is to shake every branch, then the ripe olives will fall off and are collected under the tree in a cloth [translation of R. Saadiah Gaon]. The root פאר appears only here in the meaning “to glean”; usually it means “to appear in splendor”. The first meaning reappears in the nouns פֻּארָה “crown of the tree”, פֹֹּארוֹת “tree branch”. Rebbi Jonah identifies first and second meanings, and reads: “Do not remove its splendor.” Then he compares the splendor of the tree, פֻּארָה, to the splendor of one’s head, the hair, that in the second verse also is called peah; hence it follows that the remaining olives on the tree have the status of peah and go under its rules. Accordingly, the rules of peah apply both for olive trees and vines.? Rebbi Jonah said (Lev. 19:27): “Do not round off the peah of your head.” Since olive and vineyard are special in that they are harvested at one time for storage, so also everything that is harvested at one time for storage is obligated256By the principle בנין אב משני כתובים “principle established by two verses”. If two necessary verses establish a common consequence, it will apply in general to all cases that are covered by their common antecedents (unless explicitly negated by another verse.) If the verses are partially overlapping in content, the principle is denied by some. The next paragraph will establish that there is no overlap in content in the case under consideration.. But olive and vineyard are special in that they are subject to first fruits and subject to peah, so only that which is subject to first fruits should be subject to peah257This would exclude rice, peas, etc., which are explicitly included in the Mishnah (and would include figs).. The verse says (Lev. 19:9): “Your harvest,” even the harvest of rice and millet. It should mention the olive tree but not the vineyard. If it would mention olive tree but not vineyard, I would say that the olive tree, which is not subject to the rule of isolated berries258It is stated in Lev. 19:10: “Isolated berries of your vineyard (grape berries that do not grow in a bunch but sit directly on the branch and are not part of a row of such grape berries) you should not collect but abandon to the poor.”, is subject to peah, but that vines, which are subject to the rule of isolated berries, are not subject to peah. Lo, the mention of the vineyard is needed. Or if it would mention vineyard but not olive tree, I would say that vines which are subject to the rule of isolated berries are subject to peah, but that the olive tree which is not subject to the rule of isolated berries is not subject to peah. Lo, the mention of the olive tree and of the vineyard is needed. From259This is a second version of the proof that the two verses are really needed, that they are not “two parallel laws” which by their parallelism indicate that they express only these two cases and no general principle. The argument is: If the mention of peah for the olive tree alone would allow one to infer the duty of peah for all trees then from the verse in Lev. the duty of not collecting single fruits would apply to all trees. That is patent nonsense since most trees do not produce bunches of fruit but only isolated fruits. The sentence in parenthesis is dittography, or it may have been an attempt to explain the argument in a marginal note which subsequently entered the text. the olive tree one may infer peah for all trees. From the vineyard one should infer the rule of isolated berries for all trees. (Just as from the olive tree one infers peah for all trees so one should infer the rule of isolated berries for all trees from the vineyard.) Rebbi Abun said, any property that is common to both yields an inference but any property that is [not260Missing in the Venice print but clearly a scribal error already corrected by R. S. Cirillo.] common to both yields no inference261Since it was established above that both verses are necessary, neither of them by itself would have a generally valid inference.. It is fine according to the opinion of Rebbi Ismael. Since Rebbi Ismael established: Everything that was in a set and left the set to be applied to a new rule, is removed from the set and forms a new one262This is the formulation of the Yerushalmi. In the Babylonian version, (Introduction to Sifra and Zebaḥim 49a), the reading is: “Anything that was in a set and was taken out for an additional law, cannot be returned to its set except if the verse returns it explicitly.” The example there is about different kinds of sacrifices (חטאת, אשם) which in some respect follow the same rules, while in other aspects they do not. Therefore, a special verse is needed for taking the two kinds together to imply that they form one set of sacrifices with common rules. Here, the rule of the single berry clearly separates the vine from all other trees. Hence, it is necessary that there be a separate verse to apply the rule of peah to vines.; it is necessary that peah should be mentioned for the vineyard. But for the rabbis263These rabbis are not mentioned in the Babli. who say, it remains in its set and keeps its special status, why is peah mentioned for the vineyard? Rebbi Abin said, if only the vineyard were singled out, the question would be valid. But now that vineyard and olive tree are singled out264For the rule of peah, which is not mentioned for any other tree., if it would mention olive tree but not vineyard, I would say that the olive tree, which is not subject to the rule of isolated berries265Reading of the Rome manuscript. The Leyden manuscript and Venice print have “peah” by an obvious scribal error., is subject to peah, but that vines, which are subject to the rule of isolated berries, are not subject to peah266While this argument was brought earlier, the situation is slightly different here.. Just267Here starts the discussion of the conditions imposed on produce that should be subject to peah. as you say for the harvest that its collection must be at one time in order to qualify for peah, should one say that the same is true for the laborer268The hired agricultural laborer, who is poor, may eat while harvesting or working in the field. May he eat only from fruits that qualify for peah, reserved for the poor?? Rebbi Jonah said, there is a difference since it says (Deut.23:26): “You may pluck rubbed ears,” even of something that is not stored269Both conditions, that certain produce is harvested at one time, and that it usually is harvested for storage (or, in the case of wine and oil, is produced for storage), are necessary conditions for peah. Since rubbed ears are not stored, the verse makes a point to extend the right of the farmhand.. It was stated (Tosephta Peah 1:7): “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says270Since this is quoted in his name, it follows that it is not generally accepted like an anonymous statement., moist dates271Arabic רֻטַב, “moist and ripe dates.” The author of Kaphtor Waperaḥ (Chapter 52, p. 706) notes that these dates are also called in Arabic בַּלַח, but that means “unripe dates”, the verbal root בלח means “to be dry”, the opposite of רטב. are free from peah because the first among them does not wait for the last one. “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah seems to say what is correct, what is the reason of the rabbis? Rebbi Zeïra said, because they all need moisture at the same time272Fruit becomes eligible for the rules of the gifts to the poor when it becomes fruit, and for dates that is the moment where moisture appears around the pit, so that it can be separated from the fruit. R. Zeïra asserts that, while these dates ripen outwardly at separate times, the ripening process starts at the same time for all of them and they could be harvested and left to ripen in storage after the moisture first appears. Maimonides follows the rabbis in practice.. Rebbi Isaac ben Ḥaqolah and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi both say taro274Colocasia, Greek κολοκασία, Arabic קֻלקָאס. Its root is used to produce a kind of flour in Africa; hence, it is an intermediate between a vegetable and a legume. The only problem is that of vows (e. g., if a person makes a vow to abstain from vegetables), since in matters of vows one does not follow technical usage but the meaning in local dialects. Hence, there may be places where taro is commonly subsumed under vegetables and other places where it is not. is like a vegetable for tithes, the sabbatical year, peah, and first fruits. For vows it is questionable.

MISHNAH: Forever275A person who cuts his entire field without leaving peah has later to give peah to the poor. “Smoothing" is a technical term that designates the end of processing the grain harvest, when after threshing and cleaning from chaff, the grain is put into orderly heaps to be stored. The Mishnah states that the obligation of giving peah must be fulfilled as long as the relevant produce is in the hand of the farmer, but if it is given before smoothing then it is free from terumah and the two tithes. If peah is given later, the farmer has first to give terumah and tithes before he can discharge his obligation for peah. [In the Mishnah manuscripts there is a second sentence, that he who declares part of his crop as abandoned is freed from the relative terumah and tithes if it is abandoned before smoothing. This sentence is missing in the Yerushalmi and in the Munich manuscript of the Babli.]The Halakhah takes the expression: “Forever he gives,” as meaning that he can give under the rules of peah until he has smoothed the heap, even if he gave peah from grain standing on the field, and avoid the obligation of terumah and tithes for that amount. That seems to contradict our understanding of Mishnah 3. he gives as peah and it is free from tithes until he smoothes. He may take from the threshing floor and sow and it is free from tithes until he smoothes276Since seed grain is not food.. And he feeds domestic animals, wild animals, and fowl and is free from tithes until he smoothes, the words of Rebbi Aqiba277In the Mishnah manuscripts the sentence is anonymous; the previous one about seed grain is attributed to R. Aqiba. From the Halakhah later on (Note 287) it will be clear that the original Mishnah in the Yerushalmi also attributed only the statement about seed grain to R. Aqiba.. If a Cohen or a Levite bought all the grain of a threshing floor, the tithes belong to them until it was smoothed278There is nothing in the Torah which states that a Cohen could not give his own terumah and tithes to himself. But the rabbis ordained that Cohen and Levite have to give their tithes away in order to create a level playing field, lest Cohen and Levite farmers could drive the others out of business since they have a built-in 10% advantage in costs over the non-Levitic farmer. In the opinion of Maimonides, the rule was established in order to prevent the monopolizing of tithes by a few wealthy priests. However, if a priest bought produce before it was obligated for tithes, he may keep the tithe but not terumah.. He who dedicates279His crop or his field. to the Temple and then redeems is obligated for tithes unless it was smoothed by the Temple administrator280Temple property is not subject to the laws of tithes. Hence, if the obligation of giving terumah and tithes arose in private properly, it must be fulfilled; but if it arises in the property of the Temple, it does not apply even if the produce is later sold to private individuals.. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jacob bar Zabdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Nehemiaḥ bar Uqban turned it in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If someone separated first fruits from a smoothed heap281Which now falls under the obligation of separating terumah and the first tithe. (While the first tithe is a civil obligation of the farmer towards the Levite, the terumah of the tithe is a religious obligation and it is a deadly sin to eat from the produce as long as that terumah of the tithe is still not separated from the rest of the grain. The first terumah is called the great terumah.) It is now asserted that First Fruits, which are brought to the Temple and will be eaten there by the priests, are not subject to terumah even though peah, which is eaten by the poor, can no longer be separated from the heap before the farmer separates the two terumot from his grain., it is free from the great terumah. Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose: Does not the Mishnah say so: “Forever he gives peah and it is free from tithes until he smoothes.” Hence, if he smoothed he is obligated, but this does not apply to terumah282Since the Mishnah speaks only of the obligation of tithes, not terumah.? It should say that he also is obligated for first fruits even though he did not smooth yet283This is the answer of R. Yose to R. Haggai, refuting his argument: If the Mishnah is supposed to mention every detail, it certainly should have mentioned First Fruits since they are really supposed to be designated when grain or fruits are still on field or tree. Hence, “tithes” is a catchword for all obligations and the Mishnah does not prove anything for the rule under discussion.! But he284Rebbi Abbahu or Rebbi Joḥanan, whoever is the author of the statement about First Fruits, referred to the Mishnah Terumot 3:7: “From where do we know that First Fruits precede terumah? Each of them is called (in the Torah) terumah and beginning’, but First Fruits should precede everything because they are first before everything.” is the one who said this: “Why are they called firstlings? Because they are first before everything else.” And anything which precedes something else, the latter is obligated for it285This is a general principle which will be discussed at length in Demai 5:1. The fixed order of Biblical obligations is First Fruits (where applicable), terumah, First Tithe, Second Tithe. Hence, if somebody gave First Tithe before he gave terumah, he has to separate terumah from this First Tithe and he may not include terumah for the First Tithe in the terumah that he will give from the remaining grain, but terumah carries no obligation of tithe. As a consequence, First Fruits carry no obligation of terumah and even the fact that the heap now is under the obligation of terumah and tithes has no influence. This is the justification of R. Joḥanan/Abbahu.. Our Mishnah286The Mishnah declares that “forever one may give as peah,” meaning even after the prescribed 1 2/3% have been given. But earlier, it was agreed that once this amount is given, there is no more peah to be given separately. Hence, one must consider that the amount given before the heap was smoothed was given as property abandoned to the poor. Even for the House of Shammai, calling this peah strictly speaking would be a misnomer but, since for the House of Shammai property abandoned to the poor follows exactly all the rules of peah, it is free from all obligation of terumah and tithes; this is an admissible freedom in the use of language. is from the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say (Mishnah 6:1): “Property abandoned to the poor is ownerless property.” It turns out that Rebbi Aqiba287This refers to the part of the Mishnah in which R. Aqiba permits the use of grain for seeds and animal feed without the duty of tithing. While R. Aqiba disagrees with the practice of the Bene Ḥanun, he will agree that tithes are applicable only to produce used for human food. is like the stores of Bene Ḥanun as it has been stated288Sifra Deut. #105, quoted in Babli Bava Meẓia‘ 88a where the name of the locality is corrupted to Bet Hini. It seems that these stores were located at or near the Mount of Olives and were destroyed at the start of the Roman siege of Jerusalem.: Why were the stores of Bene Hanun destroyed three years before the destruction of the Temple? Because they eliminated produce from the duty of tithes since they were inferring (Deut. 14:22) “You should certainly give tithes289The verse reads: “You should certainly give tithes from all produce of your seed.” Since the buyer did not sow, he is not included in the command. (As usual, only the first words of the verse are quoted; this never implies that the inference necessarily is from these words.),” that excludes the buyer, (Deut. 14:23) “You should eat,” that excludes the vendor290This excludes the farmer who sells his produce which then he cannot eat. The people of Bene Ḥanun were punished since the Jewish people under Ezra and Nehemiah had accepted the duty to give tithes and observe the laws of the Land in their rabbinic interpretation (Shevi‘it 6:1, fol. 36b). Rebbi Aqiba will agree that according to all interpretations, produce that is not used as food is freed from the obligations.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they fined them so that they should not run after wine presses and threshing floors291This sentence refers to the statement of the Mishnah that a Cohen or a Levite, who had received or bought grain before it was made a staple in a smooth heap, has to give terumah to another Levite or Cohen, even though from the Torah there seems to be no reason to assume that the Cohen cannot eat his own terumah. The reason given is that we do not want Cohen or Levi to go and help with the harvest in order to exert moral pressure on the farmer to give terumah and tithes to him personally, since the Torah declares (Num. 5:10): “Everybody shall have control over his own Holy Things.” The prohibition for a Cohen to exert pressure to force a non-Cohen to give him the required gifts is emphasized in Tosephta (Demai5:20) and in both Talmudim stating that terumah and tithes may not be given to the Cohen or Levi as payment for helping in the harvest.One does not really talk about fines here but about preemptive rules to avoid monopolization of priestly emoluments in the hands of a few individuals. The same reasoning applies to the Cohen butcher in the next paragraph.. A butcher who is a Cohen292Following Deut 18:3, the Cohen has to receive one front leg, the lower jaw, and the rennet bag from every slaughtered animal. Butcher here means a person who buys animals, slaughters them and then sells their meat. From the Torah, the Cohen might give the dues to himself. But as rabbinic decree this is allowed only during the first week after opening the store; all other parts destined for Cohanim he has to give away to other Cohanim.. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One frees him for one week. Rebbi Yose said, I went to the South and I heard Rebbi Hanan, the father of Rebbi Simeon293Neither Rebbi Ḥanan nor Rebbi Simeon are known otherwise from rabbinic literature; probably the name is garbled and the next “R. Simeon” should be “R. Joshua” as indicated in the translation. in the name of Rebbi (Simeon) [Joshua] ben Levi: One frees him for one week. Rebbi Yudan compares it to the statement of Rebbi Joḥanan, they fined them. Rebbi Yose said to him, if it is because of a fine, even one week should not be free for him294And nobody ever prohibited Cohanim from being butchers. [R. Joseph mentioned in the text is R. Yose, the colleague of R. Yudan.]. A grocer295Who buys meat from a wholesale butcher to sell it in his retail store. who is a Cohen, Rebbi Yudan said, one frees him for one week. Rebbi Yose said, one does not free him for one week. According to Rebbi Yose, what is the difference between the grocer and the butcher? The grocer may cheat296By mixing meat from a Cohen butcher with that from non-Cohen butchers he may make his customers believe that all meat is from a Cohen butcher and, therefore, is exempt from the gifts to the Cohen. But the butcher sells only meat that he slaughtered himself and, therefore, everybody knows the amount of his obligation. Hence, since from the Torah he may take the gifts for himself, he may take them for one week., the butcher cannot cheat. It was stated297Usually, “stated” refers to a tannaïtic statement. The statement here is amoraïc; it does not refer to any tannaïtic source.: Rebbi298The Patriarch R. Jehudah I, in the Babli usually called “R. Jehudah the Prince”. R. Jehudah the Prince is the Patriarch R. Jehudah II, grandson of R. Jehudah I and Amora of the second generation. In the Babli, he usually is referred to as ר יהוּדה נשׂיאה. and Rebbi Jehudah the Prince did not disagree about produce bought on the field from a Gentile that it is subject to tithes because the Jew takes his299The Gentile’s place. Since the harvest determines the obligations and the harvest was Jewish, the obligations of Jewish law fall on the harvest. place, nor about harvested produce bought from the Gentile that it is free from tithes. What did they disagree about? About him who buys harvested produce from his fellow in a year of tithes for the poor300Second Tithe and tithe of the poor were defined in Note 127. The definition of “poor” for eligibility of tithe and public assistance will be given in the last chapter.. Rebbi Judah the Prince said, one takes it from him whether he be poor or rich. But Rebbi said, one takes it from the rich, one does not take it from the poor301In contrast to the Cohen, the poor man who separates the tithe of the poor from the grain may then repossess it, not as owner but as poor person.. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah the Prince? Just as nobody has any rights on the single stalks, the forgotten sheaves, and the peah of his own field302Mishnah 5:4. However, that Mishnah also denies the sharecropper the right to the tithe of the poor, hence the argument attributed to Rebbi Jehudah the Prince is redundant. While this is not stated explicitly, it is implicit in the fact that one looks for a second reason to sustain R. Jehudah’s ruling., so he should have no right to his tithe for the poor. What is the reason of Rebbi? Single stalks, the forgotten sheaves, and peah do not cause tebel303Ṭebel is a technical term of unknown etymology which designates produce under obligation of terumah and tithes from which terumah has not been taken in both forms. To eat such produce is a deadly sin. It is stated in Demai 4:3 that eating produce under obligation for the tithe of the poor similarly is a deadly sin., but the tithe for the poor creates ṭebel. It became ṭebel already in the possession of the first owner304Since the obligation for the tithes of the poor is created by the act of harvesting, the corresponding amount is no longer a property of the farmer and cannot be sold; the buyer cannot acquire it even if he is poor! Hence, the argument attributed to Rebbi does not hold.! What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah the Prince? Because of a fine305That poor people should not distort the market to the detriment of farmers because they get 10% more value for their money in buying grain than rich people.! What is the reason of Rebbi? Only the rich person has the power to buy306There will be no distortion of markets because the poor neither have the money nor (as explained in the next sentence) can they find credit for such buys. [It might be that loans were more readily taken on in the time of R. Jehudah the Prince, in the inflationary environment of the military anarchy, than in the time of Rebbi, when currency and prices were stable under the Severan dynasty.] ; it is not in the power of the poor to buy. As Rebbi Jehudah the Prince says, he may take a loan; but Rebbi says that he will not be able to borrow.

MISHNAH: The following separate1One may not give one peah for two fields separated by one of the enumerated obstacles. regarding peah: The river2The Halakhah later makes it clear that one speaks of water even though the Biblical word נחל may also mean (dry) wady., the water canal3An 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 path4A 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 field5A 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]6The 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 cuts7Unripe 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 field8In the singular, cf. Sifra Qedošim 1:22.,” that he should not give from one field for another. It cannot be connected9One 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 trees10An 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 down11This 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 stated12In a baraita.: “If the hair was pressing down from both sides it does not separate.” Hence, from one side only it separates13Hence, 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 one14The other field being separated from the first by one of the obstacles enumerated in the Mishnah., it does not acquire holiness15It 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 strip16Every 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 places17The 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 last18Obviously, 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 beds19Spices are never grown in large fields since they belong to intensive agriculture.. And here he says so20In 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 separates21This 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 sanctified22Since 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 strip23Again 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, rue24The 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. A25Here starts the discussion of the terms used in the Mishnah. water canal, whenever it is flowing. A river even though it does not flow26The 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. If27The 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?28If 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 summer29I. 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 said30Here 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‘31In 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 produce32For 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 furrows33Three 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 disagree34Is 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 said35In matters of the separating produce only. refers to produce subject to peah, what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to produce not subject to peah36In 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 peah37At 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 238If 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 Meïr39In our Mishnah, referring to peah. and Rebbi Jehudah40In 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 separates41This 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 separates42From 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 stated43Tosephta 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 free44Cf. Mishnah 2:7.; everybody agrees that if he ploughed45If 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 interrupt46If 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 peah47Since 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 there48Mishnah 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 cuts49After 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 separates50If 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 peah51R. 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 peah52There 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 together53One 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 weeding54The 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 disagreement55The 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 separates56The 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 middle57In the water of the irrigation canal. and cuts on both banks it does not separate. It was found stated58Tosephta 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 field59Bare 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 side60If 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 state61Tosephta Peah 1:9, together with the quote at the end of the paragraph, forms one sentence there.: “For terraces which are each ten hand-breadths62One cubit equals six hand-breadths. Ten handbreadths are about one yard difference from one terrace to the next. higher than the other63On 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 that64A 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 all65If 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 all66This was explained at the beginning of Halakhah 1, notes 12–13..74This Mishnah is the continuation of the preceding one.: But for carob trees all that see one another75According 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 Gamliel76Rabban 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 direction77Four 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 seeds67Quote from the Mishnah. However, the discussion is purely about the second sentence in the Mishnah..” What is pressing down68What 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 mortar69Rabbenu 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 press70While 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? They71The 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 another72In 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‘ah73If 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 them78E, 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 direction79The prescribed percentage of the olives processed in each of the oil presses.. If there were three80R. Simson of Sens reads: 30. This would explain the plural used for the three groups of trees. (groups of) trees, the outer81While 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 works82Literally: 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 together83And 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 together84That means that he treats them as one kind of wheat., two peot if he threshes them separately.It happened that Rebbi Simeon from Miẓpah93A 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 hall94The 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 scribe95Cf. 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 pairs96The 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 prophets97Ḥaggai, 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 wheat85The 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 wheat86Everywhere 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 time87When 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 end88Since 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 time89Here 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 wheat90As 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 separately91Not 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 exempted93A 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.. Rebbi98The 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 known99That 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) “I100Words of God. wrote down for him most of My teaching.”101In 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 admonitions102Lev. 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 parchments103Greek 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 Israel104This 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 preferred105A similar argument in the name of R. Joḥanan is reported in Babli Giṭṭin 60b.. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Yudan bar Rebbi Simeon106He 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 said107The 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 competent108Arabic ות̇יק “strong, safe, secure, dependable, reliable”. The interpretations of the untrained and incompetent are worthless. student will discover109Since 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 practices110Rules 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 homiletics111Homiletics, 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 sources112Rashbam 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 study113From 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 barley114If 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 ones115He 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 ruling116If 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 action117If 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 understand118The 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 disagreement119If 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 understand120In 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 Gentiles121Illegally, or that they bought the crop from the Jewish farmer while the grain was still standing. or robbers122Greek 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 free123Since 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 standing124The 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 everything125Since 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 half128(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 Mishnah127Dealing 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 this128(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 Mishnah129Dealing 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 obligated130Since 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 Shammai131A 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 robbed132This 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.. Because133The 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 separates134Meaning 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 not135If 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 grain136Since 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 sheaves137This 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): “138The 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 case139Of the usual sharecropper.? It must be, “if you cut it, a third will be yours140Only 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 sheaves141Since 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 Yose142He 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 buyer143Since 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 seller144If 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 asked145Here 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 obligated146As 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 Land147Under 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 harvested148As 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.

MISHNAH: Rectangles1This is the interpretation of Maimonides. R. Simson of Sens prefers to derive מלבן from לבן, “white”; a “white field” by definition is one of grain or legumes. [Then “a white field of grain” would be redundant.] Since מַלְבֵּן is a masculine word with a feminine plural, the gender of the numeral “one” in the Mishnah is undetermined and different manuscripts and prints vary between אחד ,אחת, usually not in a consistent manner. of grain between olive trees2The Halakhah will explain that the disagreement is only for a standard field; there is no disagreement on fields planted wider or narrower than the standard.: The House of Shammai say, peah from each single one, the House of Hillel say, from one for all of them. They agree3The House of Shammai accept the position of the House of Hillel. that one gives one peah for all of them if the edges of the rows are touching.If someone harvests his field in spots and leaves moist stalks, Rebbi Aqiba says, peah from each spot, but the Sages say, from one for all of them. The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba that he who sows dill or mustard at three different places gives peah from each spot20This is explained in Chapter 2, Notes 17–19.. HALAKHAH: We have stated: “between olive trees.” In the House of Rebbi they stated “between fruit trees.4Even though Rebbi edited the generally accepted Mishnah, either later generations changed the wording or, more likely, Rebbi insisted in his Yeshivah that in addition to the official Mishnah one would retain a more general version.” Our Mishnah needs the one of the House of Rebbi and that of the House of Rebbi needs our Mishnah. If we had stated, but not the House of Rebbi, we would say that it said only “between olive trees”, which in themselves are subject to peah, but for those which are free from the obligation of peah5Since only the trees enumerated in Mishnah 1:5 are subject to peah, a general statement “fruit trees” includes (as a majority) those that are not subject to peah. even the House of Shammai will agree that he gives one peah for all of them. Hence, our Mishnah needs that of Rebbi. Or if there were the declaration of the House of Rebbi but we had not stated ours, we would say that it refers only to those which are between trees free from the obligation of peah, but for trees which in themselves are subject to peah even the House of Hillel will agree that he gives peah from each single one. Hence, both our Mishnah and the baraita of the House of Rebbi are needed. What are we dealing with? 6This text is self-contradictory; it is the confluence of two contradictory texts. The text of Maimonides (Hilkhot Mattenot Aniïm 3:9) seems to have been: “If they are widely spaced, also the House of Hillel will agree that he gives one peah for all of them. If they are densely planted, the House of Shammai will agree that he gives peah from each single one. But we deal with the case of 10 plants on a bet se’ah. The House of Shammai compare it to widely spaced, the House of Hillel compare it to densely planted,” inverting the roles of Shammai and Hillel in the first clause. But the version of R. Abraham ben David (loc. cit.) is: “If they are widely spaced, also the House of Shammai will agree that he gives one peah for all of them. If they are densely planted, the House of Hillel will agree that he gives peah from each single one. But we deal with the case of 10 plants on a bet se’ah. The House of Shammai compare it to densely planted ones, the House of Hillel compare it to widely spaced,” inverting the statements in the second clause. There is no direct manuscript evidence of any Yerushalmi manuscript for one reading over the other. If they are widely spaced, even the House of Shammai will agree that he gives one peah for all of them7Following R. Abraham ben David, the House of Shammai will agree that there are too few trees to make a difference; it is one field with some holes.. If they are densely planted, the House of Hillel will agree that he gives peah from each single one8Since there are few open places large enough to allow wheat to be sown (which by the laws of kilaim must be well separated from the trees); hence, each patch is a separate field.. But we deal with the case of 10 plants on a bet se’ah9See Chapter 2, Notes 31,73.. The House of Shammai compare it to widely spaced10This follows the text of Maimonides who argues that with widely spaced trees the owner could have sown one field. The fact that he chose to make separate rectangles proves that he wants to treat them as separate fields. (Maimonides translates מלבן by “rectangle.”), the House of Hillel compare it to densely planted ones12Hence, each spot sown is a separate field. R. David ben Zimra, in his commentary to Maimonides, points out that this argument supports Maimonides’s reading in the preceding paragraph. “Seeds” usually refers to grain.. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? People do not usually introduce seeds between trees12Hence, each spot sown is a separate field. R. David ben Zimra, in his commentary to Maimonides, points out that this argument supports Maimonides’s reading in the preceding paragraph. “Seeds” usually refers to grain.. Does it turn out that the House of Shammai are like Rebbi Yose13Since Rebbi Yose (ben Ḥalaphta) was the leading authority of his generation in the tradition of the House of Hillel, this would be remarkable indeed.? Just as Rebbi Yose said that people do not usually introduce onions between vegetables14This refers to the second part of Mishnah 4 in this chapter: “Rectangular beds of onions planted among other vegetables, R. Yose says: Peah from each bed, but the Sages say: From one bed for all of them.” According to R. Yose, onions are detrimental to other vegetables growing near them., so the House of Shammai say that people do not usually introduce seeds between trees! It is reasonable to say that the House of Shammai will agree with Rebbi Yose but Rebbi Yose will not agree with the House of Shammai15In a poor country, the land between trees is much too valuable to be left lying fallow. Hence, everybody will sow between the trees if at all possible.. The House of Shammai will agree with Rebbi Yose that people do not usually introduce onions between vegetables. Rebbi Yose will not agree with the House of Shammai because people usually introduce seeds between trees. If there was a fence there, it is like a tree16If each tree has 250 square cubits around it, one follows the House of Hillel’s opinion in the Mishnah.. How about two17If there are two fences, do the House of Hillel still allow one peah for all? The question is asked but not answered [which for practical purposes is a negative answer.]? So far18This refers to the last clause of the Mishnah, that one gives only one peah if the beds grown from seeds are connected at more than one place. if they are combined from one side and the other. If they were combined only on one side, either by three coarse furrows19See Chapter 2, Note 33. Is it necessary that the beds touch in the width of three coarse furrows or is any contact acceptable? The answer here again is not given, which means for practical purposes that it is negative. or at any place? “He who harvests his field in spots,” etc. Like a spotted field22The leopard is נמר in Hebrew; the Mishnah means: He who makes his field look like a leopard. The Talmud notes that a field which is fertilized unevenly and, hence, whose growth is spotty, is called in agricultural terminology נימרה "leopard-like." It is not clear whether we talk only of a field that is growing at different rates at different points (and, therefore, cannot be harvested at one time) or also of a field that looks normal but whose owner harvests in spots so that it looks "leopard like" at harvest time.; the place where fertilizer makes plants grow early is called “spotted.” So far if it was dry on both sides and moist in the middle23Since grain usually is harvested when dry, in the case contemplated the farmer will legitimately harvest the dry sides and leave the green patch in the middle for a later harvest. In this case, R. Aqiba will consider the separate dry patches as separate fields since they can be harvested separately without difficulty.. How about being moist on both sides and dry in the middle24In this case, access to the ripe grain is difficult and one may wonder whether R. Aqiba will insist that the cutting is a separate harvest. The question is not resolved (since practice follows the majority of the “Sages”, including most of R. Aqiba’s own surviving students, about whom see the Introduction to tractate Berakhot.)? Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya26The tradents are R. Abba bar R. Ḥiyya bar Abba and his father. in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “Rebbi Meïr follows the argument of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba says that moist and dry are two different kinds, so Rebbi Meïr27Who in Mishnah 2:1 asserted that if somebody cuts part of his grain green for fodder and part of it dry for grain he has to give peah twice. says that moist and dry are two different kinds.” The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose: Why should he argue like Rebbi Aqiba? He could argue even like the Rabbis since we have stated there (Mishnah 3:3): “He who rips out28See the lexical explanation in the next Mishnah. moist onions for the market and keeps dry ones for storage29He has to give peah twice.!” Rebbi Yose answered: We understand that market and storage make two kinds, are moist and dry two kinds30Hence, R. Meïr agrees with R. Aqiba, not with the other Sages.? Two kinds, half moist and half dry, even Rebbi Aqiba will agree31If a connected part of the field is already dry and ready for harvesting, even R. Aqiba will agree that then the harvest is the start of the harvest of the entire field and only one peah is due. This argument cannot apply to spot cutting.. But did we not state32Mishnah 3:2: “The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba that he who sows dill and mustard at three different places33He gives peah for each part separately. …” It is so34The Yerushalmi expression כיני is discussed at length in J. N. Epstein, Mavo lenosaḥ hammišnah, 2nd ed., Jerusalem 1964, pp. 441–508.: Either dill at three places or mustard at three places35Even though both the Mishnah and its quote in the Halakhah read “or”, it seems that the argument refers to the reading “dill and mustard” found in the Parma and one of the Genizah manuscripts of the Mishnah. It is explained that any one kind of spice triggers the special rule of peah for spice beds.. Samuel says, because the first one does not wait for the last one36Dill and mustard are special in that they cannot be harvested at one time. If they did not fall under the general category of legumes there would be no obligation of peah at all. Hence, Samuel restricts the meaning of the Mishnah to dill and mustard only; these kinds are mentioned for themselves and not as paradigms.. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because they usually are being sown bed by bed37Spices are grown in small quantities. Hence, each bed is a separate field. For R. Johanan, dill and mustard are given as paradigms; the rule of the Mishnah applies to all spices.. According to Samuel, he has to give from each stalk38This is almost impossible and implies a rejection of Samuel’s argument.; according to Rebbi Joḥanan he has to give from each bed.

MISHNAH: He who rips out39This translation is tentative; according to Maimonides it simply means “cuts”, based on Is. 41:7. According to R. Simson of Sens, it means either “leaves a bald spot” where the onions have been taken out or it means “splits” his field into two parts; it is possible that the expression is intentionally ambiguous. [In Mishnah Arakhin 1:3, the word means “to finish, to play the final coda.”] In Arabic, חלק means “to shave”; this supports the first interpretation of R. Simson, also supported by Mishnah Ševiït 4:4 which explains that “thinning” means taking out single plants but “ripping out” means pulling at least three together, leaving a bald spot. moist onions for the market and keeps dry ones for storage gives peah for each batch separately; the same applies to peas40Peas grown for meal. Those grown to be eaten as vegetable are not subject to the laws of peah (Mishnah Peah 1:4). and vineyards41Table grapes are considered different from grapes used either for wine making or for raisins.. He who thins out gives peah for what is left42Since thinning is necessary for the better growth of many kinds, the plants taken out in thinning are not considered harvested.. He who rips out with one hand43The meaning of this expression is not clear. According to Maimonides, it means “taking from one side only”. According to Rabbenu Simson, it means “taking from one kind only”. The sentence may refer to the start of the Mishnah: If somebody harvests young onions to sell them green with their leaves, he has to give peah from these green onions. But if he rips out only a few at a time with one hand, at the end, at the time of the harvest of the fully ripe onions for storage, he gives peah also for the volume of those green ones that he took occasionally. gives from the remainder for everything. HALAKHAH: It is stated45Tosephta Peah 1:9.: “In patches46The text of the Tosephta reads: He who harvests in “patches.” According to S. Lieberman (Tosefta kifšutah Peah p. 131), אורּגא is the Syriac translation of ברוד “having white spots.” Z. Frankel refers the word here to Aramaic מרג “escape control”, which does not make sense. J. Levy refers to Arabic מַרַגַ “to be, to get into disorder”, to which one may add מַרג “pasture”. it is obligated at the beginning and at the end.” What is “in patches?” Rebbi Jeremiah said, just as we have stated: “He who rips out moist onions for the market and keeps dry ones for storage.” Rebbi Yose47R. Yose (the Amora) disagrees with R. Jeremiah and asserts that green onions are not in themselves subject to peah; only if part of the field is left to produce onions for storage does the obligation of peah fall on the entire field. said, for example nigella: If one sows it, it produces thin bulbs; if one plants seedlings, it produces large bulbs. For if it were not so, we would say because it is for sowing48In the first phase, when the plot is sown with nigella seed, all will be taken out for replanting. Hence, by Mishnah 1:4, it should not be subject to peah. However, since the seeds of the strong plant will be stored as spice, it is subject to peah in every harvest. it should be freed from peah. But are wheat grains not also for sowing? Wheat is mostly for eating, that one49Sown nigella does not produce usable spice. is mostly for sowing. According to Rebbi Jeremiah, are vegetables subject to peah50Since by equating Mishnah and Tosephta he declares an obligation of peah for green onions even if the field does not produce any onions for storage. This contradicts Mishnah 1:4.? Its kind is collected for storage. How does Rebbi Yose deal with it51The problem of green onions.? It is finished and needs only to dry out. It was stated: (Lev. 19:9) “The gathering of your harvest,” not the gathering of your plucking52By hand.. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who collects52By hand. ears for his dough in any quantity53In the Babli this expression would mean “a minimal quantity.” In the Yerushalmi it means “a quantity of indeterminate size.” is free from peah. Rebbi Eleazar says, even with a sickle54It is not a harvest unless some is collected for storage, not if everything is used for immediate consumption.. Rebbi Yose55The Amora who in the Yerushalmi is known usually as R. Yasa and in the Babli as R. Assi. said, only if he left some standing. Did we not state (Tosephta Peah 1:10): “If he had five vines and he harvested them and brought them into his house56Not to the winepress to make wine or to his roof to make raisins., he is free from fallen berries57Berries fallen from the grape bunches during harvest, which may not be taken by the harvesters but must be left for the poor., from orlah, from the fourth year58Orlah is the yield of the first three years of a newly planted tree that is forbidden for all use; the yield of the fourth year must be eaten in Jerusalem (or it may be redeemed and the money brought to Jerusalem) if there is a Temple. These obligations do not depend on the harvest; hence, they cannot belong to the text. Even though this text is found in both manuscripts of the Yerushalmi, it is not in the Tosephta where the reading is: he is free from fallen berries, forgotten sheaves, and peah. This is also the text implied by both Maimonides and R. Abraham ben David (הלכות מתנות עניים 4:27) and the mention of peah is implied by the discussion here. The corruption must have crept into a manuscript from which both the Leyden and the Rome manuscripts are derived.The Tosephta does not mention a remainder; this seems to contradict R. Yasa., but he is obligated for gleanings59Single berries which do not grow either in a bunch or in a row. They may not be harvested and must be left for the poor. Since they belong to the poor from the moment of their formation, the manner of harvesting is irrelevant.. Rebbi Yudan said, one for those which are fully ripe60Then any collecting is harvesting and a remnant is necessary so that the obligation of peah may be fulfilled., one for those which are not fully ripe61Then peah is not due.. Rebbi Yose62Ben Zabida, the late Amora. said, you may even say that both deal with the case that they are fully ripe, or both deal with the case that they are not fully ripe. There63Without remainder. if he wanted to eat them as grapes, here64A remainder is required for wine grapes. if he wanted to make them into wine, he may do so. This is informed from that and that is informed from this. This is informed from that, if he wants to eat them65Ears of grain. Eaten as a snack directly from the field. as rubbed ears [he may do so] even if he did not leave a remainder. That is informed from this, if he wants to drink them as wine66Even if the grapes are squeezed by hand to produce grape juice in the house. [he may do so] only if he left a remainder. “He who thins out gives peah for what is left67Quote from the Mishnah..” It was stated (Tosephta Peah 1:10): Rebbi Jehudah said: When has this been said? If he thins for sale68The plants taken in thinning, even if they are marketable as produce, are certainly only vegetable that in its kind is never stored and, hence, is free from the obligation of peah. Nobody requires peah for thinnings that are discarded., but if he thins for his own use he gives from the remnant for everything69Because this is the use of the produce of the field for which it was planted.. Rebbi Zeïra said, that means70That he does not have to give peah for marketable thinnings if they are marketed., if he sowed thickly in order to thin later. But if he sowed thickly without intention to thin later, not only if he uses it for himself but even for the market he gives from the remnant for everything.

MISHNAH: Mother onions71The Halakhah will try to explain this expression. are subject to peah, Rebbi Yose frees. Rectangles of onions among vegetables, Rebbi Yose says peah from each single one, but the Sages say from one for everything72For this controversy, see Halakhah 2.. HALAKHAH: Rav says pvrgrh71The Halakhah will try to explain this expression., Samuel says sproutings72For this controversy, see Halakhah 2.. Rebbi Jacob bar Abun73A third generation Amora, student of R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina. in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Rebbi Yose said only because of ownerless property74Since these “mother onions” are worthless according to both definitions, anybody may pick them up. Abandoned property is not subject to peah since it cannot be called produce of your field.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Mana: Is abandoned property obligated for peah? He said to them: When he reacquired them one by one75If the owner reasserted his right to these onions after they sprouted new growth they are not abandoned property.. But did we not state: Even though one with a large harvest will not store the mother-onions, one with only a small harvest will. Hence, the reason76Of the Sages. is only that he collects them for storing77The difference between Rebbi Yose and the Sages is a difference of opinion on matters of agricultural practice rather than on the theory of abandoned property..

MISHNAH: Brothers who split78The inheritance. [Since an unspecified plural has a minimum of 2 but no maximum, such a plural in legal texts always means “2”. The text should read: Two brothers who divided up an inheritance give two peot.] give two peot. When they later form a cooperative, they give one peah79The Babylonian Talmud (Ḥulin135b) notes that Lev. 19:9 reads: “When you (plural) harvest the harvest of your (plural) land, do not finish to cut the corner of your (singular) field.” This is taken to mean that peah is due from the owner, individual or collective [but not, as pointed out by Sifra Qedošim 1(11), if not all shareholders in the collective are Jews.]. Two people who together bought a tree give one peah. If one bought the North side and the other the South side, each gives peah for himself80Even though the care for the tree must necessarily be a common endeavor, only the property relationship matters.. HALAKHAH: 81In the Venice print, this sentence belongs to the previous Halakhah. It is the consensus of all commentators that it belongs to Halakhah 5. If he harvested half a field in company [with his brother] and then they split up, he82According to Maimonides (Mattenot Aniïm 2:16), the entire sentence speaks about a man who took the harvested grain as his part and left the standing grain to his brother. He does not have to give peah for his part since the obligation rests on the standing grain and, if his brother would have cut the rest of the field without leaving peah, he cannot be asked to contribute to the peah that now has to be given from cut grain since he had no ownership rights at the time the last grain was cut. does not give from his own part either for the initial harvest or for the final one. When they changed their minds and after splitting formed a company and harvested half a field, and then separated again, he can give from his part at the end for his partner’s part at the end83Since his part is simply his part in the company proceeds, all he gives originally was company property., but not from his part at the start for his partner’s part at the start84When each of them was a separate owner of half a field, since giving peah cannot cross ownership lines.. Rebbi Joḥanan said: If he wanted to cut half of his field and actually cut85As explained in Halakhah 1:1, the obligation of peah starts with the first cut. But since at that point he intended only to cut half of his field, the second part has to be considered a separate field and, therefore, the obligation falls only on the first part of the field. half of this half, but when he came to cut the other half he finished off his entire field, then he may give from the first cut on the intermediate ones86I. e., the remainder of the first part that was not harvested the first time. and from the intermediate ones on the first but not from the first87The first cutting of the first part of the field. on the first88The first cutting of the second part of the field, that now represents a new field.. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: If he had a field where half of it was one third ripe89Grain that is less than one third ripe is not grain in any commercial sense. Once it is one-third ripe it may be used either for animal feed or for human consumption as Grünkern. If he now has the intention of harvesting his field when it is one-third ripe, it is as if the field were divided into two fields. The explanation of this sentence is then completely parallel to that of the preceding statement of R. Joḥanan., the other half was not yet one third ripe, and by the time he finished harvesting half of the first half, the entire field also was one third ripe, he gives from the first cut on the intermediate ones and from the intermediate ones on the first90Maimonides (Mattenot Aniïm 2:17) reads: “And from the intermediate ones on the first and the last”. He seems to argue that the first split was by nature, not by the farmer’s design; a change in nature changes the status and at the time of the second harvest the field was counted as one again. But the first cut of the first part cannot be used to free those parts of the field that were not yet a crop at the time of cutting. Since R. Abraham ben David does not disagree, both must have read “and the last” in the text of the Yerushalmi. but not from the first on the first.

MISHNAH: He who sells tree trunks91According to Maimonides (Mattenot Aniïm 3:18), the rule applies to any sale, not only of trees or tree roots, but even of standing grain. in his field gives peah from each single one. Rebbi Jehudah says, when? If the owner of the field did not retain anything, but if he retained his field, he gives peah for all of them92See the first and last notes to the next paragraph.. HALAKHAH: So far when he started harvesting beforehand93If the seller started harvesting, the first cut establishes the obligation of peah (see Halakhah 1:1). Hence, the obligation of the seller can be satisfied only if he disposes of the entire field. The discussion centers on R. Jehudah’s clarification.; even if he did not start to harvest? Let us understand it from the following (Mishnah Ḥulin 11:2): “If he bought the shearings94I. e., the right to shear the sheep at a specified time in the future. of another man’s sheep, if the seller retained anything, the seller is liable95To give the first shearings to a Cohen, Deut. 18:4., otherwise the buyer is liable.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is Rebbi Jehudah’s96Although nobody seems to object to R. Jehudah’s clarification, the Yerushalmi does not accept the thesis of the Babli that all statements of R. Jehudah starting with “when?” are undisputed practice. In any case, it looks as if the underlying principle was the same.. Is there a difference? There, both if he started to shear or if he did not start to shear97Will the seller be liable as long as he retains any wool for himself., and here there will be no difference whether he started harvesting beforehand or did not start beforehand98In the Babli (Ḥulin 138a), both Rav Ḥisda and Rava agree that peah is due only if the harvest started since it says (Lev. 19:9): “When you harvest the harvest of your land.” But the obligation of giving the first wool to the Cohen exists independent of the act of shearing. Hence, the Babli negates the conclusion of the Yerushalmi here.. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? Because the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain? Or because he sold to him, excluding his obligation99Unless explicitly stated, the buyer does not acquire the obligations attached to the property bought. Hence, the seller is assumed to have adjusted the asking price so that it covers the cost of peah for the harvest sold.? Let us understand it from the following: “If he bought the shearings of another man’s sheep, if the seller retained anything, the seller is liable, otherwise the buyer is liable.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is Rebbi Jehudah’s. Could you say there that the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain100In contrast to peah, where the verse requires that the farmer refrain from cutting the last corner of his field, the obligation to give from the fleece to the Cohen is formulated in terms of shearing; the obligation does not exist as long as the wool is still on the sheep’s back.? No, it is because he sold to him, excluding his obligation! And here also it is because he sold to him, excluding his obligation101Otherwise, R. Joḥanan would be in error asserting the identity of the principles underlying the Mishnah here and in Ḥulin.. What is the difference between them102What are the practical differences that make it necessary for us to decide between the two possible explanations for R. Jehudah’s statement?? If the buyer transgressed and separated peah. If you say, it is because the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain, what he gave he gave103Since peah may be given at the start, the middle, and the end of the harvest, it is legal peah but does not concern the seller.. But if you say that because he sold to him, excluding his obligation, he gave and may collect money from him104The buyer may collect from the seller. Since the buyer has fulfilled the obligation of peah for his part, if he informs the seller that the latter may reduce the amount he has to give, the buyer may ask for indemnity for the reduction of the seller’s obligation.. If the part of the seller burned, if it is because the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain, if it is burned it is burned105And the buyer must give peah from his part since the seller cannot do it for him.. But if you say that because he sold to him, excluding his obligation, if it is burned he106The buyer, who bought unincumbered harvest and now has to give peah from what he bought, has regress on the seller for the amount of produce which goes into peah. may collect money from him. It happened that Manobaz had squandered his father’s wealth to charity. His brothers admonished him: “Your father gathered treasure and you wasted it all!” He replied: “My father laid up treasure where human hands control it; I laid it up where no hands control it. My father laid up a treasure of money; I laid up a treasure of souls. My father laid up treasure for this world; I laid up treasure for the heavenly world.”⁠a

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, a plot of a bet rova‘107See Chapter 2, Note 31. is obligated for peah. Rebbi Joshua says, if its yield is two seah108He makes the obligation depend not on the size of the plot but the volume of the yield. Hence, the minimal size would vary with the type of grain grown. One seah = 6 qab = 24 log. One log is probably 533 cm3. This makes the seah equal to .452 cubic feet (12.8 dm3) and two seah about .9 cubic feet (25.6 dm3).. Rebbi Ṭarphon says, six by six hand-breadths109One square cubit.. Rebbi Joshua110This Tanna is not known from any other source. Some Mishnah manuscripts have “R. Jehudah ben Bathyra”, referring to a Tanna of the third generation from Nisibis (Neẓivin) on the upper Tigris, today Urfa in Turkey. However, enough manuscripts from different sources have “R. Joshua” to suggest that the name should not be changed. ben Bathyra said, if it is enough to cut and cut a second time111The first use of sickle or scythe starts the harvest; the amount left for the second cut then can be peah; see the discussion at the start of Halakha 1:1.; practice follows his words. HALAKHAH: What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? It says here “your field112Lev. 19:9, 23:22, speaking of peah.” and it says about kilaim “your field113Lev. 19:19: “Your field you shall not sow with two different kinds.” It is assumed that a word in the Books of Moses never changes its meaning.”. Just as “your field” mentioned there114Mishnah Kilaim 2:10 states that two fields of different crops become forbidden if planted too closely one to the other but only if they are the minimum size of bet rova‘. means a bet rova‘, so here it means bet rova‘. What is the reason of Rebbi Joshua? It says here “your field” and it says further on (Deut. 24:19): “You might forget a sheaf on the field.” Just as the field mentioned there means two115Mishnah 6:5 states that a forgotten sheaf is for the poor only if it is less in volume than two seah. Similarly, Mishnah 6:6 states that a forgotten part of the field is not for the poor if its yield is at least 2 seah. Rebbi Joshua seems to argue that anything that is not a field for the definition of leqeṭ (collecting grain forgotten be the farmer) and šiḵḥah(collecting forgotten sheaves) cannot be a field for the definition of peah since all three obligations always go together., so here also two. What is the reason of Rebbi Ṭarphon? Six by six from a vegetable patch116In Mishnah Kilaim 3:1, the standard vegetable patch for intensive cultivation is defined as being one square cubit. R. Eliezer either is of the opinion that no vegetables are grown for storage or that onions grown for storage are such a rare case that one may take grain fields as the standard for everything. R. Ṭarphon seems to think that the smallest plot used to grow any plant for storage is the standard for all crops.. “Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra says, if it is enough to cut and cut a second time, and practice follows his words.” Does “harvesting” mean following the technique of harvesters, or is it any amount117R. Joshua ben Bathyra argues that the verse: “When you harvest the harvest of your land,” means all kinds of harvest and that therefore any plot which can be harvested is subject to peah. The question is only whether the harvest has to be professional or whether simple plucking is enough. The verse from Psalms is taken to mean that only a cut that will fill at least the hollow of one’s hand qualifies for “harvesting.” This argument is the base of the first discussion in Halakhah 1:1.? Since it is written (Ps. 132:7): “The harvester did not fill his palm with it, nor the binder of sheaves his bosom,” that means that one follows the technique of harvesters.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Aqiba says: Any real estate118Even if its area is a fraction of a square inch. is subject to peah and first fruits119If it is used for agriculture., to write a prozbol120Greek προσβολή, ή, "falling upon, application." As a legal term, "in an auction, document recording the knocking down of a lot to a purchaser" (L. & S.). Only in the Babli does the word appear with ס instead of ז; the etymology proposed would require s and not ζ but this may be a matter of local dialect. Prozbol was instituted by Hillel as a way to circumvent the annulment of debts in the Seventh Year in cases when that annulment would only be a rabbinic ordinance. Since only debts due to real persons are annulled by the Seventh Year, the creditor may deliver the debt to the court to be collected. Since the court is not a real person, the debt is not subject to annulment. The document may be written only as a lien on real estate. The details of prozbol are given in tractate Gittin. based on it, and to acquire simultaneously non-guaranteed property121Real estate is always sold with a title guarantee unless explicitly disclaimed. If the buyer loses the land he bought, either for lack of a valid title or because of a foreclosure of a pre-existing mortgage, he has regress on all other real estate owned by the seller. [The technical term אחריות “warranty” is אַחֵרָיוּת, corresponding to Latin alienatio “transfer of property to another person.”] with money or contract or possession122Movable property can be acquired only by some act of taking possession, either actual or symbolic. This is necessary in order to determine the exact moment when responsibility for the article is transferred, to avoid situations in which the seller takes the money and then claims that the article was lost in an accident, leaving the buyer without any chance to prove that it was lost when the responsibility was the seller’s. However, since buying real estate is a stronger form of contract, a contract or understanding to buy real estate can be extended to include movables. In that case, the moment of transfer of property rights to the real estate is determining also for the movables. The ways of acquiring real estate are either a contract witnessed by two witnesses, or payment of cash in front of witnesses, or a court ruling confirming squatters’ rights. The general theory of these matters is discussed in tractate Qiddušin; the exact and restrictive definition of enforceable squatters’ rights is one of the topics of tractate Baba Batra..If someone signs over his properties148In a gift document. when bedridden and reserved for himself any real estate, his gift is permanent149Since he reserved property, the document is a gift and not a will, on condition that it was executed under all conditions of a valid gift.; if he did not reserve any real estate for himself, his gift is not permanent150If he did not reserve anything for himself, it is clear that he did not expect to survive. If he survives nevertheless, the entire document becomes void.. If he signs over his properties to his sons and signs over some real estate for his wife, she lost her ketubah151The ketubah is a mortgage on the husband’s entire property, to be paid to the wife at the termination of the marriage, after divorce or after the husband’s death. It represents the financial obligation of the husband to his wife; without such an obligation, any sexual relations between man and wife are considered illicit. The value of the obligation was fixed at 200 zuz(800 silver denars) for a virgin and 100 zuz (400 silver denars) for a previously married woman. A measure of the intended value of these sums is found in Mishnah 8:8,9, viz., that anyone with 200 zuz investment capital or 50 zuz business capital is living above the poverty line and barred from receiving charity.The Halakhah explains the circumstances under which the wife may agree to be co-heir to the sons. The Mishnah appears in the context of the power of contracts involving real estate; the first part belongs to the matters treated in Baba Batra and Giṭṭin, the second part to Ketubot.. Rebbi Yose152The Tanna, ben Ḥalaphta. says, if she accepted it, even if it was not in a written document, she lost her ketubah. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Immi123He is Rebbi Ammi, cf. Berakhot, pp. 76,85. asked in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Think of it, if there were only one ear! Before he cut, there was no obligation; after he cut, there will be nothing left!124The question refers to the rule of Rebbi Aqiba, that even the tiniest amount of real estate carries an obligation of peah. If the plot is only big enough for one plant, there can never be an obligation since this would fall on the harvest, not on the bare earth. Hence, R. Aqiba also should be giving a minimal size of the plot which might carry an obligation of peah. The answer is that there might be a plant with multiple ears which is not cut but an ear of which is plucked. Then something is left on which the obligation might fall and R. Aqiba is justified. (Cf. the second paragraph in Halakhah 1:1.) Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Explain it if there was one stalk with five ears! Rebbi Mana asked: Why does he not say: “Any crop is subject to peah?125This is a continuation of the previous question. If peah is not a tax on the soil but on plants which grow on it, should not the principle be formulated in terms of the crop? The answer is that then one would need two separate sentences, one for peah and one for first fruits since only fruits of “your land” may be brought (Bikkurim1:2). Since the Mishnah was transmitted orally, that would make memorization much more difficult; a slight deviation from purely logical organization is therefore justified. The ease of memorization is a recognized principle in the formulation of Tannaïtic material.” But because he has to enunciate first fruits he formulates it as “real estate.” It was stated: “And the appearance126In the Temple, see Mishnah 1:1, note 4..” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who owns no real estate is freed from the appearance. Rebbi Mana asked: And why do we not say: He who has no real estate is freed from the declaration127From Rashi and R. Samuel ben Meïr (Rashbam) in Babli Qiddušin 26a and Baba Batra 150b it is clear that in old Mishnah texts, the reading was that any real estate obligates its owner “for peah, first fruits, and declaration.” They negate the last term since they read it as referring to the declaration to be made in the Temple that the tithes of the last three years were given as required. Since tithes are due also from a tenant farmer or a sharecropper and, in case the farmer did not give tithes, even from the buyer of grain, and, in addition, the text does not require “tithes from your land,” there is no place for this clause in the Mishnah. The reference in Deut. 26:15 is to את האדמה אשר נתת לנו.Nachmanides quotes an explanation that the “declaration” is the one required for first fruits (Deut. 26:3–10); he is followed by Meïri and R. Yom Tov ben Abraham Al-Išbili. The reference would be to Deut. 26:10: האדמה אשר נתת לי. There is no verse מן האדמה אשר נתת לנו., since it is written (Deut. 26:15): “From the land that You gave us.128The text is slightly misquoted; it should read: “And the Land that You gave us.”” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun129What R. Mana put forward as a possibility is a tradition for R. Yose bar Abun. taught a tradition in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “He who has no real estate is freed from the declaration, since it is written: From the land that You gave us.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: He who has no real estate is free from the appearance since it is said (Ex. 34:24): “Nobody will illegally desire your land130“When you go up to appear before the Eternal, your God, three times in the year.”.” It happened that one person left his grain heap131Unprotected.; when he returned, he found lions surrounding it. It happened that one left a chicken coop; when he returned, he found torn cats before it. One man left his house open; when he came, he found a snake rolled up on its tail132Greek κέρκος, ἡ “tail of an animal” (Explanation of De Rossi.). Rebbi Phineas told the following story: Two brothers in Askalon had Gentile neighbors. These said, if those Jews go up to Jerusalem, we will take all they have. When they went up, the Holy One, praise to Him, alotted to them two angels who came and went in their likeness. When they returned, they sent them133In the entire story from here on, the singular is frequently used for the plural. This happens in several Yerushalmi passages. valuable presents. They said to them: where have you been? They said to them, in Jerusalem. They said to them: Whom did you leave in your house? They said, nobody. They said: Praised be the God of the Jews Who did not let us act and did not abandon them! From where that non-guaranteed property135Movables, which cannot have a title guarantee. may be acquired with guaranteed property136Real estate., by money, document, or possession? Rebbi Yose137He is Rebbi Yasa, Assi. The entire paragraph is paralleled in Babli Qiddušin 26a–27a; there, the verse is simply quoted by Ḥizqiah himself. in the name of Ḥizqiah; Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Ḥanina Tortaya in the name of Ḥizqiah, it is written (2Chr. 21:3): “Their father gave them many gifts, silver and gold and delicacies, with fortified cities in Jehudah138The language implies that the gift of valuables was contingent on the gift of cities..” So far real estate and movables were at the same place. If real estate was at one place and movables elsewhere? Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, let us hear from the following: Rebbi Eliezer139Reading in the Yerushalmi and Baba Batra 9:9, Babli Baba Batra 156b, and in Tosephta Baba Batra 10:12. The corresponding Mishnah, Baba Batra 9:9 reads R. Eliezer in the Yerushalmi and also in the Munich manuscript of the Babli, as well as in the Venice and Lublin prints. It was changed to R. Eleazar (ben Shamua) in modern prints of the Babli, following the reading at one place in Babli Qiddušin, on the authority of Rabbenu Tam (Tosaphot Baba Batra 156a) for stylistic reasons. However, the overwhelming majority of manuscript sources must have priority over arguments concerning style. said to them, it happened that a man from Madon140A town in Galilee, on the heights overlooking the sea of Galilee, mentioned Joshua 11:1. The man was in Jerusalem, fell ill, and wanted to distribute his property to people in his home town, other than the legal heirs. was in Jerusalem, rich in movables. He wanted to distribute them, to give them as gifts. They said to him, you cannot do that141Transfer movable property as gift without the recipients taking possession at least symbolically. except if you acquire real estate. What did he do? He went and bought a rock142A cheap piece of land without practical use. (In one interpretation in the Babli Baba Batra, he bought land the size of a sela‘, i. e., a tetradrachma, a silver coin about the size of a quarter. A pun may be intended, since Hebrew סלע also means “rock”.) near Jerusalem and said: The Northern part I give to X with a hundred amphoras of wine, the Southern part I give to Y with a hundred amphoras of oil. The matter came before the Sages and they upheld his words143It seems that the legal heirs went to court to annul the distribution. Since the amphoras could not be placed on the rock, it is clear that real estate and movables were at different places.. Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana: But was he not bedridden144Many rules of transfer and wills are waved for seriously sick persons to assure them that their orders will be obeyed. The first example given by R. Ḥanania is generally accepted; the second one is then offered as interpretation of this Tosephta, that acquisition of movables remote from the land transferred might be valid only for bedridden persons.? For in general a person might give property rights only in writing, and here even orally. In general, a person might give only if real estate and movables are at the same place, but here the real estate even was at one place and the movables elsewhere. He said to him: But is there a difference for Rebbi Eliezer? The sick person for Rebbi Eliezer is like the healthy person for the rabbis145In Mishnah Baba Batra 9:9, R. Eliezer (Bavli in some versions R. Eleazar) explicitly states that bedridden persons are not exempt from the stringent rules of transfer; he does not allow oral bequests.. There, we have stated146In fact, it has been stated here. The main place of this and the preceding paragraph is Baba Batra 9:9, where “there”, i. e., Peah, makes sense.: “Any real estate is subject to peah and first fruits.” What is the use of “any” real estate147The question presupposes that one may not acquire movables elsewhere with the contract for real property. The Yerushalmi accepts the answer given in the previous paragraph that only R. Eliezer allows acquisition of remote movables with real estate. The Babli (Qiddušin 26b) asks the same question after quoting R. Eliezer; the answer given here by R. Mattaniah is there ascribed to Rav Ashi, a late Amora. But the Babli adds another lengthy discussion whose explicit outcome is that movables anywhere can be acquired with a contract for real estate. This is a difference in practice between Yerushalmi and Babli.? Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if it had space for one stalk but a pearl was hidden in it. Who is bedridden? Anyone who did not get sick suddenly154But if he gets sick suddenly, he is called מְסוּכָּן “critical”.. It is customary for the relatives to visit him immediately; unrelated persons visit him after three days. If he falls ill suddenly, everybody visits him immediately. A clarification: Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Phineas, and Rebbi Ḥizqiah went to visit Rebbi Yose after three days. He said to them: Do you want to sustain the baraita in my case155To act as if you were unrelated, while you are as dear to me as any relative.? “If he reserved any real estate for himself, his gift is permanent,” even if he did not recover156Since he reserved property for himself, he did not think that he would die and the transaction is a valid gift.. “If he did not reserve any real estate for himself, his gift is not permanent” if he did recover157He gave everything away because he thought that he would die and his action amounts to a will which is not valid as long as the testator is alive. Since the gift was not made in due form but under the special rule for sick people, it becomes invalid automatically when the testator recovers.. Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna in the name of Rav158In Baba Batra 9:6, this is a statement of R. Joḥanan in the name of R. Yannai, given as justification for the rules in the preceding paragraph.: They159The rabbis, originators of the rule. declared oral instructions by a bedridden person equal to written and delivered ones160A gift document becomes valid only on acceptance by the recipient or his representative. by a healthy person, on condition that he had died from that particular sickness and that he describes the property and says, give field X to Y161If the instructions are ambiguous or leave the implementation to a third party, they do not invalidate the claims of the legal heirs.. If he says, half of the field to X and half to Y, is that designated? Or only if he says: the Northern half, the Southern half162In the interpretation of Maimonides (Zekhiah umattanah 3:5), the Babli in Ketubot 109b and Giṭṭin 8b accepts “half a field” as complete description which makes the gift valid and collectible. Since the Yerushalmi does not resolve the question, the law remains in doubt and, by the rule that the claimant has to prove his claim, the gift is not collectible.? Rebbi Avina in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah163In the parallel Baba Batra 9:6, the reading is: R. Jeremiah in the name of Rav.: If he reserved movables, he did not do anything164Since the Mishnah formulates that only a reservation of real estate validates the gift.. Come and look: If he reserved any real estate, he has something to live on165Presumably, the reservation clause means that he reserves enough to live on if he recovers. Nobody can live on the proceeds from real estate the size of a sela, but he can live comfortably as a dealer in gems and pearls. Hence, the exclusion of movables by R. Joḥanan does not seem to make sense.; if he reserved gems and pearls, does he have nothing to live on? Rebbi Yose said, this man knows that the gift of a bedridden person transfers property rights even verbally166Rebbi Yose notes that the Mishnah and the commentary of R. Jeremiah refer to a written gift of a bedridden person. Since it is unnecessary in this case to write a document, the fact that the document was written confers on it the status of a gift by a healthy person. The reservation clause is purely formal and the argument about livelyhood is irrelevant.. Why did he write it with an obligation of acquisition, in order to give it the status of a gift by a healthy person. If he reserved slaves167In certain respects, slaves are treated like real estate, but in others like movables. In the Babli (Baba Batra 150a) they are defined as movable real estate. In the Babli also it seems that the exclusion of slaves has no legal consequence., about that R. Judan bar Pazi from Bar Delaiah stated something, but we do not know what he stated. If he wrote for one and changed his mind and wrote for another168A bedridden person who gave property away by a written document in which no real estate was reserved. Then he wrote a second document to supersede the first one. If all had been oral, there is no doubt that a later will would annul the prior one. If the document was simply written and nobody performed an act of acquisition, it seems that even for the Yerushalmi the document is not valid (this is the explicit position of the Babli Baba Batra 152b). Hence, somebody must have received the document for the beneficiary. According to Rav, this makes the gift absolute as explained by R. Yose earlier. According to R. Joḥanan (in the Babli, Samuel), since in any case the deed will automaticaly be rescinded if the donor recuperates, the document is not executable as long as the donor lives and, hence, it is rescindable by him., Rav says he cannot change his mind, Rav Abba bar Ḥuna and Rebbi Joḥanan say he may change his mind. What does it mean169If the ownership of a slave is transferred in the gift document.? If his first and second masters were Cohanim and the third170The first master is the donor, the second master is the beneficiary of the second gift, and the third master the beneficiary of the first gift. an Israel, in the opinion of Rav he may171This is the text of all manuscripts, including R. S. Cirillo. All commentators declare the text to be faulty and switch “may” and “may not” between Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan; however, this seems to be inadmissible. not eat terumah172A slave is a family member; hence, the slave of a Cohen may eat terumah (in ritual purity), the slave of a Jewish non-Cohen (Israel, including Levites) may not eat terumah. In the opinion of Rav, the Israel is the master if the donor dies and, since a gift is retroactive as explained in the second paragraph following, the slave is disqualified from the moment of the symbolic act of acquisition of the first document., in the opinion of Rav Abba bar Ḥuna in the name of R. Joḥanan he may eat terumah173Since both the donor and the legal recipient are Cohanim, the question of ownership is irrelevant.. Everybody agrees that if his first master was an Israel174And both recipients are Cohanim., he may not eat terumah; maybe the giver will recuperate. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna, a baraita supports Rav Abba bar Ḥuna and Rebbi Joḥanan: “175The Tosephta (Baba Batra 8:9) has quite a different (Babylonian) version: A healthy person who wrote a will (in the abridged form only permitted to bedridden persons), a bedridden one who wrote a gift document (in the language prescribed for healthy people), even though he let somebody acquire for the recipient, they did not do anything (their documents are invalid). But if somebody wrote as agent for another person (who is sick and afraid of his family) a gift document and let it be acquired, his action is valid. A healthy person who wrote a will176Greek διαθήκη “will, testament”. and a bedridden one who wrote a gift document177In the language of a healthy person’s gift that becomes valid on acceptance. may change their minds.” A healthy person who wrote a will may change his mind, even as long as he is healthy. Similarly, a bedridden person who wrote a gift document may change his mind, even while he still is bedridden. What is a will? “It should be granted to me to live178This is the reading of the Venice print and Leyden manuscript, and in all quotes of this passage by medieval authors. The Rome manuscript has לחיות “to live”; this is the reading preferred by S. Lieberman. The Babli (Baba Batra 155b) has למיקם “to get up”. In any case, it is a wish that the testator should live and, in that case, the will should cease to be in force. and get up from bed, but if I should die, my properties should be given to X.” What is a gift? “All my properties are given as a gift to X from now on,” or it must be written: “as of today179Since no gift document can enter into force after the death of its author. In the case of the will, it does not come into force, but there is an obligation on the heirs to fulfill the wishes of the dead. The language “from today” changes even a will into a gift..” The sister of Rebbi Gurin180An Amora of the fourth generation, student of R. Yose bar Ḥanina and R. Simeon ben Laqish. His brother’s name was Menaḥem. wrote her possessions over to her brother181It follows from the discussion of the case that the document contained the clause that it was valid “from today” even if it had a statement that it would become executable only after the testator’s death. The gift to the elder brother was written in the same terms.. His older brother came, made peace with her, and she wrote her possessions over to him. The case came before Rebbi Immi. He said: So says Rebbi Joḥanan, one may change his mind. Rebbi Zeïra said, but does Rebbi Joḥanan not agree that if it was written “from today” one may not change his mind181It follows from the discussion of the case that the document contained the clause that it was valid “from today” even if it had a statement that it would become executable only after the testator’s death. The gift to the elder brother was written in the same terms.? Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one may not change his mind. Rebbi Illaï came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one may not change his mind. Then Rebbi Immi remembered, and the judgement was reversed. Rav said182This refers to the last part of the Mishnah and explains the circumstances under which the ketubah may be replaced by part of the inheritance., if he lets them acquire through her183If the wife is the person through whose acceptance the entire document becomes valid. Then it must be assumed that she agreed to its terms.. Samuel says, if he distributes in her presence184And she does not object.. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, they stated here a relaxation of the laws of ketubah185In the Babli (Baba Batra 132 ab), R. Yose ben Ḥanina, while still calling it a relaxation of the rules of ketubah, offers a third possibility: If the husband offered the real estate as settlement of the ketubah and she accepted. This is not accepted in the Yerushalmi, probably to avoid the possibility that the husband exerts undue pressure on his wife in a purely private transaction., and so stated bar Qappara that a relaxation of the laws of ketubah is proclaimed here186Both according to Rav or to Samuel. The relaxation is explained by Rebbi Abba.. Rebbi Abba said, the reason of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina is that it applies not only to a ketubah of a mina187100 zuz, the minimal ketubah of a previously married woman. Cf. Greek μνᾶ, ἡ, Latin mina, “sum or weight of 100 drachmae”, derived from Hebrew/Syriac/Accadic מנה. or two hundred188200 zuz, the minimal ketubah of a virgin., but even regarding a ketubah of one thousand gold denars they proclaimed a relaxation of the laws of ketubah189The value of a regular ketubah of 200 zuz is easily satisfied by real estate. But for a thousand gold denars, representing a few million $ buying power in today’s money, it is not likely that the full value will be covered by agricultural real estate..

MISHNAH: He who writes over his properties to his slave makes him free190Since the slave is also property, he acquires himself and, therefore, becomes his own master. The gift document is at the same time the document of manumission.. If he reserved any real estate, he does not make him free191Since he reserved something, in the interpretation of Maimonides (following the Babli, Giṭṭin 9a) the document does not refer exclusively to the slave and, therefore, is not a document of manumission. Since the master is now dead, nobody else can be forced to write a document of manumission for the slave. R. Simson’s interpretation is that he writes the deed only to make sure that the slave take care to preserve the estate but he will have reserved the slave himself for his heirs.. Rebbi Simeon says, the slave always becomes free unless the master says, all my properties are given to my slave X except one tenthousandth of them192Since he did not spell out what is reserved, the slave himself may be reserved. But if he spelled out what is reserved, that is reserved and nothing else.. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yasa (Assi) in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If he reserved some movables, he did not do anything193Following both interpretations of the Mishnah, the situation is identical to the one where real estate was reserved and the document is invalid.. I say that he reserved the slave’s person. 194This refers to the opinion of R. Simeon who corrects the wrong attitude of the first teacher of the Mishnah. It is taken from Tosephta Peah 1:13: “He who writes over his properties to his slave makes him free. If he reserved any real estate, he does not make him free. Rebbi Simeon says, if he said all my properties are given to my slave X except one tenthousandth of them, then he did not say anything; but [if he said all] except the hamlet X or the field Y then the slave acquired the property and acquired his freedom. When these words were said before Rebbi Yose, he said: : “He who answers correctly should be kissed on his lips.” R. Simson has in addition: “Even if the estate contains only this hamlet or that field,” meaning that the slave acquires himself (his freedom) even if he acquires no other property from the estate of his dead master. This is the interpretation of all medieval authorities.Since R. Yose is the most authoritative of the teachers of his generation, his support of R. Simeon’s position makes that the valid practice, against the anonymous majority opinion of the Mishnah. When the case came before Rebbi Yose, he said (Prov. 24:26): “He who answers correctly should be kissed on his lips.”

MISHNAH: Peah is given connected to the ground1Unharvested.. From a climbing vine2Climbing 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 smooth3This 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 grab4Harvest 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 person5This tannaïtic statement is not found in any of the parallel collections.. Some6Sifra Qedošim 2(5–7). want to understand it from the verse (Lev. 19:10, 23:22) “abandon7Lev. 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 brooms8Dates 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 “them9Only 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 dangerous10“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 connected11The 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 tree12Since 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, they13The religious authorities of earlier times. charge the owner with taking it down because of the danger. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr14Reading 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 “harvest15The 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 trees16Accordingly, 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 peah17The 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.18Again, 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 themselves20The 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 him21The 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 questioned22He 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 he23A poor man entitled to collect peah. took some of the peah and threw it on the rest24In 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 it25As 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 it26For 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.27Tosephta 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 sheaves28If 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 Dalaia30A 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 himself31If 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 poverty32How 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 kikkar33One 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 you34Solomon. 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 rich35After 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 his36If 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 it37The 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 existence38The 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 deprivation39The 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 him41The 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 state42In 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 state43In 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 two44In the Tosephta: “Two poor persons.” were pushing45Since 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, he46Neither 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 Joḥanan47The 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 something48His 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 person49If 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 fortiori50Hence, his statement excluding gifts is necessary. to a gift that is acquired by the knowledge of another person51Without 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 cubits52R. 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 find53Hence, 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 state54Mishnah Giṭṭin 8:3.: The same applies to marriage? He answered him, divorce documents and marriage contracts have the same rules55The 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 he56The 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 stated57In 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 domain58If 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 periods59Periods 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 more60The farmer is not allowed to declare peah at any other time, when not all poor have the opportunity to be present.. In Bet Namer61Identified with Biblical Bet Nimrah (Num. 32:2) on the Jordanian side of the Jordan, a tell called Nymreïn. they insisted on collecting62The 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 strip63Greek 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 investigated64The 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 decrepit65The 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 percent67And 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 stated69There 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 bad70We 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 peah71For 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 sheaves72To 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 grain73The 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 up75The 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 dedicated77As 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 obligated78Since 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 obligation79I. e., at harvest time. it was free. Parallel to this, if somebody dedicated his produce before the time of tithes80This 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 it81Or, 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 twice82The statement about tithes appears both here and in Mishnah Ḥallah 3:3. The entire discussion also appears there in Halakhah 3.? Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Ḥiyya83Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba., Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah84Rebbi 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 smoothing85The 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 third86Grain 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 third87But they do not know which refers to what.. Rebbi Abba explains: At Ḥallah for smoothing88Since 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 free90The 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 growth91In the Babli, Ḥullin 137a, Giṭṭin77a, the positions of R. Aqiba and the Sages are inverted.. How is that? Explain it for Rebbi Aqiba (after smoothing92In 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 disagreement93That 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 immediately94And there is no additional growth during the ownership of the Jew..

MISHNAH: He96The 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-Jew97From 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 owner98Since 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 it99For 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 Eleazar100The 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 friend101If 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 daughters102They 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 wife103It 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 daughters104Who are legal persons in their own right., of his Jewish slaves and slave girls105They 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 ketubah106Cf. 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 they107The 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 work108The 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 quit109In 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 employer110If 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 Aḥa111Since 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 friend112R. 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 Redifa113An 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 acquire114He who may take for himself may acquire for another person without first taking possession himself.; the other says, he who may give may acquire115He 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 stated116Giṭṭin 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 daughter117The 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 manumission118We have to assume that the emissary is a fellow slave who could receive his own manumission.. But did we not state119Mishnah 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 cases117The 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 there122Maäser 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 rich123When 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 rich124This is the more likely scenario because in this setting he already was one of the most prominent rabbis., when he was an administrator125Of 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 Joḥanan127Here 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.: 128Add: “The Mishnah is only understandable …” According to him129The 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 tithes130It 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 obligated131According 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 Joḥanan132Note 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.: 128Add: “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 tithes133The 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 gleanings134If 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 Eleazar135As 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 movables136It 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 movables137Since 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: 138From 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 owner139Anything 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/or140Whether to translate “and” or “or” is discussed in the Halakhah. inside the sickle it belongs to the poor141Since 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 owner145I. e., the kernels taken by the ants and stored in their holes.. In those appearing after the harvesters left, the tops are for the poor146The 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 doubt147Since 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 hands142See 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-picking143If single berries are plucked rather than whole bunches cut off with a knife.. Rav Cahana and Rav Taḥlifa144This 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 Samuel148It 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 ones149Completely 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 ones150Accordingly, 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 Ḥagra152In 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 free153From 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 him154If 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, it155Even 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 gleanings156And 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 gleanings157But 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 him158There 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 bend159The 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 gifts160To rule for him also in doubtful cases.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he161The 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 own162The 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!

MISHNAH: For a grain stack under which gleanings were not collected, all ears that touch the ground are for the poor1Since gleanings cannot be taken from under the stack, the farmer robbed the poor by not letting them search before he used that space. He is punished by an extreme application of the principle that “gleanings in doubt belong to the poor.”. If the wind dispersed any sheaves2In this case, the farmer has the obvious right to rake the dispersed stalks together. But thereby he also takes the gleanings for the poor and has to make up for this., one estimates what amount of gleanings that would have yielded, and he gives that to the poor. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he gives to the poor the average fall3Which has been determined once and for all and is explained in the Halakhah.. HALAKHAH: Here you say that “one estimates what amount of gleanings that would have yielded, and he gives that to the poor.” But there, you say “all ears that touch the ground are for the poor.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They fined him because he put the stack on the gleanings of the poor. That is for intentional transgression; it is also for unintentional error, for sheaves, for a wheat stack on top of barley, even if it was stacked by others without his knowledge, even if he called the poor and they did not come4The translation follows the interpretation of Maimonides (Mattenot Aniïm 4:7), that this is a declarative sentence, a rule promulgated by the Court without exceptions. One might also read the sentence as a question: are these also for the poor? Since the question is not answered, the practical answer would be in the negative.. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is from the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say that property abandoned to the poor is abandoned5As explained in the next Mishnah, we require that the poor be given produce ready for immediate use. While harvested grain becomes subject to heave and tithes only after being gathered into orderly heaps, a farmer who really wants to create problems gives tithes from unthreshed grain. Hence, there already is a potential obligation on the produce after harvesting and the grain which is given in lieu of gleanings should be subject to heave and tithes. On the other hand, abandoned property is not “your harvest,” and as such is free from heave and tithes. In Chapter 6, the House of Shammai rule that property abandoned only to the poor, such as peah and gleanings and grain given in lieu of peah and gleanings, is considered legally abandoned. The House of Hillel disagree and restrict the notion of abandoned property to things abandoned to everybody, rich and poor alike. Since the Mishnah does not require heave and tithes to be given for grain given in lieu of gleanings, it seems to disagree with the House of Hillel who determine our practice.. Rebbi Yasa said to him: We understand that it is free from tithes because property abandoned by a court order is abandoned6The grain given in lieu of gleanings is given by a decree of the High Court, not by personal choice. Hence, it is legally abandoned.. It is written (Ezra 10:8): “Anybody who will not come within three days conforming to the decree of the rulers and the elders, all his property shall be devoted to destruction7If the decree of the Court did not make the property abandoned, its destruction would have to be considered theft. Since Ezra was a teacher of the Law, his rulings have to be accepted.From here on to Note 24, the text also appears in Šeqalim 1:2..” From where that it8Property abandoned by decree of court. is free from tithes? Rebbi Jonathan, the son of Rebbi Isaac bar Aḥa9According to the interpretation of A. Zacut (Sefer Yoḥasin) of an unclear note in Babli Pesaḥim 114a, R. Isaac bar Aḥa is quoted as “R. Isaac” without a patronymic. understood it from the following10Tosephta Sanhedrin 1:2, Babli Sanhedrin 12a, Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 1:2 (Note 207), Nedarim 6:3 (Note 83). (Addenda and Corrigenda by Guggnheimer): One intercalates12Since the Jewish year is both lunar and solar, but 12 lunar months are only approximately 254 days, in 19 years there have to be seven intercalary years of 13 months. For details see the author’s Seder Olam(Jason Aronson, Northvale NJ, 1998). years neither in the Sabbatical year, nor in the year following the Sabbatical; but if they did intercalate it is intercalated. The one month he adds, is it not free from tithes13Since the spontaneous growth of the Seventh Year may be taken by everybody, it is not “your harvest” and, hence, free from heave and tithes even if taken by the owner of the land. If the Supreme Court declared the year intercalary against the rules, it is nevertheless a valid 13 months year and all produce is legally abandoned property.? That refers to the Sabbatical year. What about the year after the Sabbatical? Rebbi Abun said, not to prolong the prohibition of new grain14New grain may be eaten only after the Omer sacrifice on the 16th of Nisan. An intercalation of a month, which always falls in early spring, unnecessarily postpones the harvest of new grain.. 15This paragraph is an aside, taken from Šebiït 6:4, also Nedarim6:13. It explains why our calendar today does not take the Sabbatical year into consideration when determining intercalary months in the 19 year cycle. (Since 19 and 7 are relatively prime, the Sabbatical rules would force seven different calendars to be made!) Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: That is only before Rebbi permitted the importation of vegetables from outside the Land16The soil outside the Land of Israel is unclean (cf. Amos 7:17). In former times Jews did not use vegetables from outside the Land since it might have particles of soil still clinging to it. But after the last remnants of the ashes of the red heifer disappeared, these laws became inoperative and it was possible for everybody, even the most scrupulous, to eat imported vegetables. This has to be dated to the times of Rebbi (Jehudah the Prince); cf. commentary to Mishnah Berakhot 1:1.. But after Rebbi permitted the importation of vegetables from outside the Land, the Sabbatical year is as any other year17Since there is enough food for everybody.. It was stated: One does not intercalate in the Sabbatical Year but only in other years of a Sabbatical period, but if they did intercalate it is intercalated. Rebbi Mana said, that refers to earlier times when years were in order18Taxes were paid on income, which means that in Sabbatical years the farmer did not have to pay taxes., but now that years are not in order19Now that the government levies taxes on arable land without regard to the actual yield, the farmer has to grow crops on his land even in the Sabbatical year on the authority of R. Mana (Šebiït 4:2)., the Sabbatical year is like any other year. It was stated: The house of Rabban Gamliel intercalated immediately after the end of the Sabbatical year21Reading of the parallel in Seqalim 1:2, in the Venice print מד. Rebbi Avin said, from this22All the previous arguments which prove that the action of the court can free produce from the Biblical obligations of heave and tithes are not relevant since there is a Biblical obligation to manipulate the calendar so that Passover should fall in the month of the Spring equinox. Hence, the obligation to intercalate is biblical and not rabbinic. you do not infer anything. (Deut. 16:1) “Watch the spring month.” Watch it that it should come in its renewal. What text implies this23Which Mishnah text implies that property decreed ownerless by the court is legally abandoned property.In Šeqalim 1:2, the author of the objection is R. Immi. This is the better text since R. Yasa was a colleague of R. Immi, much earlier than R. Mana.? “For a grain stack under which gleanings were not collected, …” Rebbi Mana in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is from the House of Shammai. Rebbi Yasa said to him: We understand that according to everybody, this is a fine24As R. Joḥanan had said, this is a fine imposed on the farmer and has no connection with the duties imposed on produce. The Mishnah does not say that all ears which touch the ground are gleanings, but that all ears which touch the ground must be abandoned to the poor. Hence, they are not gleanings and are exempt from heave and tithes only for the House of Shammai. (Maimonides follows the earlier opinion of R. Yasa that it is produce abandoned by court order and free from heave and tithes.). Following the House of Hillel, the poor give tithes and eat. 25Here starts the discussion of the opinion of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, that the gleanings of the poor are given as a fixed percentage of the harvest. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Four kab per kor26In the Babli, Baba Meẓi‘a 105b, this is also given by R. Abbahu; the reading (of an otherwise unattested) “R. Abuh” in the current editions of the Babli is a late printer’s error according to Diqduqe Soferim Baba Meẓi‘a p. 155. A kor is 30 seah or 180 qab.. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Four qab per kor or per bet kor27Do you mean 4 qab in volume for any kor in volume, 1 in 45, or 4 qab(about 4.5 U. S. pints) for a field of area 1 bet kor = 30 bet seah = 30×2500 square cubits = 75’000 square cubits (570.25 acres)? The first option is unlikely because that would make gleanings 2.2% of the harvest, much more than the larger peah. Since an ear of grain can be expected to yield at least 15 grains, the second option would mean gleanings of 4 qab for at least 2’700 qab harvested.? He said to him, per bet kor. There28Mishnah Baba Meẓi‘a 9:5: “He who received a field as a sharecropper, and it failed to grow, nevertheless is required to tend it as long as the yield will be sufficient to form one heap. Rebbi Jehudah says: What is the definition of a heap? Rather, if it is enough to drop it.” Rashi explains there, “enough to use it as seed.” R. Jehudah complains that “heap” cannot be a legal definition [even though R. Abbahu in the Babli, R. Joshua ben Levi in the Yerushalmi (Baba Meẓi‘a9:5, fol. 12a), define it as a mound in which a shovel stays upright.], we have stated: “What is the definition of a heap? Rather, if it is enough to let it fall29This is the same expression as the one used here by Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. The Babli Baba Meẓi‘a105b declares, again in the name of R. Joḥanan, that this means four qab per bet kor.. Rebbi Abbahu said, enough to let it fall as seed30I. e., the field produces at least as much grain as was used for sowing. This is also R. Abbahu’s definition in Baba Meẓi‘a; it is much more than the נפלה defined here. How may R. Abbahu give two different definitions for the same legal expression? The question is not answered. Maybe this is the reason why Maimonides, in his Code, does not follow Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, even though his opinions are almost always the practice to be followed..” And here, he says so!

MISHNAH: 31Here start the laws of forgotten sheaves and other forgotten harvests.: A single ear on the field to be harvested and its head reaches to the grain that is still standing, if it can be cut together with standing grain, it belongs to the owner, otherwise it is for the poor32If it can not be cut in one movement of the sickle together with some stalks of grain still standing in bunches, it is like a forgotten sheaf and one may not return to take it.. An ear of gleanings that was mixed up in a stack of grain, he gives tithes for one ear and gives it to him33Since the farmer is required to give to the poor something that may be consumed right away, after it is mixed up in the stack it cannot be given away until at least the heave of the tithe has been given. Hence, one ear has to be given to the Cohen as heave, the other one to the poor in lieu of gleanings. In this sentence, “he” is the farmer and “him” refers to the poor.. Rebbi Eliezer said, how can the poor man exchange something that never was in his possession34The procedure of the first Tanna does not work, since the poor man does not receive gleanings but grain in lieu of gleanings. But since the gleanings never were in the poor man’s possession, the poor person has no right to exchange his gleanings for the stalk which the owner gives to him and if the owner later uses that ear of gleanings in his stack he still robs the poor.? But he has to give the poor rights to the entire stack35This is known as “a gift on condition that it must be returned,” which legally is a gift as long as it is with the recipient. In our case, the poor has to get possession of the stack only long enough to accept any other stalk in lieu of the gleaning he should be given; then the stack reverts to the owner and now the latter may give the heave of the tithe to the Cohen and a stalk to the poor.; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives it to him. HALAKHAH: What is standing grain that saves standing grain36In Mishnah 6:7 it is stated that standing grain saves other standing grain which the farmer forgot to cut. The question is, how far away may an entire uncut patch be from the main uncut field that it should not be forgotten? The answer is the same as in our Mishnah, that the head of one of the stalks of the forgotten patch may be bent, without breaking the stem, to touch the as yet uncut part of the field.? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the same as we have stated: a single ear on the field to be harvested and its head reaches to the standing grain. Rebbi Yose said, only if the harvested field surrounds it37Otherwise, it never can be counted as forgotten. In contrast to the next two conditions which restrict the case in which it is not forgotten, this one restricts the possible applications of the rules of forgotten produce., and only if its head reaches the standing grain, and only if it can be cut together with standing grain. If it can be cut together with standing grain but standing grain cannot be cut with it38If the angle of the sickle with the ground is too large when the harvester stands close to the unharvested grain, the harvester cannot start cutting the single stalk and reach the standing patch with one sweep of the sickle., it is saved. If there were two, the inner one can be cut together with the outermost standing grain, but the outer one cannot be cut with the standing grain; the inner one is saved and saves39It saves the outer one if the outer one could be cut together with the inner one and the inner one could be cut together with standing grain. Hence, the notion of being saved is transitive for any row of stalks that could be cut in pairs.. Rebbi Hoshaia said, when I was mashing olives with the great Rebbi Ḥiyya, he said to me: Any olive that you can reach when stretching out your hand is not forgotten40After shaking the olive tree you may go around over all branches you worked on and take the olives still on the tree. It is only when you move your ladder that the remainder becomes property of the poor.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he passed it over and forgot it, it is forgotten41If in his mind he is finished with one branch, he may not return to it.. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Hoshaia: A single ear on the field to be harvested and its head reaches to the grain. Can you not stretch out your hand and take a single ear on the harvested field42The condition that the ear must touch the standing stalks is certainly much more restrictive than that a harvester, standing in front of the grain, cannot pluck by hand on the other side.? Rebbi Illai in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: They said that about the second row43The Mishnah speaks of a stalk left over from cutting the first row. If in harvesting the second row one returns to the place of that ear, it is as when in plucking leftover olives one returns to a harvested spot after moving the ladder and then even R. Ḥiyya agrees that this is forgotten property.. Can something that is apt to be saved but was forgotten become legally forgotten? Let us hear from the following: “When he removed45עימר as a verbal form “removing the sheaf” is defined by Rashi in Šabbat127a. R. S. Lieberman points out that this parallels Biblical דִּשֵּׁן “removed the ashes”, from the noun דשן “ashes.” the first, second, and third sheaves46He not only bound them but he also removed them to a storage place or threshing floor. This statement puts the standard row of sheaves at three sheaves. Hence, the full second row would be sheaves 4,5,6. but forgot47To remove the fourth after it was bound. the fourth, some state: If he took away the fifth one, it (the fourth) becomes legally forgotten, but some state: If he waited long enough that he could have taken away the fifth one, it becomes legally forgotten.” Rebbi Avin bar Ḥiyya said, he who says, “if he removed the fifth one,” (speaks of the case) where there is a sixth one48Because sheaves in a row are saved by the next sheaf just as stalks in a row are saved by the next stalk. Hence, the fourth can become legally forgotten only if the fifth, which saves it from being legally forgotten, is removed., but he who says, “if he waited long enough that he could have removed the fifth one,” (speaks of the case) where there is no sixth one49Since there is no row of three sheaves, they will be taken to be removed individually and not as a row. It suffices that the fifth could have been finished and removed.. Before he took away the fifth one, would not the fourth one be apt to be considered starting a row50If there are six sheaves, the fourth does not become legally abandoned until the sheaf which saves it is removed.? That means that something that is apt to be saved but was forgotten can become legally forgotten. Can something that is apt to save but was forgotten become legally forgotten? Let us hear from the following52Mishnah 6:6 reads: “Standing grain in the volume on two seah (about .9 cubic feet) cannot be legally forgotten.” Then Mishnah 6:8 adds: “One seah of cut grain and one seah of uncut grain do not combine.” That means, both of them may become legally forgotten.: “One seah of cut grain and one seah of uncut grain.” Here the cut grain should save the uncut grain53If they are contiguous and would combine. In Halakhah 6:8 it is pointed out that Mishnah 6:8 seems to follow the ruling of Rabban Gamliel in Mishnah 6:5 that sheaves which add up to a volume of 2 seah are exempt from the law of forgotten sheaves. Then there is no reason why cut and uncut grain should not be combined.. That means that something that is apt to save, but was forgotten, can become legally forgotten. Rebbi Jonah54In Halakhah 6:8, “Rebbi Jonathan.” The reading here is the more likely one since Rebbi Jonathan is a very early Amora. said, explain it if he was cutting and removing the sheaves row by row55The field contains much more than two rows of a seah each. Hence, the two do not have to be adjacent in space or time and the Mishnah has no implication for our question.. He already forgot the standing grain before he might forget the sheaves. How does he do it56Here starts the discussion of the second sentence of the Mishnah, the requirement that the farmer give tithes before he delivers the replacement for the gleanings to the poor. The problem is that heave and tithes can be given only from produce subject to the laws of heave and tithes. Gleanings are exempt from these laws and, therefore, cannot be used as either heave or tithes.? He brings two ears and says: If this one is gleanings, all is fine; but if not, then its tithes are contained in the other one, and he gives him57The poor person. The other one is given to the priest. the first one. Do we not have to worry that the one used to contain tithes in it was gleanings? Rebbi Jonah said, he brings two ears and says: If this one is gleanings, all is fine; but if not, then its tithes are contained in the other one, and he gives him one of them58He must treat the two ears equally and make the declaration twice. He then is restricted to give the ear only to a poor person who may eat tithes, i. e., a Levite or a Cohen. The other ear is then to be given as tithes, not necesarily to a poor person. [Interpretation of this elliptic statement given by R. David ben Zimra to Maimonides, Mattenot Aniïm 4:10.]. Rebbi Abbahu59Here we discuss the last part of the Mishnah, the disagreement between the Sages and R. Eliezer on whether it is possible to transfer property of a single ear or whether it is necessary first to give the entire stack to the poor. in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this follows Rebbi Yose60Bar Ḥalaphta, the Tanna., as we have stated there61The Mishnah Bekhorot 2:6 deals with a sheep whose first lambs are male twins of which it is unknown which one was the firstborn. It is then decreed that one of them be given to the Cohen, and the other one (who might be the firstborn and, if without blemish, should be brought as sacrifice) should graze until it develops a bodily defect and then can be eaten. The first Tanna (representing R. Meïr) insists that the second animal is subject to the rule of obligatory gifts to the Cohen as profane meat. Rebbi Yose disagrees, and in a baraita (also Babli Bekhorot18a) explains that every animal whose exchange is in the hand of the Cohen is freed from the rule of obligatory gifts. The Babli explains, in an apparent disagreement with the interpretation of the Yerushalmi, that this is not a general principle but it underlines the special status of the second animal which, as a potential sacrifice, may not be shorn or used for work.: “For Rebbi Yose says that everything whose replacement is in the hand of the Cohen is freed from the obligatory gifts, but Rebbi Meïr obligates him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest62It is not enough to designate an ear as tithes; it must actually be delivered into the hand of the Cohen.. Rebbi Yose63The later Amora. said, the statement of Rebbi Abba contradicts Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish since we have stated here: “He has to give the poor rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives to him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest, hence64This is the Amora Rebbi Yose’s inference. this is not from the words of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Mana said, the Mishnah itself testifies that it is by Rebbi Yose65Everybody agrees that transfer of property must take place, but not necessarily delivery; the Tanna R. Yose requires only transfer of property rights.. The first Tanna wants to say that he transfers as property to the poor not the entire stack but only one ear. The other Tanna wants to say that he transfers the entire stack as property to the poor. The first Tanna wants to say that this66The symbolic transfer of the entire stack to the poor as a “gift on condition that it be returned” is considered a subterfuge without legal validity. is like the transfer of property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is no transfer. The other Tanna wants to say that it is not transferring property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is transfer67And is legally valid.. Rebbi Zeïra stated68These three words are not in the text of R. Simson of Sens and not in that of R. Solomon Cirillo. The text of R. Simson is certainly smoothed in the sense of standard Hebrew grammar; the text of R. S. Cirillo may be smoothed.: Rebbi Abbahu in the name of R. Joḥanan: The reasoning of Rebbi Eliezer is inverted! There69In chapter 4, Mishnah 6, Rebbi Eliezer declares that any person can collect for a poor one, so that the second one is the immediate owner and the collector never has ownership. How can this be squared with the statement of R. Eliezer in the current Mishnah? he makes him acquire, and here he says thus? He answered “according to your reasoning70A standard expression in both Talmudim. Rebbi Eliezer points out a logical flaw in the reasoning of his opponents; the objection is irrelevant for himself, by Mishnah 4:6.,” in your reasoning that you say it is by exchange71Since the Sages oppose R. Eliezer in Mishnah 4:6, holding that the non-poor X can never acquire gifts to the poor for the poor Y, how can the owner transfer ownership in gleanings by exchange? R. Eliezer’s procedure with the formal gift is needed only for his opponents in 4:6; for himself he will rule that the owner may acquire the gleanings for the poor recipient.. “How can the poor man exchange something that never was in his possession? But he has to give the poor man rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives to him.”

MISHNAH: One does not use a waterwheel with buckets72After the harvest, before the poor had cleaned out vineyard (or field), to avoid hurting the vines (or to prepare the field for the next season.), the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages do permit it, because it is impossible73To do otherwise, since the vineyard would dry up. [This translation follows תוספתא כפשוטה p. 155; it is not much different from the explanation of Arukh (s. v. טפח) in the name of R. Daniel Gaon.]. A householder wandering from one place to another who was in need of taking gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and tithes of the poor74Since his money had run out. should repay them once he comes home, the words of Rebbi Eliezer75Taking into account his property at his place of residence, at no time was he eligible for public assistance.. But the Sages say, he was poor at that moment76Having no money with him and unable to get credit.. HALAKHAH: It was stated77Tosephta Peah 2:20. There, the reading is: “R. Jehudah says, he collects (the part of the poor) and deposits it on the fence.”: He who waters his field before a poor person had entered it, if his potential loss is greater than the poor man’s, it is permitted, but if the poor man’s loss is greater than his, it is prohibited. Rebbi Jehudah says, in both cases he deposits them on the fence and the poor man comes and takes what is his. The reasoning of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted: There78Mishnah 7:5: “If somebody is pruning vines, just as he is pruning his, he may prune the poor’s, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Meïr says, he is empowered to do it on his own vines, but not on the poor’s.” One prunes new shoots of vines at the start of the growing season; at that moment, the poor have rights only to the grapes growing singly, not in bunches, directly on the branch., he says that just as he prunes for himself, so he prunes for the poor; but here he says thus79He collects and puts the poor’s part aside.! There, they caused it for themselves since they did not come80Nobody is wasting time to pluck budding single grape berries. In Halakhah 7:5, there is an another answer given: Since by pruning one makes the vine grow more grape bunches, the poor’s part also will be increased in the future., but here they came. The reasoning of the rabbis is inverted: There81In Mishnah 7:5, R. Meïr, who disagrees with R. Jehudah, is identified with the anonymous opponent of Rebbi Jehudah in the Tosephta quoted at the start of this Halakhah., they say if his potential loss is greater than the poor’s, and here they say thus82In our Mishnah, they permit using the water wheel to mechanically water the vineyard.! There, it is possible83To prune only after the poor collected their share., but here it is impossible. Now Rebbi Meïr says, one does not use the water wheel, and one estimates the loss to the owner. Now the rabbis say, one uses the water wheel and estimates the loss to the poor84So why does R. Meïr insist on not watering, if all accounts can be satisfied with money?. To whom does he pay? Rebbi Jonah said, to the poor of his place, because otherwise, what could we say85There is no individual claimant; hence, there would be no payment unless the head of the local charity institution brings action in the name of all local, potentially empowered, poor.? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, it is needed for the measure of justice86Even the administrator of charity could not bring action unless specifically empowered to do so. It is therefore not superfluous to restrict the potential claimants to those represented by the administrator of charity..

MISHNAH: If he87If the farmer takes from the poor their gleanings or peah in exchange for grain from his storage, what he takes is not subject to tithes, since gleanings and peah are exempt, but what the poor take is subject to heave and tithes. switches with the poor, what he receives is exempt but what the poor get is obligated. If two persons received a field as sharecroppers88That means, both are poor. [The meaning of the word אריס is “cultivator of the soil”, from Arabic اريس, designating a tenant farmer. In both Talmudim, the designation is restricted to sharecroppers.], one gives his part and his tithes of the poor to the other one89Nobody may take tithes of the poor, gleanings, etc., from his own harvest even if he is poor. Since the sharecropper has a proprietary interest in the growing plants, he may not take any of the gifts to the poor. But if two poor people work two sides of one field, each one is entitled to all the gifts to the poor accruing from the other’s half., and vice-versa. He who receives a field to harvest is barred from its gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah. Rebbi Jehudah said, when is this so90The Babli postulates that everywhere R. Jehudah is mentioned with the question אימתי, he does not disagree with the anonymous text of the Mishnah but gives it a restrictive definition. The Yerushalmi seems to agree with this.? When he received it for one-half, one third, or one quarter91The standard terms of a sharecropper’s contract.; but if he told him, one third of what you will harvest will be yours92In this case, the sharecropper has no property claim to the standing grain; the harvest is the landowner’s and the sharecropper may take the gifts to the poor from this crop. However, tithes of the poor, like any other tithes, are an obligation on the threshed grains and there the sharecropper is already an owner and the tithes of the poor are prohibited to him., he may take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah but not the tithes of the poor. HALAKHAH: It is stated93Tosephta Maäser Šeni 4:7 in a slightly different wording. A third version, in which the answer to R. Jehudah is missing, is given in Babli Qiddushin 32a.: A father and his son94The grownup son who earns his own money., a man and his relative, two brothers, two associates redeem Second Tithe95Cf. Chapter 1, Note 127. In the times of the Temple, if the accumulated amount of Second Tithe was too large, the produce could be redeemed and the money taken to Jerusalem to be spent on similar food (Deut. 14:25). After the destruction of the Temple, Second Tithe has to be redeemed for a symbolic amount since the redemption money then has to be destroyed. However, it is spelled out in the last chapter of Leviticus that a person who redeems any of his dedications has to add another 25% to the redemption sum. A redemption by a third party is not subject to this surtax. It is therefore in everybody’s interest to let a third party redeem Second Tithes. for one another and give tithe of the poor to one another96If they qualify as poor.. Rebbi Jehudah said, a curse should come upon him who gives tithe of the poor to his father97Even if his father can no longer work and has no savings, the son should not treat him as receiver of charity.. He said, why? If they were both poor98If the son himself qualifies for public assistance as a poor person, it is acceptable that he give the tithe of the poor of his plot to his father.! What99This paragraph is almost identical with one in Chapter 2, Halakha 7, with references to “here” and “there” switched as required. The name of the tradent has been switched from the correct “Abin bar Ḥiyya” to a non-existent “Ḥiyya bar Abin”. The discussion is about the ruling by R. Jehudah that the sharecropper may take the gifts to the poor if his share is only produce which is already cut. is the difference between this and the first case100Of the usual sharecropper who has rights to the growing plants.? It must be “if you cut it, a third will be yours101Only after the harvest is completed does the sharecropper get rights..” Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, that implies that the seller may get the peah which permits the sheaves102In the situation of Mishnah 2:7, 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 from it if he is poor.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun103He 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 come during his ownership, but here the obligation of the field did not come during his ownership. Rebbi Abbahu bar Naggari104An Amora whose time and place cannot be determined. His reasoning parallels R. Yose’s: Gleanings etc. have to be abandoned on the field and it was not the sharecropper’s field. But tithes, including the tithe of the poor, have to be given after threshing, and in that poor and rich are in the same situation. said, there is a difference for gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah because they have to be abandoned.

MISHNAH: If someone sells his field, the seller is permitted105If he is poor at harvest time. but the buyer is barred. Nobody should hire a worker on condition that his son may collect gleanings after him106And for this pay him smaller wages, since he is paying his debts with the money of the poor.. He who does not let the poor collect gleanings, or who lets one person collect but not the other, or helps one of them, robs the poor. On him it was said (Prov. 22:28, 23:10): “Do not displace an eternal boundary107The implication is from the second part of the verse: “Nor intrude on the land of orphans.” On Prov.22:28, Rashi comments: “Do not displace an eternal boundary,” do not change established usage; our teachers said: He who puts a basket under the vine at harvest time so that the single berries fall into it, on him it is said, do not displace an eternal boundary. On Prov. 24:10, Rashi writes, “Nor intrude on the land of orphans,” the gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah which belong to them..” HALAKHAH: Our Mishnah is about someone who sold the field with the standing crop. But if someone sold the standing crop and retained the field for himself, for him I read “your field”, for the other one I read “your harvest.109Since Deut. 24:19 reads: “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field,” both the owner of the field and the owner of the harvest are forbidden to take of the gleanings and peah.” “By doing so, he robs the poor.” The owner who does that robs the poor110Either by not giving at all or by limiting the chances of the disfavored.. The worker who does that robs the owner111He robs the owner of the merit, either leading him into sin by offering to work for lower wages on condition that his son get all gleanings and peah, or, if the owner does not know that he lets his son take everything, by not letting him fulfil the Biblical commandments. The Babli (Baba Meẓi‘a 12a) disagrees and postulates as standard labor practice that the worker’s minor son may collect gleanings after his father. The Babli must restrict the meaning of the Mishnah to the case that the worker agrees to take wages smaller than customary. and the poor, and about him it was said: “Do not displace an eternal boundary.” Rav Jeremiah and Rav Joseph112This homily is based on a reading in the Mishnah, not אַל תַּסֵּג גְּבוּל עוֹלָם but אַל תַּסֵּג גְּבוּל עוֹלִים “do not displace the boundary of the rising.” This reading is attested to by Maimonides in his Commentary and is found in most Mishnah manuscripts of Babylonian type. One might assume that the scribes of most of the Mishnah manuscripts of Yerushalmi type were more versed in Biblical verses and copied from memory rather than from the text before them. As explained before, the part important for theMishnah is the second part of the verse. Here, by a change of vocalization, one author wants to give a better parallel to “orphan” than “eternal”., one said these are the ones who came up from Egypt, the other said these are the ones who lost their property; a blind man is called “plenty of light.113Those coming down in the world are called “rising”.” Rebbi Isaac said, (Is. 58:7) “degraded poor you shall bring to your house114He objects to the previous homily since a verse explicitly called the poor “degraded.”.” Rebbi Abin said, if you do this115To bring the poor into your house. This homily no longer is connected to the Mishnah., I will credit it to you as if you had presented First Fruits in the Temple. It says here, “you shall bring,” and it says there (Ex. 23:19): “The first fruits of your land you shall bring to the Eternal’s Temple116See the commentary of I. A. Rabin to Mekhilta Mišpatim 20 (p. 335) that there is a clear disagreement between Babylonian and Galilean Amoraïm in the interpretation of “to bring” in this verse, and the interpretation given here is Babylonian..”

MISHNAH: A sheaf forgotten by the workers but not by the owner, by the owner but not by the workers, or the poor stood before it or covered it with straw117Anything the poor hide in any way when the sheaves are loaded to be brought to the barn., is not a forgotten sheaf. HALAKHAH: A sheaf forgotten by the workers but not by the owner is not a forgotten sheaf since it is written (Deut. 24:19): “When you harvest and you forget118The verse reads: “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field and forget a sheaf on the field, you may not return to take it.” Since “harvesting a harvest” is redundant language, it is split into two. “Your harvest” refers to the owner, “harvesting” refers to the farmhands who do the actual work. Both have to forget. (This implies that the owner must have known of the sheaf.).” If the owner forgot but the workers did not, it is not a forgotten sheaf since it is written: “When you are harvesting and you forget.” Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah119A fifth generation Tanna, from Kefar Acco, student of R. Simeon (bar Ioḥai). His statement also appears in Tosephta Peah 3:1. says in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Even if donkey drivers120In the Tosephta and the original scribe (who usually is better than the corrector) of the Leyden manuscript: “others”. passing by on the road saw a sheaf forgotten by the workers but not by the owner121The language is difficult but is attested to by the Yerushalmi manuscripts and R. Simson of Sens. According to R. Saul Lieberman, it means that the owner never knew of the sheaf and he was not on the field during harvest. In our Tosephta manuscripts, “and not by the owner” is missing. R. Moshe Margalit writes that in his Tosephta manuscript, “by the workers” also is missing; there is only a reference to “them” who forgot. From the text of Maimonides (Mattenot Aniïm 5:1) it seems that he read: “was forgotten by the workers and by the owner.”, it is not a forgotten sheaf unless everybody forgot it. If he stood in town and said: I know that the workers are forgetting sheaves at place X; if they forgot it is not a forgotten sheaf123Tosephta Peah 3:1, reading of the Vienna manuscript. The Erfurt manuscript and printed editions have “this is a forgotten sheaf;” this is the Babylonian version (Baba Meẓi‘a 11a). The parallel in the Babli in every case adopts a position opposite to that taken by the Yerushalmi. The explanation given here follows the analysis in Tosephta Kifshutah 1, p. 159–160.. If he stood on the field and said: I know that the workers are forgetting sheaves at place X; [if they forgot] it is a forgotten sheaf, since it says (Deut. 24:19): “On your field and you forget a sheaf.” On the field you forget, but in town you do not forget. Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Samuel124In the Rome manuscript, “Rebbi Zeïra, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel.” Since Rav Jehudah was Samuel’s student and R. Zeïra’s teacher, the formula of indirect quote “in the name of” there is superfluous. The Babli (Baba Meẓi‘a 11a) has: “Rav Jehudah said, Samuel said,” as direct transmission.: The same holds in regard to found objects125This refers to the Mishnah Baba Meẓi‘a 1:4: “If he saw them running after a lost object, a deer with broken bones, pigeon chicks not yet able to fly, and he said: My field should acquire this for me, it acquires for him” (on condition that the field be either fenced in or that something is growing which makes it inaccessible to the public.) In the case of sheaves, if he is not standing on the field and wants the field to acquire the sheaf, it is valid. However, if he stands in or near the field, the field cannot acquire for him since the sheaf is his and nobody can acquire anything he already owns. Hence, if he stands in his field and claims that sheaf but later forgets it, the earlier remembrance will not help him since, in that case, the field will not acquire for him. In our case he must be able to go and reach the slowly moving animals before they leave his field.. Where are we holding? If he may touch it, in the city, even inside his field126Does he acquire only if the deer is so severely injured that he still will find it inside his field when he goes there from town? In the name of R. Joḥanan, the answer given confirms the questioner’s opinion.. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if he can touch them, even inside his field. If it was completely covered by straw127Not intentionally covered by the poor, but a sheaf lying covered under straw, which nobody noticed when the sheaves were taken in.? Let us hear from the following: “The blind128If the farmer is blind, his disability does not change the laws. who forgot makes a forgotten sheaf.” Is a blind person not like a sheaf completely covered by straw? Rebbi Jonah said, if he remembered the straw129Since he will come back to collect the straw, he must stumble upon the sheaf. The sheaf is not forgotten since he will be returning to it.. Rebbi Jonah’s position is parallel to Rebbi Zeïra’s; just as Rebbi Zeïra said130Chapter 6, Halakhah 3, speaking about two sheaves to be taken by one of the workers and forgotten by the farmer. The farmer personally lifted the upper one; by lifting he acquired it permanently. The lower one was covered and, therefore, cannot be a forgotten sheaf. Rebbi Zeïra explains that the lower, covered sheaf is forgotten unless the farmer remembered the upper, already acquired one., if he remembers the upper one, so Rebbi Jonah said, if he remembered the straw.

MISHNAH: He131Translation and interpretation follows in the main Maimonides in his Commentary on the Mishnah. “He” is the farmer, the owner of the crop. who makes sheaves as helmets132As explained in the Halakhah, sheaves bound together at the top, just under the ears, looking like hats., round bundles133Bound together at the bottom. Loew accepts a derivation parallel to Arabic כמז “collecting and making round bundles with one’s hands.”, wheels134Grain bundles in the shape of wheels., and small sheaves135Needed to make stacks, not to be taken directly to the threshing floor. is not subject to the law of forgotten sheaves. If he takes them from there to the threshing-floor, the rules on forgotten sheaves apply. If he makes sheaves for a stack, it is subject to the rules on forgotten sheaves. If he takes them from there to the threshing-floor, the rules on forgotten sheaves do not apply. This is the principle: Everybody who makes sheaves for a place that is the end of his work136As harvester; from there a new phase of the work starts. is subject to the rule on forgotten sheaves, from there to the threshing-floor is not subject to the rule on forgotten sheaves137That transport is no longer part of the harvest.. To a place that is not the end of his work it is not subject to the rule on forgotten sheaves, from there to the threshing-floor138The end of the harvest. is subject to the rule on forgotten sheaves. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah says, from the top, as you say (1Sam. 17:5): “A brass helmet on his head.” Round bundles, Rebbi Avinah said, from the bottom, as you say (Deut. 32:34): “It is hidden with me.” 139With the different meanings of the Hebrew/Aramaic root חרר, this could mean 1) something burned (a charcoal-broiled cake), 2) a round mass, 3) a hole, 4) freedom. Hence, it is necessary to spell out that meaning 2) is meant.חֲרָרָה a wheel. Small sheaves, Rebbi Joḥanan said (Deut. 24:19): “When you will be harvesting the harvest of your field and you forget a sheaf on the field,” just as harvest has no other harvest after it140On the same field. This would imply that he who cuts part of his field green either for fodder or for Grünkern, is not subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf., so too a sheaf, which has no other sheaf-making after it.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor is abandoned1It is free from any obligation of heave and tithes., but the House of Hillel say, it is not abandoned unless it is abandoned also to the rich, as in a Sabbatical year2I. e., what grows on the fields in a Sabbatical year without being planted or sown, which is exempt from heave and tithes.. If all sheaves of a field are of one qab each, except one which is of four qab and they forgot about that one, the House of Shammai say, it cannot be a forgotten sheaf3Because it may be unbundled into several sheaves and, therefore, is not a final sheaf as required by the preceding Mishnah., but the House of Hillel say, it can be a forgotten sheaf. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya4Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of the House of Shammai (Lev. 19:10, 23:22)5“Do not go over your vineyard a second time, nor pick up the single berries of your vineyard; to the poor and the sojourner relinquish them.” Why does it say “relinquish,” and not “give”? “for the poor and the sojourner.” Why does the verse say, “relinquish them”? There is another relinquishing like this one. Just as this one is for the poor and not the rich, also what is spoken of elsewhere6Any meaning of עזב must conform with this paradigm. is for the poor and not for the rich. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the reason of the House of Hillel, (Ex.23:11)7Speaking of the produce of the Sabbatical year. “let drop,” why does the verse say, “and abandon it”? There is another abandoning like this one. Just as this one is for poor and rich alike, also what is spoken of elsewhere8Any meaning of נטש must conform with this paradigm. is for poor and rich alike. How9As in most Talmudic discussions, if themes 1–2 are introduced in order, they will be discussed as 2–1. The verse whose interpretation is ascribed to the House of Shammai is also the base of R. Joḥanan’s interpretation for the House of Hillel. do the House of Hillel deal with the reason of the House of Shammai? “Relinquish them” is a restriction, these are for the poor, not for the rich, but what is spoken of elsewhere10Where עזב is used, it does not have to conform to the paradigm. is for poor and rich alike. How do the House of Shammai deal with the reason of the House of Hillel? “Let it drop and abandon it” is a restriction, this abandoning is for poor and rich alike, but what is spoken of elsewhere11Where נטש is used, it does not have to conform to the paradigm. is for the poor but not for the rich. Rebbi Avin said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish12Since the House of Shammai disappeared soon after the destruction of the Temple and R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish lived almost 200 years later, their deductions are intellectual exercises which moreover have been shown here to be contradictory, as the same principles applied to two different verses lead to contradictory results. But R. Simeon ben Laqish’s argument very likely is historically true.: “Abandoned also to the rich, as in the Sabbatical year.” Property abandoned to animals but not to humans, to Gentiles but not to Jews, to rich but not to poor, everybody agrees that it does not have the status of abandoned property13And is subject to the laws of heave and tithes.. For humans but not for animals, for Jews but not for Gentiles, for the poor of one town but not for the poor of any other town14This shows that the entire discussion is about the opinion of the House of Shammai. However, in Tosephta Peah 3:1 it is stated that “the House of Shammai agree with the House of Hillel that if he abandoned property for humans but not for animals, for Jews but not for Gentiles, it is legally abandoned.” This, then, must be taken as the Babylonian position. is a disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, this abandoning is legal abandoning15In his opinion, restrictive abandoning is permitted.. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this abandoning is not legal abandoning16Since he deduces the rules from the Sabbatical year, and there animals and the stranger are explicitly mentioned as beneficiaries.. Rebbi Lia said, they disagree explicitly: Rebbi Joḥanan said, this abandoning is legal abandoning. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this abandoning is not legal abandoning. Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, that which was said, if it was abandoned to the poor but grabbed by the rich is a difference between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Yose17The main source is Nedarim, Babli 43a ff., Yerushalmi 4:10. The Mishnah speaks of a person A who made a vow not to use anything belonging to another person B. According to R. Meïr, B may abandon some property which A may take, but according to R. Yose, the abandoned property still belongs to B (who is also responsible for any damage caused by or on this property) until someone picked it up; hence, A may not take up the abandoned property.. According to Rebbi Meïr, who asserts that [it is legally abandoned] as soon as a person abandons anything from his property, [in our case] it is legally abandoned18The rich person, while acting in an improper way, nevertheless acquired the abandoned article.. According to Rebbi Yose, who says that nothing may leave the hands of its owners except if it is taken up [by another person, in our case] it is not legally abandoned19Since under the terms of the abandonment, the rich person will not acquire it even if he picks it up.. So far23These two words belong to Nedarim, not here. The question is, whether a person may abandon real property on condition that it automatically revert to the previous owner unless picked up by another person in a certain interval of time. In order to avoid declarations of abandonment simply for the purpose of evading heave, tithes, and taxes, restrictions might have been placed by the Rabbinic Court on the right of reversal., if he abandoned it for a longer period of time. But if he abandoned only for a short time? Let us hear from the following24The two passages in quotation marks are from a text close to Tosephta Ma‘serot 3:11; see also Babli Nedarim 43b–44a.: “If he abandoned his field, he may cancel his action during two or three days25But after that, the renunciation becomes absolute..” Rebbi Simeon Dima stated before Rebbi Zeïra: Even after three he may cancel his action. He said to him, since you say after three days, is it the same after three or after many? The language of a baraitha supports Rebbi Zeïra: “About when is this said26That after two days the act becomes irrevocable.? If he abandoned in an unspecified way. But if he said: My field shall be abandoned one day, one week, one month, one year, a sabbatical period, as long as nobody took it over, either he or another person, he may cancel. But after somebody acquired it, either he or somebody else, he cannot cancel.” This means that short or long periods are the same. It also means that they were not worried about dishonesty27Since the probability that nobody else took the property is very small.. That obviously answers Rebbi Zeïra’s question, since Rebbi Zeïra had said, are short and long times the same? What are we discussing29This deals with the last part of the Mishnah, quoted by R. Jonah, that an outsize sheaf left on the field is not “forgotten” for the House of Shammai.? If it should be recognizable, two would be enough. If for a row30This refers to Mishnah 4, which states that two sheaves constitute forgotten sheaves, but three sheaves do not. On this, the Halakhah specifies that the three sheaves must form a row in order to escape the law of forgotten sheaves., three would be enough. One scholar quoted this statement by Rebbi Joḥanan before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Anything he can split and make into a row following the House of Shammai31At the end of Mishnah 4, the House of Shammai is quoted as giving three sheaves to the poor, four sheaves to the farmer.. Rebbi Jonah: That goes by proportionality; “if all sheaves of a field are of one qab each, except one which is of four qab and they forgot about that one,” if all sheaves of a field are of two qab each, except one which is of eight qab.

MISHNAH: A sheaf that was near a closure32Where an opening in a fence was closed with wood or other materials. This is the concurrent explanation of Rashi (Baba Meẓi‘a25b), Rabbenu Ḥananel (loc. cit.), and Maimonides (Commentary on the Mishnah) and, therefore, Geonic tradition. Ben Jehudah derives the word from the root גוף, גפף “to close an opening.” For example, מגופה is a clay block with which the top of an amphora containing wine or olive oil is sealed. The deviating explanation of R. Simson of Sens, “a stone fence made without mortar,” is preferred by modern Talmudic dictionaries. Schwab translates: “fence of pales,” close to the Modern Hebrew acception: “fence made of a weave of reeds or rods.”, a stack, cattle33Cattle rather than horses were used to draw agricultural implements., or vessels, if it was forgotten, the House of Shammai say, it is not a forgotten sheaf, but the House of Hillel say, it is a forgotten sheaf. HALAKHAH: It is difficult about the House of Shammai; closure and stack are definite things, and they say it is not a forgotten sheaf. It is difficult about the House of Hillel; cattle and vessels are not definite things, and they say it is a forgotten sheaf34The background of the question is not clear. It is stated in the paragraph after the next that in one interpretation the Mishnah deals only with the case that the sheaf was already taken up to be brought to the threshing floor but then was deposited somewhere and forgotten. It is stated as a general principle of the House of Shammai that the farmer already acquired final possession of the sheaf by taking it up. The House of Hillel is of the opinion that the Biblical ordinance of the forgotten sheaf overrides everything until the grain is removed from the fields. The operating term in this respect is (Deut. 24:19) “and you will forget,” i. e., it must be you who forgets. We have to assume that the House of Shammai in principle also will agree to such an interpretation. Then we would say that it is difficult to forget something deposited near a landmark; hence, if it is forgotten, the House of Shammai are not justified not to declare it a forgotten sheaf. On the other hand, if the sheaf was deposited near movable objects and is not easily found again, the House of Hillel should have accepted the action of prior acquisition. (Interpretation of Tosafot Yom Tov on the Mishnah.)But the position of this set of questions before the interpretation of the Mishnah seems to indicate that the question is asked in a general way, rather than about a sheaf which was already taken up. Therefore, most commentators, from R. Simson to R. Z. Frankel, prefer to change the text and switch the names of Hillel and Shammai. There is no textual basis for this. The best interpretation of the text as it stands is the one of R. Moshe Margalit, who explains as follows: “It is difficult about the House of Shammai; (if their reason is that) closure and stack are definite things (location not easily forgotten), and they say (even for cattle and vessels,which are easily moved) it is not a forgotten sheaf! It is difficult about the House of Hillel, (if their reason is that) cattle and vessels are not stationary, and they say (even for closure and stack) it is a forgotten sheaf!”. “By its place, if it was standing beside the wine press or beside a breach in the fence35This is a quote from Mishnah 7:1: “Every olive tree which has a special name on the field, for example ‘a dripping olive tree’ at harvest time, if it was forgotten, is not subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf. How is this said? By its name, its yield, or its place.… By its place, if it was standing beside the wine press or beside a breach in the fence.”.” This Mishnah follows the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, it is not a forgotten sheaf36If the sheaf was forgotten near a well-defined breach in the fence. This would imply that practice has to follow the House of Shammai, against the general rule to follow the House of Hillel.. Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion. There a stationary object37The olive tree. is beside a stationary one, but here a movable object38The sheaf, which according to the House of Hillel is considered forgotten in the legal sense. is beside a stationary one. 40With some minor deviations, this is Tosephta Peah 3:2. Rebbi Ilaï41A Tanna of the third generation, student mostly of R. Eliezer, but also of the other great leaders of the second generation. Through his son, Rebbi Jehudah, the teachings of Rebbi Eliezer became so influential in the Mishnah. said: I asked Rebbi Joshua, about which sheaves do the Houses of Shammai and Hillel disagree? He said to me, this is the teaching: The sheaf which was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten, the House of Shammai say it is a forgotten sheaf, but the House of Hillel say it is not a forgotten sheaf42I. e., the Mishnah deals with the status of these sheaves under various circumstances. The text here switches the positions of the Houses of Hillel and Shammai. In the Tosephta, the rest of the sentence starting with “the House of Shammai say,” is missing. Hence, either R. Joshua disagrees with the Mishnah which is formulated in the tradition of R. Eliezer, or there is a scribal error. While in general, the opinion of R. Joshua prevails against that of R. Eliezer, here R. Eliezer’s opinion is endorsed in the strongest terms by R. Eleazar ben Azariah and should determine practice (Maimonides Mattenot Aniïm 5:3).. But when I came to Rebbi Eliezer, he told me that the Houses of Shammai and Hillel did not disagree that a sheaf near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten, was a forgotten sheaf. What did they disagree about? About a sheaf he took up43And removed the sheaf away from the original field; since the owner cannot acquire his own property on his own field, he must have moved on the public road at least for a few steps. Then the only question is whether the commandment of the forgotten sheaf overrides the acquisition. and put beside a closure, beside a stack, beside cattle, beside vessels, and forgot about it; in that case the House of Shammai say it is not a forgotten sheaf because he already acquired rights to it. But the House of Hillel say it is a forgotten sheaf. And when I came and lectured about these things before Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, he said to me, by the Covenant44An oath formula., these are the words that had been spoken to Moses on Horeb. There45Ketubot 8:1; there this paragraph and the next one appear. we have stated: “A woman who inherited property before she was betrothed46A Jewish marriage is performed in two stages. The first, qiddushin, which for lack of a better English equivalent was translated as “betrothed,” requires the groom to hand over to the bride an object of value (today, a gold ring) and to declare before two witnesses that the woman is betrothed to him. From that moment on they are married as far as penal law is concerned. In antiquity, the propective bride (who probably was in her early teens) did not prepare any trousseau. Hence, after qiddushin she was given adequate time to prepare and then was married to live with her husband in a second public ceremony, nissuïn, the execution of the ketubah document, in which the groom mortgages all his possessions and earnings for the upkeep of his wife and the care of his children, followed by the public recitation of seven benedictions (in the presence of 10 adult males). From that moment on, the couple is required to live in intimacy. Today, the two ceremonies are separated only by the reading of the ketubah and, sometimes, by a rabbi’s sermon. The period between qiddushin and nissuïn is one in which the groom is married, but as he is forbidden marital relations with his wife, as yet has no financial responsibility. After nissuïn, since the wife has a claim on his property enforceable in court, he receives administration of her estate., the Houses of Shammai and Hillel both are of the opinion that she may sell or give away and her actions are valid. If she inherited after she was betrothed, the House of Shammai say, she may sell, but the House of Hillel say, she may not sell47Since the husband will have a monetary interest in the property after nissuïn..” Rebbi Phineas asked before Rebbi Yose, why did we not state it with the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel48In the fourth chapter of Iddiut, the few cases in which the House of Shammai are more lenient than that of Hillel are enumerated. The first two Mishnaiot of the present chapter are included in that list, the one from Ketubot is not.? He said to him, the Mishnaiot come only for circumstances that are either stringent on both sides or lenient on both sides. But here it is a stringency on one side49On the wife, who is restricted in her actions. The law is lenient for the husband, who gets veto power over the actions of his wife before he mortgages all his property to her. and a leniency on the other side. But did we not state: “The House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor is abandoned?” Is this not lenient for the poor and stringent for the householder, and it was stated! It is lenient for the poor50In that non-poor persons may not acquire it. and not stringent for the householder, since it was abandoned by his intent. He said to him, did we not state: “The sheaf that was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten,” is this not lenient for the householder and stringent for the poor, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the householder but not stringent for the poor, because they did not acquire it yet. You may also say here51In the case of Ketubot., it is lenient for the woman and not stringent for the husband since he did not yet acquire property rights to it. He52Rebbi Yose. said to him, since he became betrothed to her, the inheritance fell to both of them. Rebbi Jehudah said53This paragraph belongs only to Ketubot; it was copied with the preceding paragraph., they argued before Rabban Gamliel: Because betrothed she is his wife and married she is his wife; just as the sale by the latter is void, the sale by the former also should be void. He said to them, we are ashamed of the new ones54To require the husband’s consent to any financial or business transaction by his wife., now you want to roll old ones over us55Extending the husband’s rights to qiddushin.! The new ones, after nissuïn, the old ones before nissuïn, when she was married in the second ceremony.

MISHNAH: Heads of rows56When sheaves are arranged in rows, the first sheaf in each row is always exempt from the law of forgotten sheaves since either one starts from it or one ends at it; in neither case could one return to it., the sheaf next to it proves57If sheaves were arranged in parallel rows, and the sheaves were then removed by rows in one direction. If a sheaf from one was left standing but in the orthogonal direction there was a sheaf standing next to it, the standing sheaf now belongs to a row in the other direction; it is not forgotten until it is isolated in all directions from the rest of the sheaves still on the field. (By Mishnah 4, two isolated sheaves may be “forgotten”, a group of three is not.), and a sheaf that was taken up to be brought to town58The House of Hillel agree with that of Shammai that as soon as the sheaf is taken up to be removed from growing areas, the laws of the forgotten stalk no longer apply. and then was forgotten, they all agree that they never are forgotten sheaves. The following describe heads of rows: Two who started in the middle of the row, one turned North and the other turned South, and they forgot before them or after them. The one before them is a forgotten sheaf59Any sheaf that at the start of the collection was in front of one of the workers, if forgotten, is subject to the law of forgotten sheaves. But if a sheaf was between the two, in the back of both of them, it is not forgotten since it never was considered, and it remains the head of an East-West row., the one after them is not a forgotten sheaf. A single person who started at the head of a row and forgot before and after himself. The one before him is not a forgotten sheaf60If he leaves sheaves before him but does not jump over one, these belong to East-West rows and do not have the status of being forgotten., but the one after him is a forgotten sheaf because it falls under (Deut. 24:19) “do not return to take it.” This is the principle: Anything that falls under “do not return to take it,” is a forgotten sheaf, but anything that does not fall under “do not return to take it,” is not a forgotten sheaf. HALAKHAH: From where about heads of rows61That they are exempt from the laws of forgotten sheaves.? Rebbi Jonah said, it is written (Deut. 24:19): “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field and you forget,” what you harvest you can forget62But you cannot forget what you only start to harvest. Hence, uncut stalks at the start of a row to be cut are not for the poor.. That refers to the start of rows of standing grain. End of rows of standing grain? Rebbi Jonah said, “do not return to take it.” From the place you came from you should not return to take it63At the end of the row one goes to the next row; since one is at the end of the field he cannot retrace his steps to the end of the row.. So far, about starts of rows of sheaves, ends of rows of sheaves? Rebbi Jonah said, we learn starts of rows of sheaves from starts of rows of standing grain and ends of rows of standing grain from ends of rows of sheaves64The verse speaks of the forgotten sheaf but is formulated in terms of harvesting standing grain. Just as forgotten standing stalks at beginning and end of rows are not for the poor, neither are sheaves at beginning and end of rows.. “The sheaf next to it proves65Quote from the Mishnah..” How is that? (Tosephta Peah 3:4): “If he had ten rows of ten sheaves each and he removed one row of them in a North-South direction; when he forgot one of them it is not forgotten because it is considered East-West66It is connected to the part of the field not yet worked over in the orthogonal direction..” When he then removed the sheaves East-West and forgot one of them, let us hear from the following67Word-by-word parallel to Chapter 5, Halakhah 2.: When he removed the first, second, and third sheaves68He not only bound them but he also removed them to a storage place or threshing floor. This statement assumes that a standard row of sheaves are three sheaves. Hence, the full second row would be sheaves 4,5,6. but forgot69To remove the fourth after it was bound. the fourth, some state: If he removed the fifth, it becomes legally forgotten, but some state: If he waited long enough that he could have removed the fifth, it becomes legally forgotten. Rebbi Avin bar Ḥiyya said, he who says, “if he removed the fifth” if there is a sixth70Because sheaves in a row are saved by the next sheaf just as stalks in a row are saved by the next stalk. Hence, the fourth can become legally forgotten only if the fifth, which saves it from being legally forgotten, is removed., but he who says, “if he waited long enough that he could have removed the fifth” if there is no sixth71Since there is no row of three sheaves, they will be taken to be removed individually and not as a row. Hence, it is enough that the fifth could have been finished and removed.. Before he took away the fifth, would not the fourth be apt to be considered starting a row72If there are six sheaves, the fourth does not become legally abandoned until the sheaf which saves it is removed.? If this is named “forgotten,” then also in our case73Of sheaves first taken N-S, then E-W. it is “forgotten.” If there was an oversize sheaf74And he decided to split it into regular size sheaves. and he removed a sheaf from the outside next to the inside, it is considered a row75If only part of the sheaf is removed, that part must be bound in a separate sheaf. We must assume that there is another sheaf standing nearby, so that there are three sheaves standing close together which form a row for the House of Hillel (Mishnah 4), or that the farmer splits his oversized sheaf into three, working from the outside in (which is the natural thing to do.). If he removed from the inside next to the outside, may it be considered a row76We still have a minimum of three sheaves (see preceding Note) but since the farmer works from the inside out he is going back and, by R. Jonah’s argument at the start of the Halakhah, the sheaf formed by the outside stalks should not be protected as “head of row.”? If he removed from the top beside the bottom it is considered a row77That means, he takes off the top stalks to form a separate sheaf, the bottom part taking the place of the original oversized sheaf. This certainly is legitimate. However, if the farmer contrives a way to pull the lower stalks out of the sheaf, the question is as before, whether any of the resulting sheaves can be protected as heads of a row. These purely theoretical questions are not answered.. If he removed from the bottom beside the top, is it considered a row? When Rav descended there78“There” always means Babylonia; going to Babylonia is “descending,” going to the Land of Israel is “ascending.” The story appears in the same context in Babli Sotah 45a, the actor being Abbaie, three generations after Rav; the Yerushalmi version is also in Sota 9:2., he declared: I am this place’s Ben Azai79Ben Azai, one of the most outstanding students of Rebbi Aqiba, was a walking encyclopedia and used to stroll through the markets of Tiberias, ready to immediately answer any question of Jewish learning. He died during mystical studies before he could marry R. Aqiba’s daughter. In the Talmudim, several sages are reported to have tried to imitate Ben Azai but all of them were quickly confronted with a question for which they gave the wrong answer or did not know any answer at all. The story is inserted here because a few paragraphs down hidden sheaves will be discussed.. There came an old man and asked him, two slain people, one on top of the other80This refers to Deut. 21:1–9, about the purification ceremony when a person is found murdered and the murderer is not found. Then a calf’s neck is broken in a ravine not used for agriculture.? Rav was of the opinion that one breaks the neck. He told him, one does not break the neck. He asked him, why? He said to him, not the lower one for he is hidden81The relevant verse is Deut. 21:1: “If a corpse is found on the land the Eternal, your God, gives to you.…” The lower body is not “found”; he is only discovered when the other body is removed. The upper body is not found on the land., not the upper one because he floats. When he ascended here, he came to Rebbi, who told him: He told you correctly, “if he is found,” and not “if they are found.” The great Rebbi Jehudah82He probably is Jehudah bar Ḥiyya, son of the great R. Ḥiyya and twin brother of Ḥizqiah. said: If a water canal crossed the entire field, if he has to lift the plough on one side and put it on the other side, it is not considered one row, otherwise it is considered one row83If the irrigation canal is so shallow that the farmer can plough right across, the rows on both sides form just one row together. But if the plough has to be lifted and carried to the other side, then even if the furrow on one side is the exact continuation of the one on the other side, there are legally two rows and four ends that are protected from the law of forgotten sheaves.. If he cut half a row and came back the next day it is considered a row84As in the following examples, anytime the harvest or the work on the sheaves was interrupted, the new start is counted as head of row and exempt from becoming “forgotten.”, when he sat down to eat, when he sat down to sleep, when his friend called him, when it got dark. “85An almost identical text is Tosephta Peah 3:3. R. Eliahu Fulda explains that חבירו refers to a friend of the farmer; he and his friend both carry a sheaf. This is impossible since one speaks about “upper and lower” sheaf. The other commentators, from Rashi on the Babli to R. S. Lieberman on the Tosephta, do not note the incongruity of having the farmer taking up one sheaf and forgetting two. One has to explain that חבירו is another sheaf; now two are lying on top of one another. {This is good Hebrew style, cf. Ex. 26:3 where gobelins are “sisters”.} When the upper one is taken up, it is acquired. The lower one then lies uncovered in the field and its status is the subject of the disagreement in the Tosephta. (Problem noted by E. G.) A sheaf he took to bring to town, put it on another one, and forgot about both, the lower one is a forgotten sheaf but the upper one is not a forgotten sheaf. Rebbi Simeon86In the Babli, Sotah 45b, this is quoted in the name of R. Simeon ben Jehudah who earlier in 5:6 quoted the tradition of R. Simeon (bar Ioḥai.) said, neither of them is a forgotten sheaf; not the lower one because it is covered87R. Simeon follows the opinion of R. Jehudah in Mishnah 9 that covered sheaves do not fall under the law of forgotten sheaves. and not the upper one because he already had acquired it.” Rebbi Zeïra said, if he remembers88If he somehow later remembers the upper one, it is his by prior acquisition as spelled out in the Mishnah. If he never remembers the upper one, then the lower one is not covered by anything different from itself and, therefore, cannot legally qualify as hidden.. Rebbi Zeïra parallels Rebbi Jonah, just as Rebbi Jonah said89Chapter 5, Halakhah 6, speaking about a sheaf covered under straw which is not forgotten as long as the farmer has the intention of collecting the straw since then the sheaf will automatically be discovered., if he remembers the straws, so Rebbi Zeïra said, if he remembers the upper one. (Tosephta Peah 3:4) “A field whose sheaves are mixed up, if one was forgotten it is not a forgotten sheaf until he removes all around it90The principle of the Mishnah is applied here to a field whose sheaves are not in orderly rows. Nevertheless, a sheaf is not legally forgotten unless it is completely isolated..”

MISHNAH: Two sheaves may qualify as forgotten sheaves, three may not. Two heaps of olives or carob may qualify as “forgotten sheaves”, three may not. Two plants91Definition of Maimonides and R. Simson, cf. Arabic חוּץ “palm leaves.” R. Isaac ben Malchisedek Simponti translates by Italian manelle “sheaves.” of hemp may qualify as “forgotten sheaves”, three may not. Two berries may qualify as dropped berries92Refers to Lev. 19:10: “The dropped berries in your vineyard you shall not collect; abandon them to the poor and the stranger.”, three may not. Two stalks may be gleanings, three may not, following the House of Hillel. About all of these, the House of Shammai say three are for the poor and four for the proprietor. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he made them like a Gamma (Γ)93The sentence combines the Mishnah and the end of the previous Halakhah: A sheaf is not forgotten unless it became isolated from the others. Then how can two sheaves become forgotten sheaves? If they stood like the ends of a Γ separated by a missing sheaf at the angle.. He said94The Mishnah speaks of “heaps of olives,” not single olives. only “heaps”, not olives. What is the difference between heaps and olives? Heaps are the end of the harvest95Hence, by Mishnah 5:7, the law of forgotten sheaves applies. Once the olives are put in orderly heaps, the work of the harvest is finished and that of the oil press starts., single olives are not the end of the harvest. Rebbi Hoshaia said96For comment, see Chapter 5, Halakhah 2, Note 40., when I was mashing olives with the great Rebbi Ḥiyya, he said to me: Any olive you can reach when stretching out your hand is not forgotten. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he passed it over and forgot it, it is forgotten. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of the great Rebbi Ḥiyya: Half a bunch of grapes are dropped berries. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Half a bunch of grapes or an entire bunch are dropped berries. But did we not state: “Two berries are dropped berries?” Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya: If he cuts and deposits them under the vine97Where the grapes become dusty and cannot be put in the basket to be transported either to the wine press or to market.. If they are made like a shepherd’s flute98Greek σίφων, -ωνος, ὁ, “pipe, water spout; a musical instrument” (I. Löw), same as Biblical (pl.) סופניה (Dan.3:10); Gesenius and Lysowski explain as bagpipe. A shepherd’s flute made from reeds of different lengths glued together; the question is whether a plant (probably hemp) that grows different stalks of different lengths from one root is counted as one (and is under the law of forgotten sheaves) or as several (and is not).? Menahem99A Galilean Amora of the third generation. His time may be determined from the fact that he quotes R. Ammi and is mentioned as teacher of R. Ḥaggai. in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Only if he cuts them equally100They may be counted as separate plants if they are cut equally near the ground. But stalks cut together count as one.. Rebbi Abin said, the reason of the House of Shammai (Deut.24:19,20,21): “It shall belong to the stranger, the orphan, and the widow101Since there are three categories mentioned, each of them should have the possibility to get a separate piece..” The reason of the House of Hillel (Lev. 19:10): “For the poor and the stranger.” Rebbi Mana said, both of them explained the same verse, “it shall belong to the stranger, the orphan, and the widow.” The House of Shammai say, for the poor102All three, as given by R. Abin., and the House of Hillel say, for the proprietor103Since there is only one connective “and”, only two belong together. However, there are three categories of people entitled to collect gleanings and leftovers..

MISHNAH: A sheaf containing two seah10425.6 liter, about .9 cu. ft., cf. Berakhot, Chapter 3, Note 164. Halakhah 6 spells out that the grain kernels alone, without the straw, are meant. that was forgotten is not a “forgotten sheaf.” Two sheaves that together are two seah, Rabban Gamliel says, they are for the proprietor, but the Sages say, they are for the poor. Rabban Gamliel said to them: Does large size of the sheaves increase or decrease the power of the proprietor? They said to him, it increases it. He said to them: Since a sheaf containing two seah that was forgotten is not “forgotten sheaf,” it is only logical that two sheaves that together are two seah should not be “forgotten sheaf” either. They said to him, if they said that about one sheaf that is like a stack105Exempt from the laws of “forgotten sheaves,” Mishnah 6:2. This applies to sheaves as large as a stack., do you want to say the same about two sheaves that are like bundles?Standing produce of two seah which was forgotten is not “forgotten sheaf.” If it does not have two seah but it might bring two seah, even if it were oats113Arabic קוּרטֻמָאן “oats”, with short kernels (Translation of Maimonides). Arukh translates טופח by Arabic גֹֻלֻבָּאן, peas. Barley grains are three to an inch. The field would not be under the laws of “forgetting” if it would yield .9 cu. ft. if all grains were the size of barley grains (in the shell, hairs attached.) it is considered like barley grains. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, it is written (Deut. 24:19): “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field and you forget a sheaf on the field,” a sheaf to which you may stretch out your hand and take it106But not one where you need both hands.. Some Tannaïm stated107Sifry Deut. 283.: “And you forget a sheaf,” but not a stack. How does it work out108What is the practical difference between R. Eleazar who treats the oversized sheaf as sheaf and the Tanna who treats it as a stack?? If he forgot one sheaf next to it, if you make it a sheaf, everybody agrees that it is “forgotten sheaf.109Then you have two sheaves which for everybody are subject to “forgotten sheaves.”” If you make it a stack, a difference between Shammai and Hillel110This should read: the Houses of Shanmai and Hillel. The House of Shammai in Mishnah 6:2 freed the sheaf next to a stack from “forgotten sheaves;” the House of Hillel did not.. If he forgot two sheaves, if you make it sheaves, a difference between the Houses of Shammai and Hillel111For the House of Hillel, one has three sheaves and it is an exempted row; for the House of Shammai one would need four.; if you make it a stack it will not be considered a row112Then one only has two sheaves which even for the House of Hillel are not a row.. Rebbi Jonah said (Deut. 24:19): “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field and you forget a sheaf on the field,” a sheaf containing two seah that was forgotten is not “forgotten sheaf.” Standing produce114The field of the verse. containing two seah that was forgotten is not “forgotten sheaf.” Rebbi Yose said, considering only the ears115But not the straw.. If they were thin, one looks at them as if they were long, if they were scorched, one looks at them as if they were full.

MISHNAH: Standing produce saves sheaves and standing produce116Standing produce which was not forgotten protects produce nearby that was forgotten from becoming legally “forgotten.” “Nearby” was defined earlier as close so that the ears of one may touch the other.. But a sheaf117A sheaf which either is not forgotten or which itself is exempt from the laws of the “forgotten sheaf.” saves neither sheaves nor standing produce. What is standing produce that saves sheaves? Everything that is not forgotten, even if it is only one stalk.A seah of uprooted grain and a seah of not uprooted grain131They do not combine to form the two seah that exempt from the laws of forgotten sheaves., also trees132Harvested and hanging fruits do not combine., garlic and onions do not combine133They belong to the same family but different species.. Rebbi Yose says, if a poor man’s right comes in the middle134If at any time after the cutting of the first part the poor had the right to collect peah, gleanings, or forgotten sheaves, the two parts cannot be combined. In vineyards, the poor have the right to collect the single berries that grow on the vines. But for other trees, the poor have no rights until the end of the harvest; for R. Yose, harvested and hanging fruits of other trees combine., they do not combine, otherwise they do combine. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Illa said, it is written (Deut. 24:19): “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field and you forget a sheaf on the field,” a sheaf surrounded by harvest and not a sheaf surrounded by standing produce. And why a sheaf surrounded by harvest and not a sheaf surrounded by standing produce? Under a sheaf surrounded by harvest is the field119Since the harvest is not finished., under a sheaf surrounded by standing produce is straw. It was stated120Tosephta Peah 3:5; there (and in the manuscript of R. S. Cirillo) the name of the first Tanna is R. Meïr.: “The standing produce of his neighbor saves his own121If his forgotten patch of produce is close to the neighbor’s field that was not yet harvested., the standing produce of a Gentile saves that of a Jew, the standing wheat saves barley, the words of Rebbi. But the Sages say, only his own produce saves and only its own kind.” Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel stated122Tosephta Peah 3:6. In the edition of R. S. Lieberman, the punctuation and interpretation of the abbreviation are incorrect. The text of the Tosephta is garbled and the good text of the Yerushalmi was misunderstood by R. Simson and the other commentators.: Just as standing produce saves the sheaf, so the sheaf saves the standing produce. This is logical: If standing produce, on which the power of the poor is enhanced123Since he has the right to peah, gleanings, and forgotten sheaves., saves if any of it was forgotten, it is only logical that the sheaf should save, since on it the power of the poor is reduced124It is reduced to the forgotten sheaf.. Rebbi125The son of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. answered him: If standing produce, on which the power of the poor is enhanced, saves if any of it126The sheaf, on which the power of the poor is weak. was forgotten, is it logical that the sheaf, on which the power of the poor is reduced, if any of it was forgotten should save127The standing produce, to which the claim of the poor is much stronger!? From the words of both of them we infer that sheaf is saved by sheaf128If both sheaves are close together. For Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel it follows from his logical argument, for Rebbi it follows since the claim of the poor to the sheaf is reduced., but standing produce is not saved by standing produce129For neither of them is there an argument that anything should save standing produce to which the claim of the poor is enhanced.. Hence130This paragraph is part of the next Halakhah in the manuscripts and first prints. But it belongs here, as discussion of whether “even if it is only one stalk” means that if a single stalk is forgotten, nothing is saved. The answer is that it is enough if one stalk was not forgotten., if he forgot, is it “forgotten sheaf”? Explain it if he forgot the standing produce first. Hence, if all135Adding up to two seah. is cut it is for the proprietor. Our Mishnah follows Rabban Gamliel136Who asserted in Mishnah 5 that sheaves which together add up to 2 seah do not fall under the law of the forgotten sheaf. Since the Mishnah is formulated as anonymous statement, practice has to follow Rabban Gamliel.. Then137If we follow Rabban Gamliel. The same text, with a different thrust, is found Chapter 5, Halakhah 2. the cut grain should save the uncut grain. This means that something that is apt to save, but was forgotten, can become legally forgotten. Rebbi Jonathan138There, R. Jonah. said, explain it if he was cutting and removing the sheaves row by row. He already forgot the standing grain before he might forget the sheaves139And Rabban Gamliel will not have the two combined if they are separated in space and time.. Does it mean that it really comes, or only that it is able to come141Does it mean that Rebbi Yose excludes combining only if the poor actually could exercise their rights, or even if there is only a theoretical possibility.? Let us hear from the following142Tosephta Peah 3:5: “According to R. Yose, Ḥananiah, the nephew of R. Joshua, said that whenever a poor man’s right comes in between, for example grain and vineyard, they do not combine. Whenever a poor man’s right does not come in between, for example fruits of trees, they do combine.”: “For example grain and vineyard.” And is the vineyard on the spot143It is true that there is no manual grain harvest without gleanings; the poor always have the right to enter after cutting and binding of the sheaves. But there are vines which do not produce single berries; in a vineyard, the right of the poor is conditional.? That means, even if it is able to come144It includes all vineyards and mechanical harvesting.!

MISHNAH: Grain cut for animal feed145Cut as fodder (in contrast to grain cut for human consumption but used as fodder) means that it was cut green. In the same way, grain cut to bind sheaves must still have flexible stalks; it cannot be dry and does not qualify as “harvest.” or to bind sheaves, and similarly garlic used to bind146Garlic leaves used to bind bundles of garlic or onions. as well as bundles of garlic and onions147Onions and garlic are bound or plaited in small bundles for later use but these are then bound together in large bunches for transport. The small bundles are not made for transport to storage and by Mishnah 5:7 do not fall under the law of the forgotten sheaf. are not subject to “forgotten sheaves.” Anything hidden in the ground148Plants whose edible part, or main part, is the one hidden in the ground., such as luf149In classical Arabic, לוּף means serpentary, snake weed, Arum Dracunculus L., a plant with a large bulb. This is the identification given by Arukh, based on a Gaonic source. Maimonides (Commentary on the Mishnah) declares it “doubtless to be a kind of onion.” Rashi (Shabbat 126b) declares it to be a kind of legume. The determination by Arukh must be accepted. (In modern Arabic, לוּף liffa is Luffa cylindrica Roem, dishcloth gourd, which is inedible.), garlic, and onions, Rebbi Jehudah says, they are not subject to “forgotten sheaves”, but the Sages say, they are subject to “forgotten sheaves.” HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said150At the moment the decision is made to use certain produce as fodder, not for human consumption, it becomes exempt from the law of the forgotten sheaf., not only if he gave it but even if he took it with the intention of giving it. There151The discussion is paralleled in Baba Qama 6:5 in a different formulation. we have stated: “If someone sets fire to a stack in which were hidden vessels, Rebbi Jehudah says, he pays for all that was in it. But the Sages say, he only pays for a stack of wheat or barley152Both Babli and Yerushalmi are agreed that the Mishnah refers only to a man who lights a legal fire on his own field and it burns out of control. But an arsonist has to pay for everything under any circumstance. The Babli (Baba Qama 61b) states that the Sages agree that whoever started the fire is responsible for agricultural implements usually hidden in stacks. Hence, in the opinion of the Babli but not the Yerushalmi, the Sages free him only from the responsibility for unexpected losses..” The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted; there he says to include the hidden things, but here he says to exclude the hidden things. There (Ex. 22:5) “and a153This is the Biblical text, not “the stack” as given here. “If fire gets out of control and a stack, or the standing grain, or the field is consumed, the person who caused the fire should certainly pay.” stack or standing grain was consumed.” I understand that since it says “standing grain” it includes a stack. Why does the verse add “a stack?” In order to include the hidden things. But here (Deut. 24:10) “your field,” in the open, to exclude anything hidden. The argument of the rabbis is inverted; there they say to exclude the hidden things, but here they say to include the hidden things. There, “or standing grain or a field,” just as a field is in the open, so all must be in the open. But here, “your field,” in the open, to exclude that which is hidden; “your harvest,” in the open, to exclude that which is hidden. That is a restriction after a restriction and every restriction after a restriction is only154There is an אלא missing in the text or the אין is superfluous (Yebamot12:1). The principle that a restriction after a restriction is an extension is universally accepted in both Talmudim; in Horaiot 1:1 it is generalized to the statement that any sequence of restrictions of an even number of elements is an extension; for an odd number of elements it is a restriction. to add the hidden things.

MISHNAH: He who harvests at night or removes the stacks, or a blind person155All of whom are likely to miss some standing produce or some sheaves., are subject to the law of forgotten sheaves. But if he156The one who harvested or removed the sheaves at night, and the blind (Maimonides Mattenot Aniïm 5:8). intended only to take the large pieces, he is not subject to the law of forgotten sheaves. If he said: “I harvest on the understanding that I shall take what I might forget,” he is subject to the law of forgotten sheaves. HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: He who harvests at night or removes the stacks at night, or a blind person day or night. Rebbi Jonah said157He refers to the second sentence in the Mishnah., not only for the large pieces, but also for the thin pieces. Since he is going to check for the large ones, the thin ones likewise are not subject to the law of forgotten sheaves. If he said: “I harvest on the undertanding that I shall take what I might forget,” he is subject to the law of forgotten sheaves, since he made a condition158Not a condition in the legal sense, since a legal condition needs a positive and a negative and he cannot say, “if I cannot take everything then what I harvest shall not be harvested.” Probably, “condition” should be read as “understanding.” against what is written in the Torah, and if anybody makes a condition against what is written in the Torah, his condition is invalid159Except in the matter of civil contracts..

MISHNAH: Every olive tree that has a special name on the field, for example “a dripping olive tree1Maimonides identifies this as “from Beth Netofa (in Galilee);” then it should be vocalized נְטוֹפָה. But the form נְטִיפָה in the Halakhah requires נְטוּפָה here. The addition “in its time” can only mean that the olives start dripping even on the tree, at the end of the growing season, for a short time every year.” in its time, if it was forgotten, is not subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf. When does this apply? For its name, its production, and its place. By its name, if it was dripping2Literally, “pouring” or “from a town Shipkoun”. or from Beth Shean. By its production, if it produced much. By its place, if it stood next to the wine-press or near a hole in the wall. For all other olive trees, two are subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf, three are not. Rebbi Yose says, there is no law of the forgotten sheaf for olive trees. HALAKHAH: Rebbi La said, it is written (Deut. 24:19): “You will forget a sheaf on the field,” a sheaf you forget forever; this excludes one you certainly will remember after some time3Because it has a specific name or property.. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If it was marked in his mind, is it as if it were marked4If the olive grower gave the tree a private name in his mind, is that as good as a publicly known name (or, at least, a name known to his workers).? If it stood in the shadow5Maimonides (Mattenot Aniïm 5:24) reads בצד “next to”, which probably is the correct reading. of a date palm, the date palm marks it. If two of them were dripping, each of them marks the other6These three cases are agreed on; the question is about the next case.. If the entire field was of dripping olive trees? Let us hear from the following: “Rebbi Yose says, there is no law of the forgotten sheaf for olives.” Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim7An Amora of the third generation, student of R. Joḥanan and colleague of R. Eleazar, mentioned as R. Simeon bar Elyaqim in the Babli. said, Rebbi Yose said this only in former times when olives were scarce because Hadrian, the evil one, had come and devastated the entire land8In the war of Bar Kokhba.. But today when olive trees are everywhere, they are under the law of the forgotten sheaf. Šofkānī drips oil. But did we not state “dripping,” so it must be that it yields much oil. But did we not state: “By its production, if it yields a lot.” So, Šofkānī9Root שפך “to pour out.” yields much oil. Nĕṭūfah10Root נטף “to drip.” drips oil. Its production, it yields a lot, viz., it produces a lot of olives. Bês̄ānī, some say, really from Beth She’an11Biblical בית שאן, Talmudic בישן.; some say, it puts the other trees to shame12Root בוש “ashamed,” taken in causative sense, “to put to shame.” by producing fourfold, similar to what we have stated: If all sheaves of the field are of one qab, except one which is of four qab and was forgotten. Since it produces more than others, it is considered marked. On condition that it produces every year? Since it produces most years it is considered marked. “By its place, if it stood next to the wine-press or near a hole in the wall.” Is our Mishnah following the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor is abandoned13If the Mishnah did accept the ruling of the House of Shammai as generally accepted practice, it would be more than astonishing. However, the quote from the House of Shammai (Mishnah 6:1) seems to be wrong; it would have to be Mishnah 6:2: “The sheaf that was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels; if it was forgotten, the House of Shammai say, it is not a forgotten sheaf, but the House of Hillel say, it is a forgotten sheaf.” In contrast, everybody seems to agree that an olive tree standing near a closure is not forgotten.? Rebbi Yose14The Amora. said, it is everybody’s opinion; there it is movable near immovable, here it is immovable near immovable. “15Repeated from above. Rebbi Yose says, there is no law of the forgotten sheaf for olives.” Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim said, Rebbi Yose said this only in former times when olives were scarce because Hadrian, the evil one, had come and devastated the entire land. But today when olive trees are everywhere, they are under the law of the forgotten sheaf. Rebbi Yose16The Amora. The reference here is to Halakhah 6:4 which specifically excludes single olives from the law of forgotten sheaves. The next reference to “Rebbi Yose” is to the Tanna. said, nobody applied the law of forgotten sheaves to olive trees except Rebbi Aqiba, for he drew inferences from “behind you, behind you.” Then there should be no “forgotten sheaf” for olive trees following Rebbi Yose who does not draw inferences from “behind you.17It says in Deut. 24:20–21: “If you shake your olive tree, do not pick single olives behind you; they shall be for the stranger, the orphan, and the widow. If you harvest your vineyard, do not pick unripe berries behind you; they shall be for the stranger, the orphan, and the widow.” Behind you must refer to things forgotten, since one harvests always in front of himself.” They objected, is not a sheaf subject to “forgotten sheaves”, and there it is not written “behind you.” Since it is written (Deut. 24:19): “Do not return to take it,” it is as if “behind you” were written there. Rebbi Jonah had a problem18The problem refers to the next Mishnah which states that once one started to harvest an olive tree, even if it was marked by some of the peculiarities enumerated, it becomes subject to the law of forgotten sheaves. Rebbi Yose denies any applicability of that law to olive trees. Since practice does not follow R. Yose, the question is not resolved.: That dripping olive tree, since it is marked, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose even if he started with it it, should it be as if he had not started with it?

MISHNAH: An olive tree standing between three rows of two rectangles, when forgotten, is not subject to the law of forgotten sheaves19Maimonides explains in his Mishnah commentary that the trees are planted in checkerboard fashion, that each “white” square has a tree while the “black” squares are planted with vegetables; we still say that the middle one is obscured by the surrounding trees, disregarding the vegetable beds. R. Isaac Simponti accepts this explanation but takes the rectangles to denote distance, not necessarily that they are planted. [However, in his Code (Mattenot Aniïm 3:25) Maimonides accepts the explanation, also given by R. Simson, that the olive tree is a single tree surrounded on three sides by three rows of trees, each row consisting of two trees, so that the surrounding trees hinder the access to the single tree. R. Simson rejects the idea that the tree should not be subject to the law because of difficulty of access.]. An olive tree which yields two seah20Olives, not oil., when forgotten, is not legally forgotten. When does this apply21This question does not refer to the tree yielding two seah but to the marked trees mentioned in Mishnah 1. After one started harvesting, these are not protected unless they yield two seah.? Only if he did not start with it, but if he started harvesting it, even a dripping olive tree in its time, when forgotten, is subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf. Whenever he22Maimonides, in his commentary and his Code (Mattenot Aniïm 1:12) refers “him” to the poor. Once they have permission to search for olives under the tree, they may take the olives that are still on the tree, but not before (even though ususally olives are not harvested by climbing the tree but by shaking it.) R. Simson and R. Abraham ben David (Mattenot Aniïm 1:12) refer “him” to the owner; as long as anything under the tree (the main harvest) is not legally forgotten, everything on the tree is his, independent of his state of mind regarding the olives remaining on the tree. has under it, he has at its crown. Rebbi Meïr says, from the moment that the maḥba is used23According to Maimonides, the maḥba is an instrument with which the branches of the olive tree are shaken to remove the olives still clinging to the branches. In all manuscripts of his tradition, the spelling is מחבה as a feminine, in accord with the feminine form of the verb. R. Simson and R. Abraham ben David explain maḥba as the leaves which hide olives and must be removed. Since Maimonides lived in olive growing societies, his explanation should be accepted. The root underlying מחבא seems to be Arabic ח̇בּא “to grow abundantly” (but cf. text at note 44).. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, so says the Mishnah: “of two rectangles” and he forgot it24The last expression, “and he forgot it,” is missing in the Rome manuscript. (However, “and he forgot it” is in the parallel Tosephta Peah 3:10). Rebbi Eleazar wants to emphasize that the correct reading is two, not three as in Yalqut Shimoni 937. Other explanations by J. N. Epstein in מבוא לנוסח המשנה pp. 92–93 are unconvincing.. What are we dealing with? If it is because it is marked, are there not other olive trees25They also should be exempt since they are adjacent to a marked tree. Two is also the reading in Tosephta Peah 3:10, Sifri Deut. 284.? If it is because it is in a row26If it is aligned in a long row of seven trees and therefore not privileged, which is impossible since it may be considered the head of a row of four., it is considered a row in itself27Since it is not aligned with anything, it cannot be exempt from the law as a row.. It must be because of row and of rows28It is in the middle of a row and its row is the middle row, following the explanation of Maimonides in the commentary to the Mishnah. The central position marks it.. Rebbi Yose said29It is unlikely that “R. Yose” here is correct, since the next paragraphs refer to R. Joḥanan. R. S. Cirillo has אמר ר׳ יוסי אמר ר׳ יוחנן but this clearly is Babli style (in the Yerushalmi it could be either אמר ר׳ יוסא ר׳ יוחנן or אמר ר׳ יוסי בשם ר׳ יוחנן) and, therefore, it is his interpolation., the Mishnah deals with an olive tree that can be shaken30I. e., the entire harvest can be done by shaking the tree; it is not necessary to climb up on a ladder to remove the olives still hanging.. Rebbi Yose31This is either R. Yose the late Amora giving a ruling that in practice asserts the position of R. Yose the Tanna, or it is a justification of the position of the Tanna R. Yose from a practical, rather than a theoretical, point of view. said, not only one that can be shaken; since olive trees usually are first checked by shaking, none can be under the law of forgotten sheaves. Some Tannaïm32These Tannaïm are not the Sages of the period known as tannaïtic but are scholars who memorized tannaïtic statements (which at this time were not written down) to produce them when asked about them. The different versions are those of our Mishnah. state: “it is found.” Some Tannaïm state: “It is found standing.” He who says “it is found” supports Rebbi Joḥanan33It turns out after the fact that the tree can be harvested simply by shaking.. He who says “it is found standing” supports Rebbi Eleazar34It is known beforehand that the tree is standing at a certain privileged place.. A baraita35Tosephta Peah 3:10. The text here follows the Rome manuscript which is identical with that of the Tosephta. The Venice print has the positions of “recognizes” and “does not recognize” switched. supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “When has this been said? If he does not recognize it. But if he recognizes it, he runs after it even 100 cubits36If the tree has a distinguishing mark, as in the case described by R. Eleazar, the entire Mishnah does not apply. Hence, we must deal with a particular property discovered after the fact..” Hence37Here starts the discussion of the second sentence of the Mishnah., if it yields two seah, if it was forgotten it is not legally forgotten. It does not refer to this but to the first Mishnah: “Every olive tree that has a special name on the field, for example ‘a dripping olive tree’ in its time, if it was forgotten, it is not legally forgotten. Hence, if it yields two seah, if it was forgotten …”38Maimonides in his Mishnah commentary construes as follows: “Every olive tree that has a special name on the field, for example ‘a dripping olive tree’ in its time, when forgotten is not legally forgotten. When has this been said? Only if he did not start with it; but if he started harvesting it, even a dripping olive tree in its time, when forgotten is legally forgotten. But if it yields two seah, when forgotten it is not legally forgotten.” “Whenever he has under it, he has at its crown.” One may explain this in two ways. Whenever he has under it, he has at its crown; hence, before that even if there is nothing under it, he has at its crown39The poor may take the olives remaining on the branches even though the owner is not finished with collecting all olives shaken from the tree (Maimonides Mattenot Aniïm 1:12).. Another explanation: Whenever he40The owner. has under it, he has nothing at its crown41Since he will not start collecting the olives that fell off the tree until he has removed the remaining ones from the tree mechanically.; by the time the maḥba was used, even though he has nothing at its crown he has under the tree42At that time, the poor may search the tree since the owner has completed his harvest.. It was stated44Explaining the statement of R. Meïr and the word maḥba. in the name of the House of Shammai: When he puts away the knee cushion45Used to collect all the olives shaken from the tree. (Second explanation of Arukh.) and finishes, then he still has at the top. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The remainder46Arabic כִּדַּה “poor soil”, אַכִּדַּה “leftover pasture”. of the harvest. Rebbi Abbahu said, 47Maḥba is … that which takes care of the hidden ones: (1Sam. 23:23) “Find out and see all the hiding places where he could hide.”

MISHNAH: What are dropped berries48Here starts the discussion of the duty to give single berries to the poor, Lev. 19:10.? Anything that drops during vintage. If he was gathering grapes, cut off the bunch, it got mixed up in the leaves, fell to the ground and scattered49By accident., that belongs to the proprietor. He who puts a basket under the vine while he is gathering grapes robs the poor, and about him it was said50Cf. Mishnah 5:5. (Prov. 22:28, 23:10): “Do not displace an eternal boundary.”What is a gleaning55In the Torah, עלל is used exclusively for vines (Lev. 19:10, Deut.24:21). In Arabic, the root means “going over the harvest a second time” in general. of grapes? Anything that has no shoulder and no dropping56The Halakhah explains these terms.. If it has either shoulder or dropping it belongs to the proprietor, in case of doubt it belongs to the poor. A gleaning on a cut branch, if it can be cut off together with a bunch it belongs to the proprietor, otherwise to the poor. An isolated berry, Rebbi Jehudah says, it is considered a bunch57According to the Halakhah more than three isolated berries together form a bunch for R. Jehudah., but the sages say, a gleaning. HALAKHAH: This means that dropped berries become sanctified51As food of the poor for which they do not have to give heave or tithes. If the berries were not the property of the poor while falling down, the vintner could not be accused of actively robbing the poor by putting a basket under the vine. in the act of falling down. Does this not simply answer Hilfai52In the Babylonian Talmud, he is called Ilfa. He studied together with R. Joḥanan, was as great as R. Joḥanan in learning but preferred to earn a living in trade. He objected to the use of baraitot and toseftot and maintained that all necessary information could be obtained from the Mishnah.’s question, since Hilfai asked: Do gleanings become sanctified in the act of falling down? Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said: There is a difference, because he prevented them from reaching the ground53Even if dropped berries become exempt from heave and tithes only when they touch the ground, still the vintner is guilty of robbery since without his intervention the berries would have touched the ground. However, it is reasonable to say that the berries do not become sanctified in falling and that the vintner, in addition to being a robber of the poor, is still under the obligation of giving heave and tithes from what he collected.. (Tosephta Peah 3:11): “What are gleanings? Anything that has no shoulder and no dropping. If it has shoulder but no dropping, dropping but no shoulder, it belongs to the proprietor, if it is doubtful it belongs to the poor. What is a shoulder? Spread out58The etymology and meaning of פסיגין is not very clear. I am comparing it with Arabic פסג “to spread one’s legs.” The meaning of the sentence is that grapes must also grow upward from the spine. one on top of the other. What is a dropping? They hand downward on the spine.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Only if they all touch the palm of his hand59A rudimentary bunch qualifies only as gleanings if it is so small that it fits into one hand.. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya say, it happened that they weighed a gleaning in Sepphoris and it was seven pounds60Greek λίτρα, Latin libra, “a pound” of 12 oz.? Rebbi Ḥinena said, if they put it on a board, every grape must touch the board61Latin tabula “board, plank”; also “plot in a vineyard.”. A Levite who received unprepared tithes62First Tithes of which the heave of the tithe was not given to the Cohen. Tithe may not be eaten before the heave of the tithe is separated (Num.18:26). The heave of the farmer has no minimum spelled out from the Torah, but it must be given from the harvest itself. The heave of the tithe is fixed at 10% but it may be given from anywhere (Terumot 2:1); hence, the Levite may use any fruit he has for that tithe. and found in them gleanings may use them for the heave of the tithes even on other places. But do not gleanings belong to the poor? Rebbi Avin in the name of the rabbis from there63Babylonia.: I say that they are gleanings cut with the bunches64As spelled out in the Mishnah. The Levite does not commit a sin since he is not using property acquired illegally to satisfy a religious duty. The Tosephta (Peah 3:14) simply states: “A Levite to whom grapes were given, among which he found gleanings, does not have to worry whether they might belong to the poor.”. Rebbi Simon said, the reason of Rebbi Jehudah (Is. 17:6): “There will remain in it gleanings as when one plucks olives, two or three kernels65Meaning that one, two, or three berries on one branch really belong to the poor even according to Rebbi Jehudah, but four or more, even though they grow out right from the stem and do not form bunches, are not called “berries” but “grape.”.” More than that is a grape. Clarification66The following digressions are induced by the story told before of a few grapes in Sepphoris weighing together seven pounds. Most of these stories are also quoted, in changed form, in Babli Ketubot 111b–112a; the first ones also, very much changed, in Baba Batra 91b.כרם usually means “vineyard,” but in Jud. 15:5 כרם זית is a plantation of olive trees.. Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish passed by the orchard of Doron67It is not clear whether this is a personal or topographical name.. The sharecropper brought them one peach68Greek περσικὸν μῆλον, τὸ, also περσικός, ὁ, “Persian apple.”; they and their donkeys ate from it and left some over. They estimated it to be like a dish69Greek λοπάς, -άδος, ἡ, “plate.” from Kefar Ḥananiah70A place in Galilee famous for its pottery, possibly Kafr Anan. that contains a seah of lentils. After a time they passed by there, he brought them two or three peaches in one hand. They said to him, we would like some from that tree. He said to them, they are from it. On that, they quoted (Ps. 107:34): “A fruit-bearing land into salt flats, because of the evil of its inhabitants.” Rebbi Ḥanina said, when I immigrated here, I took my belt, my son’s belt, and the belt of my donkey to measure around a young carob tree of the Land of Israel and it was not enough. I cut one carob pod and it filled my hand with honey71Carob syrup. In general, “honey” may mean both bee’s honey or syrup. In Arabic, דִבשׂ denotes only “sugary matter produced from a fruit, syrup, molasses”.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the second quality fruit72Cf. Arabic ספסאף “rejects, bad quality, junk.” we ate in our youth tasted better that the peaches we ate in our old age, because during his lifetime the world changed73He was born under the Principate, lived through the hyperinflation and the shrinking economy of the Military Anarchy, and died under Diocletian’s military absolutism. (Cf. Babli Baba batra 91b.). Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, one seah of Arbel74On the high plain above Tiberias. grain did yield one seah of fine flour, one seah of white flour, one seah of dark flour, one seah of bran, one seah of coarse bran, and one seah of wheat germ. But today, we do not even get one for one75A seah of grain contains empty space between grains. In milling, by necessity something is lost. One seah of grain yields much less than a seah of flour. Cf. Babli Ketubot 112a, Sotah17b.. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Avin: Cinnamon was goat feed when the Jews were growing it. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Abin: The two daily offerings76Two yearling sheep. which were sacrificed every day used to be carried by a camel and their legs touched the ground. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Idi: It happened that someone tied his goat to a fig tree; when he returned, he found honey71Carob syrup. In general, “honey” may mean both bee’s honey or syrup. In Arabic, דִבשׂ denotes only “sugary matter produced from a fruit, syrup, molasses”. and milk mixed77Babli Ketubot 111b, in the name of Rami bar Ezechiel, brother of Rav Jehudah, a wanderer between Galilee and Babylonia.. Rebbi said to Rav Periri78He appears only here and the title “Rav” is impossible for anybody in the Yeshivah of Rebbi except Rav himself. R. S. Cirillo changes the name to Rebbi Pedat (who however lived long after Rebbi), R. Eliahu Fulda and R. Moses Margalit use “Rebbi Peridah,” a mythical figure from the Babylonian Talmud who is reputed to have lived for over 400 years. He would fit into the story but one might doubt that Rebbi would hurt him. I wonder whether the person in question is not Rav himself and פרירי is an (Aramaic-Arabic فورار) address of endearment “my lamb”. In that case, one has to translate: Rebbi said to Rav: My lamb, will you not show me.… Since Rav was a relative of the Heads of the Diaspora and rich, he could have owned real estate whose yield would sustain him during his years of study.: Would you show me the bunch of grapes in your vineyard? He said to him, if you come out, I will show it. When he was still far away, he spied something like an ox. He said to him, does not the ox destroy the vineyard? He said to him, what you take for an ox is the bunch of grapes. He quoted for it (Cant. 1:12): “As long as the King was at his round table, my nard gave its fragrance79;” the Temple is destroyed and you persist in your obstinacy? Immediately, they looked for it and it was never found again. They brought before him two radishes from between New Year’s Day and the Great Fast80Yom Kippur, the Tenth of Tishre. The radishes probably were offered for sale on Yom Kippur Eve.. It was the year after a Sabbatical, and they were a full camel’s load. He said to them, are they not forbidden as aftergrowth81One may not use any plant grown in the Sabbatical year for commercial purposes (and one may not use any produce if nothing of the same kind is left on the fields for wildlife.) Hence, the free growth of the Sabbatical is forbidden in commercial transactions even after the end of the Sabbatical year.? He said to him, they were sown at the end of New Year’s Day. At that moment did Rebbi permit to buy vegetables immediately after the end of the Sabbatical year. They asked before him, what is that which is written (Joel 1:17): “Dried figs became mouldy under their shovels.” He said to them, we were raking honey, now we are raking rotten things instead. It happened that somebody had a row of fig trees; when he came, he found them surrounded by a fence of honey. One person sowed turnips on his field; he used to cut them off and sell them82It is still possible to replant the top of a large radish with a small part of the root and it will regrow a root, but not more than once.. It happened that a fox made his nest in a turnip’s head. It happened in Shihin83A village near Sepphoris renowned for its pottery. This story also appears in Ketubot. that one stalk of mustard plant had three leaves; one leaf was split off to cover a potter’s hut and they found on it three qab84About 7 quarts. of mustard seed. Rebbi Simeon ben Ḥalaphta said, I had a stem of mustard plant on my property and I climbed on it the way one climbs a fig tree. It happened that someone sowed a seah of peas and it produced 300 seah. They said to him, the Holy One, praise to Him, has started to bless you. He answered, get away from here, if bad dew had not descended on it, it would have produced twice as much. Rebbi Simeon ben Ḥalaphta said, it happened that Rebbi Jehudah said to his son in Sikhnin85A town in Galilee, birthplace of R. Joshua.: Go and bring us dried figs from the barrel. He went and put his hand into the barrel, found it full of honey and said: Father, it is a barrel of honey. He said to him, put your hands deep into it and you will bring up the dried figs. It happened that Rebbi Yose said to his son in Sepphoris: Go and bring us dried figs from the upper floor. He went and found that honey was floating on the upper floor. Rebbi Ḥananiah was a dealer in bee’s honey; he also had honey obtained by roasting86Following Levy, all the dictionaries identify ẓeli as a kind of dates, since vegetable honey is made from dates. However, the previous stories were all about the fact that earlier (before the war of Bar Kokhba but long after the destruction of the Temple) even figs produced sap so rich in sugar that it could be used as honey substitute. So one possible translation would be “of ẓeli figs”; it is unclear what kind they are. The translation assumes that it was bee’s honey, which may be obtained from the honey combs by heating. Then the “roasted” honey was lower quality honey obtained by roasting honey combs from which the first quality had been extracted by moderate heat, and honesty required that the customer be informed that the honey sold was of second quality only. “To roast” is Hebrew צלה, Arabic צלי. The word could also be derived from Arabic צוול “to clean out by washing”, צולה “chaff”, giving a similar meaning.. After a time they passed by him. He said to them, in order not to trick you, you should know that the honey that I gave you was from roasting. They said, from that one we want more because it is good for our purposes. He set aside its value87Greek τιμή, “value.” He set aside the difference in value between premium bee’s honey and ẓeli honey. and built with it the House of Study of Sepphoris. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon went to a place where they brought him shrunk cabbage88Either dried in the air or roasted over a fire.. He said to them, you put a lot of honey into it. They said to him, we did not put anything in, it is in its natural state.

MISHNAH: He who thins out vines89So that the rest of them should grow more and larger grapes. The “vines of the poor” are those on which single berries are visible. One cannot say that it refers to the part of the vine that is designated as peah since thinning is done early in the growing season and peah is designated at the end of the harvest., just as he thins out his own so he thins out those of the poor, the words of Rebbi Jehudah90The Halakhah explains that R. Jehudah considers the poor as partners of the proprietor while R. Meïr considers them as buyers.. Rebbi Meïr says, he may do so for his own but he is not empowered for those of the poor. HALAKHAH: Everybody agrees that he who sells ten bunches to somebody else may not touch them91To thin out after the sale.. Everybody agrees in a partnership that just as he thins out his, so he thins out that of his partner92Since it is a necessary part of tending the vineyard.. Rebbi Jehudah considers him to be a partner, Rebbi Meïr considers him to be a seller93The last clause is missing in the Venice print and the Leyden manuscript; it is added from R. S. Cirillo and the Rome manuscript on the testimony of R. Simson of Sens that it was in his Yerushalmi text.. Rebbi Immi said to him94The person addressed is not indicated. The usual partner of Rebbi Immi was Rebbi Yasa (Assi).: Think about it, if a wild animal ate it, if you consider him a partner he is required to pay him95If the wild animal ate all the gleanings of the poor person then, as in any partnership, the damage should be borne jointly by the two partners; hence, the farmer should pay to the poor person his part of the loss. (Since individual poor persons have no standing in court in this matter, probably he should give the equivalent to the local administrator of charity.)! Rebbi Joḥanan said, it seems that Rebbi Jehudah changed his opinion. There96Halakhah 5:3, speaking of the farmer who wants to irrigate or fertilize his field immediately after harvest, before the poor had an opportunity to search for gleanings. There, the same question is asked in the other direction and answered differently. he says, in both cases he takes them, deposits them on the fence and the poor comes and takes what is his; but here he says so97That he can eliminate the part of the poor in the course of regular care of his vineyard.! Because he squeezees them, they will produce more the next year. I should say also here, because he fertilizes it, it will produce more the next year. He said to him, it happens frequently98A vine is a perennial and will always produce grapes, so the poor can wait for the next crop. But a field is subject to regular crop rotation and it is to be expected that every third year or so the field will be sown with vegetables not harvested at one time, exempt from peah. Hence, the interest of the poor in not in the next crop. that he will sow vegetables and shelter them from the poor.

MISHNAH: A vineyard in its fourth year99It is forbidden to harvest a newly planted vineyard the first three years. In the fourth year, the grapes can be harvested but they (or the wine produced from them) must be brought to the Temple and be consumed in Jerusalem in a festive manner (Lev.19:23–24). If there is too much to be taken on a journey, it may be redeemed and the money taken to Jerusalem. The House of Hillel compare the yield of the fourth year to the Second Tithe that also has to be eaten in Jerusalem, since produce of the Second Tithe that is redeemed is subject to a surcharge of one fifth (from above, 25% from below). There are two kinds of removal the vineyard of the fourth year may be subject to; if it is compared to the Second Tithe it must be removed from the house at the end of the third and sixth years of every Sabbatical period; if the produce was that of a Sabbatical year, one may take it but only as long as wild animals find similar food on the field (in this case, in other unharvested vineyards) and it must be removed by being consumed before that time. The House of Shammai consider the yield of the fourth year as profane food, subject only to what is expressly spelled out in the verse.The argument of the House of Hillel, that the verse compares the vineyard in its fourth year to the Second Tithe, is given in Babli Qiddušin 54b, Sifra Qedošim Parašah 3 #8., the House of Shammai say, it is not subject to a fifth and is not subject to removal; but the House of Hillel say, it is. The House of Shammai say, it is subject to single berries and gleanings100As any other profane food. and the poor redeem for themselves, but the House of Hillel say, all goes to the winepress101Since the second tithe is not subject to any gifts to the poor, neither is the yield of the fourth year.. HALAKHAH: It was stated103In a different form, Tosephta Maäser Šeni 5:17. The entire discussion is found in Yerushalmi Maäser Šeni 5:3.: Rebbi says, the House of Shammai said this only in the Sabbatical year, but in all other years of the sabbatical cycle, the House of Shammai say that it is subject to a fifth and subject to removal. According to that Tanna, they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year104Since there is no private property of agricultural produce in the Sabbatical year, there may not be special uses for the farmer’s family., so there is no fourth year after planting105The Mishnah speaks of כרם רבעי, a vineyard in its fourth year. The baraitot all speak of נטע רבעי, a planting (a planted tree) in its fourth year. The extension of the Biblical commandment about the vineyard to all trees is discussed in Maäser Šeni, Chap. 5. in the Sabbatical year. But then should there be no holiness in it? Its holiness comes from the verse (Lev. 19:24): “Holy for praises,” it has the status of those holy fruits over which praises are said106The First Fruits, for which the praises said in the Temple are spelled out in Deut. 26.. And should it be permitted to the fresh mourner107The mourner in the period between the death of a close relative and the burial, when he is forbidden any sanctified food even if he is not ritually defiled, Deut. 26:14.? It is stated: This108The verse declaring the vineyard of the fourth year as “holy for praises.” Cf. Sifra Qedošim Parašah 3 #9. implies that it is forbidden to the fresh mourner. And should it be subject to removal? Since Rebbi Simeon frees it from removal109The House of Shammai will agree with Rebbi Simeon who states in Mishnah Bikkurim 2:2 that First Fruits and the vineyard of the fourth year are not subject to either kind of removal.. And should it be redeemed while still connected to the ground110This question is not answered. The Tosefta Maäser Šeni 5:19 states categorically that there can be no redemption while the grapes are still on the vine. However, see in Tosefta Kifšutah Maäser Šeni p. 786 the list of authorities who claim that this is only the required procedure, but that a redemption, if done on the vine, is valid after the fact.? Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel stated: Both in the Sabbatical year and in the rest of the years of the sabbatical cycle, the House of Shammai say, there is no fifth and no removal. According to that Tanna, they did not at all learn the rules of the fourth year after planting from the Second Tithe. But then111If it is profane food. The rest of the paragraph is identical with the previous one except for the insertion of את ההלל missing here in the first version (but found in Maäser Šeni 5:3). should there be no holiness in it? Its holiness comes from the verse (Lev. 19:24): “Holy for praises;” it has the status of those holy fruits over which praises are said. And should it be permitted to the fresh mourner? It is stated: This implies that it is forbidden to the fresh mourner. And should it be subject to removal? Since Rebbi Simeon frees it from removal. And should it be redeemed while still connected to the ground? Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Abbahu: From where that it needs redemption112If the produce cannot be bodily transported to the place of the Temple. The argument is quoted in Babli Berakhot 35a. The word פדיון “redemption” is missing in the Leyden manuscript and the Venice print; it has been added from the parallel text in Maäser Šeni.? (Lev. 19:24) “Holy for praises,” holy for redemption. The rabbis never refrain from identifying ה and ח.113In all Jewish dialects except Eastern European Ashkenazic, ח (ḥ) is very close to הּ. In Medieval German Jewish, as well in Talmudic Babylonian Jewish, h and ḥ were identical and חַ ,הַּ were used as rhyming sounds. The current Ashkenazic identification of the sounds of ח,כ (ḥ, k) comes from the fact that Polish has only one ch sound; this was adopted by the Jews from their Gentile surroundings. While Biblical Hebrew probably had the two Semitic ח sounds, corresponding to Arabic خ، ح, one ḥ as in יצחק Isaac (Septuagint Ισαακ), the other k as in רחל Rachel (Septuagint Ραχηλ), in Mishnaic times these distinctions had disappeared long ago. Rebbi Ayvu bar Naggari stated before Rebbi La following Rebbi Ismael (Lev. 27:31): “If a man redeems part of his tithes, he should add its fifth to it.” That excludes the fourth year after planting; one is not obligated by it for a fifth. Then he turned around and stated: There are two terms of redemption114גָּאֹל יִגְאַל. One of these statements follows Rebbi, the other Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel., one for the Second Tithe and one for the fourth year after planting. There we have stated116Mishnah Terumot 3:9: “The heave of Gentile and Samaritan is heave, their tithes are tithes, their dedication is dedication. Rebbi Jehudah says, there is no vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile, but the Sages say, there is.” Even though the Gentile is not required to give heave, tithes, or to dedicate anything to the Temple, if he does it voluntarily, it must be treated according to all rules applying to heave, tithes, and dedications from Jews.: Rebbi Jehudah says, there is no vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile, but the Sages say there is117This is connected with the disagreement between R. Meïr and R. Jehudah/R. Simeon whether the possession by a Gentile of arable land in the Land of Israel does free its produce from duties of heave and tithes or not, cf. Chapter 4, Notes 129–131. The Babli (Menaḥot 66b) declares R. Jehudah to agree with R. Meïr that the Gentile’s arable land is subject to all duties, but this is not the opinion of the Yerushalmi.. Rebbi Eleazar said, so says the Mishnah: There is never a vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile118It is difficult to understand what R. Eleazar adds. R. S. Cirillo has: “There is no ‘vineyard of the fourth year’ at all in Syria,” interpreting the Mishnah in terms of Tosephta Terumot2:13, where R. Jehudah is quoted that “a Gentile in Syria has no ‘vineyard of the fourth year’.” This follows the interpretation of R. Simson that R. Jehudah cannot speak of a Gentile in the Land of Israel, based on the Babli quoted in the preceding Note. However, R. Simson’s argument does not apply to the Yerushalmi; the direct testimony of R. Salomon ben Adrat (Responsa attributed to Nachmanides156) confirms the Yerushalmi text as it appears here, in Maäser Šeni, and in the Rome manuscript. It is true that in the end, one speaks only of Syria, but this cannot apply to R. Jehudah’s statement in the Mishnah or to R. Eleazar’s addition.. Rebbi Bibi said before Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: According to the opinion of Rebbi, the statement of Rebbi Jehudah turns out to be like the statement of the House of Shammai. Since the House of Shammai said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year, so there is no fourth year after planting in the Sabbatical year. Similarly, Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in Syria119Syria has a special status as far as agricultural laws are concerned. The definition of “Syria” here means all territory that was not conquered by the 12 tribes under Joshua and the early Judges but was included in David’s kingdom. Since it was never incorporated in the Kingdom of Israel, it is not subject to the agricultural laws from the Torah. But since it was part of King David’s empire, these laws apply, either as Rabbinical ordinance or as popular usage. In any case, all rules must be interpreted leniently in Syria. (In consequence of the persecution of Jews in Palestine, particularly under the Christian Roman empire, the center of Jewish population slowly moved from Galilee to Syria.), so there is no fourth year after planting in Syria. He said to him, look what he120The House of Shammai, taken as a collective singular. said! He said only, it is not subject to a fifth and is not subject to removal121They did not say simply: The rules of the vineyard do not apply at all., hence, it is subject to all other rules; Rebbi Jehudah122Tosephta Terumot 2:13; this is R. Zeïra’s proof against R. Bibi, that R. Jehudah does not negate the obligation of the fourth year for Jews in Syria. However, the paragraph after the next will show that the Yerushalmi follows R. Bibi, that there is no such obligation in Syria. says, there is no vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile in Syria. Samuel bar Abba123A Galilean Amora of the third generation, student of R. Joḥanan, Rebbi Assi, and Rebbi Zeïra. He is not identical with the Babylonian Samuel, whose full name also was Samuel bar Abba. asked: Since the House of Shammai said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year, there is no fourth year after planting in the Sabbatical year. Similarly, in the third and sixth years of the sabbatical cycle, since there is no Second Tithe124The second tithe is not called Second Tithe but Tithe of the Poor; cf. Chapter 1, Note 127., there should not be any fourth year after planting. Rebbi Yose125The organizing principle for this and the following group of paragraphs is that Rebbi Yose solves the problems. said, even though there is no Second Tithe in the third and sixth years, there is the tithe for the poor. In the Sabbatical year, there are no tithes at all. Ḥeipha127He seems to be identical with the Babylonian Fourth generation Amora ‘Aipha ben Raḥaba from Pumbedita. He and his brother Abime were known as “the sharp-minded ones from Pumbedita.” asked: Since Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in Syria, there is no fourth year after planting in Syria128Even for Jews, following R. Jehudah in the Mishnah and against R. Jehudah in the Tosephta. This is accepted as genuine interpretation of R. Jehudah’s position.. Similarly, they learned the rules of the heave of the thanksgiving sacrifice129The rules of the thanksgiving sacrifice (Lev. 7:11–15) note only that four kinds of bread have to be brought and that one loaf each has to be given as heave to the officiating priest. The number of required loaves is not specified. The first heave has no fixed amount from the Torah; in the words of Samuel, one grain is enough for an entire silo. But since the number 1 is spelled out here and it is called heave, the natural inference is that the heave is the heave of the tithe given to the Levite, of which the Levite has to give 10% to the priest (Num. 18:26). Hence, 1 is 10% of the required amount, and from each kind of bread 10 loaves have to be brought to the Temple (Sifra Ẓav 7:1). only from the heave of the tithe; since you say that there was no heave of the tithe130Since there were no tithes during the 40 years in the desert; tithes are only imposed in the Land of Israel. in the desert, will it follow that there was no heave of the thanksgiving sacrifice in the desert? Rebbi Yose said, they learned from it only in regard of quantities. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah131A son of R. Jehudah (bar Illaï) and companion of Rebbi. stated: Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, Israel did become obligated for the fourth year after planting only after 14 years, seven during which they conquered and seven during which they divided up the land132The computation which proves that the time from the death of Moses till the end of the land distribution under Joshua and the assembly at Shiloh was 14 years is given in Seder Olam (Chap. 11, in the author’s edition pp. 116–118.). Rav Ḥisda said, it turns out that the argument of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah is identical with that of his father Rebbi Jehudah. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe, since you say that the Second Tithe started only after 14 years, similarly there was no fourth year after planting until after 14 years. Rebbi Yose said, he follows his son’s argument; Syria was inferred from “after 14 years133If they were not obligated while they were in the Land before its distribution, then certainly they are not obligated in Syria which was conquered only by a king, not by the community of tribes, held only temporarily, and never was distributed among the tribes.;” “after 14 years” was not inferred from Syria. It is written (Lev. 19:25): “In the fifth year, you shall eat its yield134This verse following the one which declares the yield of the fourth year of a new vineyard “holy for praises” reads: “But in the fifth year, you shall eat its fruit, to increase its yield to you.” Hence, the harvest is directly given to the owner of the vineyard. Also, “increase” presupposes prior yield for the owner..” Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, here one adds the fruits of the fifth to the fruits of the fourth year. Just as the fruits of the fifth year are for the proprietors, so the fruits of the fourth year are for the proprietors. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that Rebbi Yose the Galilean argues like Rebbi Jehudah. Just as Rebbi Jehudah makes it his property135This may refer to the earlier statement of R. Jehudah that the status of the yield of the fourth year is derived from the laws of Second Tithe and, as private property, is subject to the rules of single berries and gleanings. It also may refer to Mishnah Qiddušin 2:8 where R. Jehudah states that Second Tithe when wilfully and illegally diverted to profane use, such as bridal money to acquire a wife, becomes valid private property and the marriage is contracted, but if the same act was done in error, without intent to change the status of the Tithe, the Second Tithe remains holy, does not become profane, and the marriage is not contracted., so Rebbi Yose the Galilean makes it his property. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: According to those who declare it his property, should it not be subject to tithes? He said to him, according to what Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said136Yebamot 7:2. This refers to the laws indicated in Lev. 22:10–14. A non-priestly woman married to a priest may eat terumah. If she is divorced, or she becomes a widow without issue, she returns to her former non-priestly status and may not eat terumah. The Mishnah states that the servants of a non-priestly woman who was married to a priest and became a widow while pregnant with her first child, should not eat terumah. The first Mishnah had explained that there are two kinds of property a bride brings to her husband. For “property of dowry” נכסי מלוג the ownership resides with the wife. “Iron cattle” צאן ברזל becomes the husband’s property completely in exchange for an obligation to return full value in case of dissolution of the marriage. In the Halakhah, the Mishnah is interpreted to mean that her servants are “property of dowry” servants, but “iron cattle” servants are his and entitled to eat terumah since only their value has to be returned. She herself may not eat terumah unless and until she gives birth to a male child. On this, R. Abin says in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi that one has to follow what people do, and they do not let any slaves brought by the wife eat in such a situation., as Rebbi Abin said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, not only this practice, but in any practical question which is weak in court and you do not know how to decide, go out and see how the public acts, and act accordingly137In Babli Berakhot 45a, this is ascribed to Abbaie, an acquaintance of R. Abin.. And we see that they do not give138R. Zeïra seems to indicate that practice follows the House of Shammai in the interpretation of R. Jehudah. However, practice must follow the House of Hillel who consider the Second Tithe as Heaven’s money.. Rebbi Mana said, that is, if the practice would follow the House of Shammai. But is there any public that acts according to the House of Shammai? Rebbi Abin said, they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; just as you say that the Second Tithe is not subject to tithes, so the yield of the fourth year is not subject to tithes139According to the House of Hillel.. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan140In Babli Pesaḥim 37b, this is stated by R. Assi, another student of R. Joḥanan.: A dough of Second Tithe in Jerusalem, following Rebbi Meïr,141Who in Mishnah Qiddušin 2:8 disagrees with R. Jehudah and states that one never may use the Second Tithe for bridal money since it belongs to Heaven rather than to the owner. The law of ḥallah(Num. 15:20) states that it must be given to the priest as heave from your dough, and for R. Meïr it is not yours. is free from ḥallah, following Rebbi Jehudah142In the Babli, R. Jehudah’s opinion is classified as that of the Sages, i. e. the operative practice, in accordance with the opinion of the Yerushalmi. it is subject to ḥallah. Rebbi Jonah said, they said this only for Jerusalem, but not for the countryside143Outside of Jerusalem, produce from Second Tithe may be eaten only if redeemed. Then the produce becomes profane and the sanctity is transferred to the money. Hence, even R. Meir must agree that the dough must acquire profane status and, therefore, is subject to ḥallah.. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: He who declares it144This must refer to the Second Tithe, not the fruit of the fourth year of a tree, since ḥallah is only due from dough made from grain. obligated for single berries, does he also declare it obligated for ḥallah? He said to him, is that not Rebbi Jehudah? And it is our opinion that in all this practice, Rebbi Jehudah follows the House of Shammai145Who declare both the Second Tithe and the growth of the fourth year as private property, subject to all its laws..

MISHNAH: A vineyard that produces only gleanings, Rebbi Eliezer says, they are for the proprietor, Rebbi Aqiba says, for the poor. Rebbi Eliezer said (Deut. 24:21): “When you gather your grapes … do not take the gleanings after it.” If there is no vintage, where are the gleanings? Rebbi Aqiba told him (Lev. 19:10): “Do not take gleanings from your vineyard,” even if it is all gleanings. If that is so, why does it say “when you gather your grapes … do not take the gleanings after it;” the poor have no right to the gleanings146Nor to enter the vineyard before the time of the harvest. The grapes might still grow to sit one row on top of the other so that at harvest time they are no longer gleanings. before the vintage. HALAKHAH: Similarly, if there is no harvest there are no single berries147Following R. Eliezer. Since in Lev. 19:10, gleaning and single berries are mentioned in one verse, they must follow the same rules., until there should be vintage148When the proprietor gathers, the poor can have their grape gathering from the gleanings. However, if animals ate all grape bunches before the harvest, R. Eliezer declares the gleanings to belong to the proprietor. along vintage, not if a wild animal ate it. How much is a vintage? In the school of Shila149An Amora of the first generation in Nahardea who already had his school when Rav returned from Galilee. In the Babli, he usually is given the title Rav, which however is an anachronistic usage by later generations. they said, three bunches that make a quarter150A quarter of a log, about 3.8 fl. oz. or 133 cm3; cf. Berakhot p. 296. [Note 164] of wine. Rebbi Aqiba certainly explains both verses. How does Rebbi Eliezer explain “do not take gleanings from your vineyard”? So you should not say that, since the poor have no rights before harvest time, the proprietor acquired rights to them151That the owner of the vineyard could come and take all the unripe gleanings for himself before harvest time., it is necessary to say “do not take gleanings from your vineyard152Anytime before, during, and after the harvest..”

MISHNAH: If someone dedicates153Donates it to the Temple. Temple property is exempt from the laws of tithes and gifts to the poor and it is sinful to use any Temple property without first redeeming it by paying for it. his vineyard before gleanings are recognizable, the gleanings do not belong to the poor154Since nobody can give away what he does not possess, the owner of the vineyard cannot give away the property of the poor. As long as the gleanings are not recognizable, the poor have no rights to them.. But after the gleanings are recognizable, the gleanings belong to the poor. Rebbi Yose said, they should give the value of their growth to the Temple155To avoid using Temple property unlawfully, the poor who harvest the grapes have to give to the Temple the difference in value of the grapes now and at the time of dedication. (One cannot explain the statement to mean that they should pay part of the cost of tending the vineyard since the vineyard in the Sabbatical year may not be worked on.). What are forgotten grapes? On a trellis, anything he cannot stretch out his hands and take156Since on a trellis the branches are stretched out widely, once he has moved he may not return. But single vines standing separately are units by themselves and they become forgotten only if the vintner moves to the next vine.. On a single growing vine, once he is done with it. HALAKHAH: There158Mishnah Pesaḥim 4:8 (Yerushalmi 4:9), Tosephta Pesaḥim3:19. Taking the fruits from dedicated sycamores is one of the three things the people of Jericho did and against which the Sages protested. In the Babli, the discussion is Pesaḥim 56 a/b. The entire Halakhah also appears in Pesaḥim 4:9. we have stated: “They permitted the use of sycamore figs159גֻּמיז in Arabic. The Gaonic interpretation is “growth that comes out of the tree trunk.” (Pliny, Naturalis Historia, Book XIII, §56, already notes that the fruits of the “Egyptian fig” sit on the stem, not on branches.) The fruits are of such inferior quality that they do not qualify as objects of trade. (Cf. Tosefta Kifšutah I, p. 361.) from Temple trees. The160Tosephta Pesaḥim 3:22. Sages told them: Do you not agree with us that fruits from Temple property are forbidden? They said to them, when our forefathers dedicated them, they dedicated only the tree stems because of strong men who came and took them by force161Sycamores produce inferior fruits but superior building material. The “strong men” are probably the Hasmonean rulers. The people protected their sycamore groves by putting them out of bounds of any human government..” Do the rabbis mean to say that they dedicated tree stems and their fruits? Even if you say that they dedicated only the stems but not the fruits, the rabbis wonder whether if somebody dedicates an orchard, he may reserve the growth for himself162In Mishnah Meïlah 3:6, the anonymous Tanna declares that taking the fruits of a Temple tree does not constitute the crime of meïlah (larceny committed on Temple property.) In contrast, R. Yose declares the fruits to be covered by meïlah, therefore he requires in our Mishnah the poor to pay for the expenditures of tending the vines during the growing season. As the Babli (Pesaḥim 56b) points out, the Sages of the Tosephta, while agreeing that no felony is committed taking the sycamore figs, nevertheless must assume that taking them means overstepping a prohibition. However, this prohibition is not written in the Torah. While any condition that goes against a commandment of the Torah is invalid (Halakhah 6:9), a condition that goes against a rabbinic prohibition may be valid. It is unresolved whether the ancestors of the people of Jericho had the right to reserve for themselves the use of the sycamore figs.. Let us hear from the following: “After the gleanings are recognizable, they belong to the poor.” That is different because nobody may dedicate anything that is not his own. Does that not mean that even if the gleanings were not yet recognizable, they should belong to the poor163If the people of Jericho could not reserve the fruits, then it is clear that future growth is implicit in today’s tree, and the future gleanings should belong to the poor and not to the Temple.? That is different, because it is a vineyard for the Temple, as it was stated164Tosephta Peah 3:15.: “If somebody plants a vineyard for the Temple165I. e., if he dedicates a newly planted vineyard to the Temple. it is exempt from orlah166The prohibition to use the fruit of a newly planted tree during the first three years refers to the individual Jewish owner; it does not apply to the Temple which is common property., from the fourth year, and from gleanings, but it is subject to the Sabbatical year167In which everybody is free to take its fruits..” Rebbi Zeïra168This paragraph explains the action of the Sabbatical year on Temple property. The text follows the parallel in Pesaḥim 4:9 (fol. 31b). in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan (Lev. 25:2): “The land shall observe a Sabbath for the Eternal.” The sanctity of the Sabbatical year falls169Hence, the status of ownership has no influence on the duties of the Sabbatical year. on anything that is the Eternal’s. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Mana: It is impossible170In Mishnaic Hebrew, אפשר means “it is possible,” but איפשר is a contraction of אֵי אפשר and means “it is impossible.” to eat it171Any produce from Temple property collected in the Sabbatical year. without redemption since Temple property cannot exit172Its sacred status without the sanctity being transmitted to the money that goes into the Temple treasury. without redemption. If one redeems and eats it, it would be as if one bought an axe with money from the Sabbatical173Since it is written (Lev. 25:6): “The rest of the Land should be for you to eat,” we infer that the spontaneous growth is there to be eaten, not to be traded. It is possible to trade produce of the Sabbatical year as long as the final use is for food. The Temple has no need for money for food since the public sacrifices must be paid from the Temple tax of half a šeqel and private sacrifices are paid by the donors. Valuables donated to the Temple are used for building upkeep, vessels, and implements. Any monetary gain from Sabbatical produce for these purposes is forbidden; how can the Temple accept illegal money?! He said to him, the treasurer174The Temple treasurer. He has the right and the obligation to sell all Temple property which is not directly used for sacrifices in order to raise money for the upkeep of the Temple. The Sabbatical produce is not sold but directly exchanged for vessels or implements needed by the Temple. This exchange is permitted; it removes the holiness of Temple property but has no influence on the Sabbatical status of the produce. Then the third party may sell the produce as Sabbatical food (Explanation by R. Z. Frankel.) The third party probably is chosen before any harvest of the Sabbatical year to avoid leading ignorant people into sin. exchanges it through a third person. Rebbi Mattaniah175He belongs to the last generation of Galilean Amoraïm, later than R. Ḥiyya bar Abba. said, why do we not explain it176That the laws of the Sabbatical year apply to Temple property. according to everybody, as Rebbi Joḥanan said177This refers to Mishnah Nedarim4:10: “If they were on the road (a person A and another B who had made a vow not to use anything belonging to A). If B has nothing to eat, A gives food to a third person as a gift and B may use it. If no third person is with them, A puts the food up on a fence or a rock and says: This is abandoned to anybody who wants it. B may take and eat it, but Rebbi Yose forbids it.” On this, R. Joḥanan notes in Halakha 4:10 that R. Yose forbids only because the food was forbidden to B before it was declared abandoned; the abandonment is invalid relative to B. But if something was abandoned before any vow was made, R. Yose agrees that the vow cannot retroactively influence the status of abandoned property. Cf. Chapter 6, Note 17.: The words of Rebbi Yose: because his vow precedes his declaration of abandonment. And here178In the case of the vineyard, the abandonment of the gleanings is written in the Torah and certainly precedes any dedication., because his vow of abandonment precedes his dedication179The abandonment of the Sabbatical year is not invalidated by the dedication. Hence, the produce of the Sabbatical year should not need redemption.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it happened and they gave instructions following Rebbi Yose180Who requires in the Mishnah that the Temple be reimbursed for the produce grown in its possession, deciding with R. Ḥiyya bar Abba and against R. Mattaniah.. Does this180Who requires in the Mishnah that the Temple be reimbursed for the produce grown in its possession, deciding with R. Ḥiyya bar Abba and against R. Mattaniah. not contradict Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he passed it over and forgot it, it is forgotten181And it is stated that for a trellis, one can go over the branches as many times as he wants as long as he does not move away.. There is a difference, for a trellis is usually checked. And it does not even contradict Rebbi Hoshaia, for Rebbi Hoshaia said, when I was mashing olives with the great Rebbi Ḥiyya, he told me that any olive you can reach when stretching out your hand is not forgotten182But the Mishnah says that one may go around a free-standing vine as many times as he wants, as long as he does not move away.. There is a difference, since any single free-standing vine is a separate planting.

MISHNAH: When is everybody1Even rich people and even the proprietor himself. permitted to take gleanings of grain? After the second wave of seekers2A nif‘al participle from מוש “look up last.” (In Arabic, מוש means “collecting gleanings from grapes.”) If the word is derived from משש “to grope,” it designates old people who walk around groping. Both etymologies are considered in the Halakhah. is gone. Single grapes and gleanings of grapes, after the poor have come to the vineyard and gone. Olives after the second wave of rainfall3In Israel, the first rainfall of the fall season is expected about the seventh of Marḥeshwan; the second rainfall is anytime between Markheshwan 17 and Kislew 1 (after that date, the year would be considered one of draught.). Rebbi Jehudah said, are there not people who do not harvest their olives until after the second wave of rainfall? Rather when a poor man goes out and does not collect more than the value of four assarii4An assarius or as is 1/24 of a silver denar. One silver denar was worth 1/25 of a gold denar whose gold content in good times was about 4.3 grams. It is stated that the minimum amount necessary for one meal of a poor person in Mishnaic was 1 as. If a poor man cannot collect the value of two meals for both himself and his wife, he will not waste his time collecting.. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, why are they called nĕmūšōt, because they come at the end5In the Babli (Baba meẓi‘a 21b), this explanation is given in the name of R. Simeon ben Laqish. The feminine form both of the noun and the verb may indicate that the late collectors were mainly women. The use of the masculine later in the same context may be irrelevant since the Yerushalmi in general prefers the masculine singular for all genders and numbers.. Abba Shaul used to call them “gropers.” Some formulate in the Mishnah nĕmūšōt, some formulate mĕšūšōt. He who says nĕmūšōt, because they come at the end. Those who say mĕšūšōt, because they grope to come. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Menaḥem6Probably Rebbi Menaḥem, a student of R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish.: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri7Tanna of the third generation, a student of R. Eliezer and colleague of R. Ḥalaphta, the father of R. Yose. On the recommendation of R. Joshua, Rabban Gamliel later appointed him overseer of the Academy of Jabneh. He is the paradigm of the God-fearing poor. used to go out with the second wave of seekers and returned with his needs for the entire year. It was stated: The gifts to the poor standing on the field about which the poor do not care8They did not come to collect them at the appointed times, or they did not collect them when they did come. belong to the proprietor. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, may a person give the name of peah to take for himself9Since it was stated in Halakhah 1:6 that even a farmer who qualifies as poor has to abandon his peah to the poor in general, how can he then be authorized to take it for himself?? Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai stated: (Lev. 19:10,22) “Abandon them to the poor and the stranger,” not ravens and bats10It is better that food be used for humans who care about it. Since the obligation of these gifts to the poor is to “abandon” them, not to “give” them, the farmer is not required to give the value of peah, gleanings, etc., to the treasury of charities.. “Single grapes and gleanings of grapes, after the poor have come to the vineyard and gone.” We did not state “the second wave of seekers;” since these are so desirable they all come immediately. “Olives after the second wave of rainfall.” We did not state “the second wave of seekers;” since when it is cold, only young people will go out. And before that12The argument refers to the last part of the Mishnah, where R. Jehudah disputes the date of the second downpour and connects the date to the value of olives to be gleaned. If less than that amount is found, it is assumed that the poor abandoned the rest and it becomes abandoned to everybody (Baba Meẓi‘a 2:1). But if there is more, is it not still the possession of the poor and forbidden to everybody else?, is it not forbidden because of robbery? They received their answer according to their reasoning: You who say that because of the cold only young people will go out13Since you require to wait until after the second downpour, you seem to think that the poor have given up on those few farmers who harvest their olives only after the second downpour., for you, since he knows14The second gleaner. that he will not bring home enough for his upkeep, he will not go out.

MISHNAH: They15The poor can be trusted that they received produce as one of the gifts to the poor and that everybody (including a rich person buying from a poor one) is able to eat them, without separating heave and heave of tithes, and not commit a sin. can be trusted about gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah at harvest time, and about the tithe of the poor its entire year16The third and sixth years of a Sabbatical cycle.; the Levite can always be trusted17Since he receives the First Tithe every year; even though he is required to separate from this 10% as heave of tithes, we do not suspect him of being derelict in his duty, even if he is unlearned in this matter.. But they can be trusted only about things that people are in the habit of doing18This is explained in the following two Mishnaiot.. HALAKHAH: How far20If the poor person testifies that he collected the grain at a certain place, how far away may that place be so that we still may trust him.? Rebbi Ḥanina said, to a place where he usually21I. e., with his usual speed and endurance. goes and returns the same day. It happened that Rebbi trusted five brothers about five kor22Each one of them returning with one kor, about 380 liter! of wheat. Is that not impossible? A little here and a little there adds up to a kor. Rebbi Eleazer from the South23A fifth generation Amora from the South, the region around Lod, student of the Galilean R. Yose. asked before Rebbi Yose: Does our Mishnah follow Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said24The statement is in Tosephtah Maäser Šeni 3:16; it belongs to the topic of tractate Demai and is discussed in Demai 4:5: “If one was seen separating the Second Tithe, he is trustworthy also for the First Tithe, the words of R. Eliezer. But the Sages say, if he can be trusted for the First, he can be trusted for the Second, but if he can be trusted for the Second, he cannot yet be trusted for the First.” Eating First Tithe without separating its heave of the tithe is a deadly sin. Eating unredeemed Second Tithe is a transgression but no deadly sin. For the Sages, essentially everybody can be trusted in matters of the heave of the tithe but only people checked out for trustworthiness can give reliable information about the Second Tithe., if he can be trusted for the Second, he can be trusted for the First? Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion. Here it is different since nobody fools around with deadly sins25There is no question of minor transgression; eating food that is not a gift to the poor without separating out “great” heave and heave of the tithe is a deadly sin and people will not knowingly engage in it or lead others into a deadly sin.. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Just as Jews are not suspected in matters of the great heave26The first heave given from the harvest before tithes., so Levites are not suspected in matters of the heave of tithes. Rebbi Hoshaia said, our Mishnah says so: The Levite can always be trusted. Rebbi Mana asked, can the Levite always be trusted, even in the Sabbatical year27In the six years in which he receives the First Tithe, we understand that he is trustworthy because he will not lightly commit a mortal sin. But in the Sabbatical year, in which no tithes are given, there seems to be no reason to give the Levite a privileged position. The question is not answered.? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, the Levite may be trusted if he says, this is certainly tithe, to free it from Second Tithe. But if he says: It was given to me29As a gift, not as obligatory tithe., or if he says that it is from his own crop30Of which he is not entitled to take the gifts to the poor. The Levite may take his own First Tithe., they cannot be trusted. That is the Mishnah: But they can be trusted only about things that people are in the habit of doing. So is the Mishnah: But they can be trusted only about things that people are in the habit of giving31That means “the habit” does not refer to the Levite or the poor but to the farmer..

MISHNAH: They are trustworthy about wheat but not flour or bread34Since gifts to the poor are only given in unhulled, without supporting evidence one can trust the poor only for the grain itself to exempt it from heave and tithes.. They are trustworthy about panicles of rice35Only if the rice is on the panicles and not hulled. “Raw” in the next clause refers to hulled rice. but not if it is either raw or cooked. They are trustworthy about beans but not bean groats, either raw or cooked. They are trustworthy about oil36Olive oil, which is given after pressing. if they say it is from the tithe of the poor, but not if they say it is made from picked olives37Since oil is made only from olives that are ripe enough to fall off when the tree is shaken..They are trustworthy in regard to fresh vegetables41That it is from the tithe of the poor since vegetables are not subject to peah and the other gifts connected with peah. but not for cooked ones except if it was a small amount, since it is the way of householders to bring out from their pans. HALAKHAH: Should the poor be trustworthy if they say: It was given me as grain and I turned it into flour, it was given me as grain and I turned it into bread? It is clear to him38The anonymous person who asked the question. Since the testimony is really on the grain, the poor must be trusted. that he is trustworthy. Even if everybody knew that most people store gleanings, he is not trustworthy39If most farmers collect gleanings and later distribute them, the poor cannot be trusted in their statements about grain they did not collect themselves.. It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah says40Tosephta Peah 4:1. There the wording is: The poor person is trustworthy. The last sentence extends the argument of R. Jehudah to olive oil., at a place where one presses gleanings of grapes, the poor shall be trusted when they say, this wine is from gleanings of grapes.” Similarly, at a place where one presses picked olives, the poor should be trusted when they say, this oil is from picked olives. In the house of Assi they cooked vegetables but had forgotten to put them in order42To give at least the heave and the tithes so that the vegetables could be eaten by non-priests.. Gamliel the twin came and fixed them in the pot43He removed the required amount from the cooked vegetables. This shows that it is possible for the poor to receive their tithe from the pot and one should not object to the formulation of the Mishnah that a testimony about cooked vegetables is irrelevant since tithes certainly were given before the cooking started. We also learn that separating heave and tithes after cooking legitimizes the small amounts absorbed by the walls of the (clay) pot..

MISHNAH: One may not give to the poor from the threshing floor44The tithe of the poor, which is given, rather than abandoned, and for which it is in the hand of the farmer to whom to give and how much. A certain minimum has to be handed out each time. What to do if this reduces the number of poor who can receive something is treated in the next Mishnah. less than half a qab45One sixth of a seah and four log, 2.13 liter; cf. Chapter 3, Note 108. of wheat or a qab of barley; Rebbi Meïr says, half a qab. One and a half qab of spelt, a qab of dried figs or a mina46The weight of 100 silver denar. According to Maimonides in his Commentary, a denar is 96 grains or 6.22 grams. This would make a mina equal to 622 g, about twice the weight of 100 Severan silver denars. R. Isaac Simponti in his commentary identifies the mina with the 1b. of 16 oz. (following Rashi Erubin 29a), and the log as 12 fl. oz. (.426 liter). Cf. Note 75. of fig cake; Rebbi Aqiba says, half. Half a log of wine; Rebbi Aqiba says, a quarter. A quarter of a log of olive oil; Rebbi Aqiba says, an eighth. About all other produce, Abba Shaul says enough so he may sell it and buy food for two meals from the proceeds. HALAKHAH: It was stated47A similar list appears in Babli Erubin 29a in the name of R. Simeon ben Eleazar.: A quarter48A quarter qab equalling one log fluid. of rice, an ukla491/8 of a log. of spices, a pound50A Roman pound of 12 ounces, 345 g. of vegetables, three qab carob, half a log of wine, a quarter of a log of olive oil, ten nuts, five peaches, two pomegranates, one etrog51Citrus medica, also used on the feast of Tabernacles.. What is the reason? (Deut. 26:12) “They shall eat in your gates and be satiated,” give him to satisfy him. Ḥizqiah asked his father: From where do we get all these amounts52Some of them do not appear sufficient for a meal; the amounts seem to be inconsistent with their derivation from the verse.? He said to them53R. Ḥiyya, the father, said to Jehudah and Ḥizqiah, his twin sons., a pebble supports a tower54A slight allusion may be the justification for an elaborate set of rules.. Rebbi Ḥananiah was sitting before Rebbi Ilaï, the latter was giving a reason and the former destroyed it, the latter was giving a reason and the former destroyed it, until he said to him, is it not depraved to destroy instead of building up? Rebbi Mana said, one should state “four pounds.55As a minum gift of vegetables, not one pound as in the Baraitha.” Rebbi Eleazar said, the same is valid for an eruv56The entire paragraph is also in Erubin 3:1, the parallel in Babli Erubin28a. On the Sabbath, one may not venture out from one’s town more than 2000 cubits in each direction. [This is a commonly accepted practice; the Biblical commandment (Ex. 16:29): “Nobody shall leave his place on the Sabbath” is interpreted to mean a distance of 12 mil, 24000 cubits.] If somebody needs to go up to 4000 cubits in a certain direction, he may go on Friday afternoon to a distance of 2000 and deposit there food for two meals as eruv for himself. Then he “acquires Sabbath rest” at that spot and may go 2000 cubits from that place in any direction, even if he was not actually there at nightfall Friday evening. Every built-up area is counted as 4 cubits, but the person with an eruv may not go even one step in the opposite direction outside the built-up area. Since the Mishnah states that the poor should get food for two meals as a minumum, these minima also apply to eruv.. Rebbi Ḥinena said, this is for wine, but oil for an eruv must be enough for two meals. It was stated: One may use for eruv vinegar enough for two meals. It was stated: One may use for eruv oil enough for two meals. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: For dipping in it bundled vegetables for two meals. Rebbi Isaac Aṭoshaya57From a place ‘Aṭoša, probably not far from Tiberias. He transmits traditions from R. Joḥanan and most of the latter’s students. said before Rebbi Zeïra in the name of the House of Rebbi Yannai: One may use for eruv raw peas enough for two meals. For whom is this statement necessary? For Rebbi Meïr58Tosephta Erubin 6(9):4. Yerushalmi Erubin 3:11, Babli Erubin29a. There R. Meïr decides that onions are not fit for eruv (the Babli applies this only to the leaves, not the bulbs.), that one should not say because they produce bad mouth odor one may not use them for eruv. One may use salted fish for eruv. One may use salted meat for eruv. Fresh meat, as we have stated59Mishnah Menaḥot 11:7, referring to the ram given as sin-offering on a Day of Atonement that falls on the Sabbath; it must be eaten by the priests before the next morning but cannot be cooked. The priests from Babylonia (in the opinion of the Babli, those from Alexandria) ate it raw after the fast. The text of our Mishnah has “because their taste is refined” as a euphemism.: The Babylonians eat it raw because their taste is strange. Rebbi Judan asked: May one use χαλκίς60This word and its meaning are difficult to determine. The Rome manuscript has כלבידה, the Venice text in Erubin כלבודה. These two readings constitute a majority and should be accepted. Levy, followed by all other modern dictionaries, assumes the ב to be an error for כ and reads χαλκίς, a kind of herring, also mentioned as כלכיד in Yerushalmi Niddah 6:1. However, in the Babli (Avodah zarah 39b, Tosephta Avodah zarah 4:11 printed edition, and elsewhere), this appears as כילבית, but in both manuscripts of the Tosephta, the Munich manuscript of the Babli, and the editio princeps of Alfassi, it is כילכית. Rabbenu Ḥananel explains: a small kosher fish. for eruv since the Samaritans eat it raw? Samuel bar Shilat61In the Babli, he appears as Rav Samuel bar Shilat, a student of Rav, renowned as the devoted school teacher. in the name of Rav: One may use for eruv pa‘apu‘in,gudganiot, and ḥaluglugot. They asked him: what are these? He said to them, καυκαλίς62A plant, melilotus officinalis. In Arabic, קַקַל is cardamom, קַקֻלַּי an alkaline plant; cf. I. Löw, Die Flora der Juden, Vol. 1, p. 490., melilot63Arabic חנדקוקא, a kind of tall clover, only barely digestible. Rashi explains in Berakhot 57b cierges, “candles”, a name used, as also its German equivalent Kerze, to designate tall annual plants., and purslain64Arabic פרפח̇. In both Talmudim, the last identification is ascribed to Rebbi’s slave girl (about her see Berakhot Chap. 3, Note 175)..

MISHNAH: These measures65The amounts specified in the previous Mishnah apply to all poor persons equally, as well as the Levites and priests who come to get the First Tithe. apply to priests, Levites, and Israel. If he wanted to save66If he wanted to save from his tithe of the poor to give to his own poor relatives, he must publicly distribute half of it to the general poor who come to collect, in a nondiscriminatory manner; the other half he gives to his poor relatives in private., he gives half and takes half. If it was little67If the tithe of the poor (or half of it) was not sufficient to give the minimal amount to every poor person who appeared, he does not distribute but lets the poor divide it among themselves., he puts it before them and they divide it up among themselves. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah refers the Mishnah to the case when he has more than the measure: If he wanted to save, he takes away half and gives half, but if he has only the measure68After taking off half for his own family, he can no longer give to every poor what is due to him by Mishnah 5. Maimonides (Mattenot Aniïm 6:11) accepts the position of R. Jonah., he puts it before them and they divide it up among themselves. Rebbi Ḥizqiah refers the Mishnah to the case when he has the exact measure: If he wants to save, he takes away one half and gives one half; since if he takes away one half and gives one half it becomes less, he puts it before them and they divide it up among themselves69R. Ḥizqiah permits the farmer to reduce by his own deliberate action the amount available for the general poor below the required minimum. [In the Tosephta (Peah 4:2) it is reported in the name of R. Eliezer that the farmer may reserve two thirds for his family.]. It was stated71Tosephta Peah 4:8, formulated in singular as in Babli Baba Batra 9a, where the same conclusion is reached here that if he does not collect a minimum, one may give him from public money up to the minimum but not more than that.: “One does not bother at all72This refers both to public assistance, detailed in the next Mishnah, and the public distribution of the tithe of the poor. The “doors” here are doors of residences, not of barns. Since a tax is collected (both in money and in foodstuffs) for public charity, private persons do not have an obligation over and above that which is stated in the Mishnah. with those who beg at doors.” Rebbi Jonah said, only if he would not get less than his collection73The poor should not have less than the minimum needed to keep him alive. [Explanation of R. Moses Margalit. Sperber (loc. cit.) gives economical reasons for the apparent relaxation of the Tannaitic rule in R. Jonah’s time (ca. 350 C. E.)] The singular might be addressed to the householder who in R. Jonah’s time was supposed not to let the beggar at his door go away totally emptyhanded.. Here74Mishnah 5; the minimum gift is one half qab, and the same Mishnah states later that the general principle is “food for two meals.” you say, one may not give to the poor less than this from the threshing floor. And there75Mishnah 7; one may not give to the poor person who is travelling from one place to another less than a loaf of bread in the value of a pondion, i. e., a dupondius (half an obolus, one twelfth of a silver denar) if four seah cost a sela‘ (tetradrachma). 4 seah are 24 qab and a tetradrachma is 24 oboli. you say, one may not give to the poor who is travelling from one place to another less than76The price of the loaf of bread is exactly the price of the grain that the poor gets at the barn. Some weight is lost in milling, and some expense is incurred in baking, and the baker has to make a living. So it seems that the stranger is treated better than the local poor, which is against all rules. [Not all the water used for the dough evaporates in baking, which increases the weight somewhat.] that. Rav Huna said, deduct one third for expenses77The loaf which the stranger gets is not made from half a qab of wheat flour but only from a third of a qab so that miller and baker can make a living. In Babli Erubin 82a, it is Rav Ḥisda, a student of Rav Huna, who explains that processing costs 1/3 from above, or 1/2 from below.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun gave to the bakers according to the statement of Rav Huna, but only for these measures78For greater amounts, the price to be paid to miller and baker may be less and is negotiable without being unfair to the baker.. Rebbi Abba bar Abba bar Mamal79A son of the more renowned Rebbi Abba bar Mamal. asked before Rebbi Ilaī: What if they saw him80The travelling poor, who comes back to take twice at the same place. leave the town and enter it again? He said to him, he who gives shall give and he who takes should be afraid for himself81For committing the sin of stealing from other needy people, as explained in Mishnah 9. In handing out charity, the giver should err on the side of generosity..

MISHNAH: One does not give to the poor who is travelling from one place to another less than a loaf that costs a dupondius at a time when four seah cost a sela‘75Mishnah 7; one may not give to the poor person who is travelling from one place to another less than a loaf of bread in the value of a pondion, i. e., a dupondius (half an obolus, one twelfth of a silver denar) if four seah cost a sela‘ (tetradrachma). 4 seah are 24 qab and a tetradrachma is 24 oboli.. If he stays overnight, one provides him with a bed for sleeping82A mattress and cover.. If he stays over the Sabbath, one gives him food for three meals. He who has food for two meals should not take from the tamḥui83A basket from which food is distributed to the poor; it was collected for this purpose by the overseers of charity from the households of the town. The word is derived from a Semitic root that in Arabic is ת̇מח̇ “to mix”, since all food was put together in one big basket or plate (Accadic tamaẖu “to grasp, hold in one’s hand”.), if for fourteen meals, he should not take from the charity chest. The chest is collected by two people84Since the contribution of money for welfare is a local tax and forcibly collected as a tax, it can never be in the hands of only one person. and distributed by three86Tosephta Peah 4:9, Babli Baba Batra 8b.. HALAKHAH: Tamḥui86Tosephta Peah 4:9, Babli Baba Batra 8b. is collected every day, the chest every Friday. Tamḥui is for everybody87Including the travellers., the chest is only for local people. Rebbi Ḥuna said, the tamḥui is collected by three people, because it it given out on the spot. Rebbi Ḥelbo in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, one does not appoint less than three providers89Who spend public money or distribute food to support the poor.. Come and look, money matters are judged by three, matters of life and death not so much more? But then they should be 2390The number of judges of a criminal court (mainly acting as a jury.). Until one assembles them, he91The hungry poor. is in danger. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not appoint two brothers as providers92The Babli (Baba Batra 8b) quotes R. Ḥanina (a very early Galilean Amora) to the effect that Rebbi appointed two brothers as overseers of charity at the same time.. Rebbi Yose removed one of two brothers. He came and said before them93In public assembly before the entire town.: There was not anything wrong with Mr. X, only one does not appoint two brothers as providers. Rebbi Yose went up to Kufra94Possibly Koufeir near Hasbeya in South Lebanon. and wanted to appoint providers there, but they did not accept. He came and said before them95Mishnah Šeqalim 5:1 lists the small permanent staff of the Temple, probably in the last times of its existence. Ben Babai administered the oakum, bought with public money, from which the wicks for the candelabra were made.: “Ben Bavai over the oakum.” If this one had been appointed over the wicks and therefore merited to be counted with the leaders of his generation, you who are being appointed over the lives of people96The poor who would starve without assistance., so much more. Rebbi Ḥaggai, when he inducted providers, let them carry the Torah, to indicate that every public office is given by the Torah (Prov. 8:15–16): “Through me, kings rule, through me, princes become princes.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba appointed magistrates97Greek ἄρχων. He also inducted them to their offices by giving them the Torah scroll to carry.. Rebbi Eliezer was provider. Once, he returned to his house and said to them: What happened? He said to him, there came a group, they ate and drank and prayed for you. He said to them, that does not give much reward. Another time, he came to his house and said to them: What happened? They said to him, there came another group, they ate and drank and cursed you. He said to them, that gives much reward. They wanted to appoint Rebbi Aqiba as provider. He said that he had to take counsel with his house98The house is his wife, who may be referred to only in indirect speech.. They followed him and heard him say: In order to be cursed, in order to be insulted99His wife warned him of what would happen to him and he agreed that these things must be expected when a provider takes office.. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said: Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed101In the Babli, Baba Batra 9a, Rav Huna (the student of Rav) says that one checks for food but not for clothing and Rav Jehudah (student mainly of Samuel) says that one checks for clothing but not for food. Maimonides (Mattenot Aniïm 7:6) decides for Rav Jehudah. It seems that nobody in Babylonia accepted the theory that one does not check in either case.. One said, one checks out before giving clothing but one does not check out for necessities of life102I. e., food for the hungry.. The other said, even before giving clothing one does not check out, because of the covenant of the patriarch Abraham103That no Jew should have to go naked.. A baraita disagrees with him who says that even before giving clothing one does not check out. He explains it for giving him according to his status, as we have stated104Tosephta Peah 4:8: “One does not give to the poor who is travelling from one place to another less than a loaf that costs a dupondius at a time when four seah cost a sela‘. If he stays overnight, one provides for him bedding, oil, and legumes. If he stays over the Sabbath, one gives him food for three meals, oil, legumes, fish, and vegetables. When has this been said? If they do not know him. But if they know him, they also clothe him, everything befitting his status (his prior status before he lost his money).”: “When has this been said? If they do not know him. But if they know him, they also clothe him, everything befitting his status.” But was it not stated105A similar text is in Tosephta Peah 4:9: “Tamḥui is collected every day, the chest every Friday. Tamḥui is for everybody, the chest is only for local people. If he stayed there for thirty days, he is like the local residents for the charity chest, but for clothing six months. For the poor (Erfurt manuscript: the taxes) of the town twelve months.” The last sentence certainly refers to an obligation to pay taxes; the sentence before the last is ambiguous as to whether it speaks of a duty to contribute or a right to take.: “For food thirty days, for clothing six months.” Explain it, to contribute. But was it not stated: “For food thirty days, for assessments106Meaning of the Syriac word פסא. Compare also Arabic פסא “to tear something up.” and charity twelve months?” This means to contribute, the earlier must mean to receive. It still means to contribute; what does it mean, for assessments and charity twelve months? For the salaries of scribes107Scribes of the courts who also were notaries and teachers of advanced students. and teachers108Elementary school teachers, since the upkeep of elementary schools is a communal obligation from the times of the High Priest Joshua ben Gamla..

MISHNAH: He who owns 200 zuz109This is the usual name for the silver denar. [According to the definition of Shulḥan Arukh that a pĕruṭah, 1/192 of a denar, is one-half grain of sterling silver, 200 zuz would be 80 oz. of sterling silver. Its buying power would be much more since in Antiquity the ratio of silver to gold was at most 1:12; it was an amount on which a person could live comfortably for one full year.] should not take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and tithes of the poor. If he had 199, even if a thousand people gave him at the same time, he should take. If they were mortgaged for his wife’s ketubah110Cf. Chapter 3, Note 151. The ketubah is a general lien on all his property. The Mishnah supposes that specific money is set aside for the satisfaction of the ketubah. This is permitted only in special cases such as an impending divorce or death. In the same way, the surety for a loan here is not a general mortgaging of property but a definite lien attached to cash. or for a creditor, he may take. One does not require him to sell his house or the vessels of daily use111The rules of this Mishnah apply only to one who takes gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and tithes of the poor. The protection does not apply to people asking for public assistance.. HALAKHAH: A student of Rebbi had 199 denar; Rebbi used to let him receive the tithe of the poor once every three years. His students cast an evil eye on him and completed for him112That he had exactly 200 denar.. The next time, when he wanted to let him receive, he said: My teacher, I have the measure. He said, this one was hit by a beast of prey113In Mishnah Sotah 3:4, a list is given of those who destroy the world, and beasts of prey (not “the pious”) are part of the list. The story is repeated there. The main definition given for “hit by a beast of prey” are tricks by learned people who think that by scrupulously observing all formal legal rules they can hurt other people with impunity, for example those who advise heirs how to manipulate their property legally so that nothing is left to sustain their father’s widow (assuming she is not their mother.) The derivation here assumes that the Hebrew has the same root as Arabic פרשׂ “to devour, tear apart,” said of a beast of prey.. He gave a hint to his student who took him to a store114Greek καπηλεῖον., made him spend a carat1151/24 of a denar, in Mishnaic Hebrew called איסר. The student still had 199 23/24 denar left, so he could take the tithe and still keep most of the gift that was maliciously given to him. (Note that while the story is told in Aramaic, Rebbi is quoted speaking only pure Hebrew. This fits in with what we know about Rebbi’s household from other sources.), then he (Rebbi) let him receive as he was used to do. A116This and the following stories illustrate the principle that if one knows the recipient of charity one has to support him so that his prior dignity is not impaired. family from Nevallat117In Tosephta Peah 4:11, the reading is בית נבלטה, in Sifri Deut. 110,303 בית נבטלה. The best explanation is given by I. Löw; the reference is to a town in Benjamin, Neh. 11:34. in Jerusalem traced its descent from Oman the Yebusite118The last king of the Yebusites who sold the Temple site to David (2Sam. 24:20–24, 1Chr. 21:15).. Once the Sages alotted them six hundred talents of gold119The enormous sum of 1’800’000 gold sheqel. In the Tosephta it is 300 gold sheqel (Erfurt manuscript: 600), in the Rome manuscript 600 talents silver gold, a confluence of two versions. The number given in the Yerushalmi also appears in Sifri Deut. 110, but in #303 it is 600 talents of silver. The amount given here probably is an adaptation of the original amount to the hyperinflation of the military anarchy; it would correspond approximately to 1’800 honest gold sheqel. to avoid causing them to leave Jerusalem, since they interpreted “in your gates, in your gates120The repetition of “in your gates” in Deut. 26:12, 16:11,14, 14:21,27,29 is taken to include Jerusalem. The verse Deut. 26:12, referring to tithes one has to give to the Levite, the stranger, the orphan, and the widow, so that “they should eat in your gates and be satisfied,” is explained in Sifri Deut. 303: “‘In your gates’ teaches that one may not export tithes from the Land of Israel. They said that a family from Nevallat was in Jerusalem and the Sages alotted them six hundred talents of silver and did not want to permit them to leave Jerusalem.” (Similar in Sifri Deut. 110). In Sifri Deut. 71, the repetition “in your gates, in your gates” is explained as reference to dedicated animals that may be slaughtered outside of Jerusalem; hence, a special inclusion of Jerusalem is needed.,” to include Jerusalem. Also122Tosephta Peah 4:11, Ketubot67b., we have stated: It happened that Hillel took for a poor son of a prominent family a horse for his exercise and a slave to serve him. Also, it happened that the people of Galilee brought a Sepphoris pound of meat123In Babli and Tosephta, the text reads: “Daily a pound of meat for a poor man from Sepphoris”. We do not know how much a Sepphoris pound was; it is also mentioned in Sifri Deut. 317. Rashi in Babli Ketubot 67b reads: בליטרא בשר, “meat for a pound (of coins).” However, the pound as unit of currency is not found before Charlemagne. to an old man every day. Is this not impossible124That an old man would need so much meat.? It was because he did not eat except in company. It was stated125Tosephta Peah 4:11: “If he was used to golden vessels, he has to sell them and use silver vessels,” in Babli Ketubot 68a: “If he was used to golden vessels, he should use silver vessels.” Tosephta and Babli make a condition for public support that he first should sell his luxury items; the Yerushalmi speaks of what public charity has to provide for him.: “If he was used to golden vessels, one gives him silver vessels, silver vessels one gives him brass vessels, brass vessels one gives him glass vessels.” Rebbi Mana said, silver vessels and glass vessels of personal use126If the Mishnah said, one does not require him to sell the vessels of daily use, that refers only to utensils used on his body, like combs etc. The Tosephta that requires him to sell his precious belongings refers to tableware and other vessels that are not used on his body.Glass vessels were luxury items in ancient Rome. One has to assume that the cheap glass vessels referred to here are those products of Phoenician glass making that were not of export quality.. But was it not stated: If he was used to silk clothes, one gives him silk clothes. Here it is on his body, there it is not on his body. One from the family of the Patriarch lost his possessions; they provided for him in pottery vessels, he ate and threw up127Since he was so disgusted by the ugly tableware.. The doctor told him, is not the main preparation of food in the cooking pan? Eat out of the pan128Greek λοπάς, cf. Chapter 7, Note 69. There was no difference heard between ס = s and צ = ss.! So129This refers to the part of the Mishnah which prescribes that mortgaged debts can be deducted from the net worth before the limit of 200 zuz is computed. far a creditor who pushes for payment. Also for a creditor who does not push for payment? Let us hear from the following: “If they were mortgaged for his wife’s ketubah or for a creditor.” Is the wife not like a creditor who does not push for payment130Since the ketubah is not due as long as she is married.? “One does not require him to sell.” Rebbi Ḥanina said: A person has to have two outer garments, one for weekdays and one for the Sabbath. What is the reason (Ruth 3:3): “Wash, rub yourself with oil, and put on your clothes131In Babli Sabbath 113b, this is a saying of R. Eleazar, a frequent tradent of sayings by R. Ḥanina. The explanation of Rashi is taken straight from this Yerushalmi or from the (Yerushalmi) parallel in Midrash Ruth rabba 5:12. The speaker is Naomi, the person addressed Ruth. It is spelled out in Ruth that they were poor enough to go and collect gleanings; hence, even if somebody is on welfare he needs separate outer garments for weekdays and Sabbath, and these must be provided by public assistance. Hence, this paragraph belongs to the current Halakhah..” Was she naked? But that refers to her Sabbath clothes. When Rebbi Simlai preached this in public, the companions132The members of his yeshivah. cried and said to him, our teacher, as our garments are on weekdays so our garments are on the Sabbath. He said to them, nevertheless, you have to change, from this: “Wash, rub yourself with oil, and put your clothes on yourself and descend to the threshing floor.” (It is written “I will decend,” she said to her, my merits will go down with you.133This aggadic insert is appropriate in Midrash Ruth but is intrusive here. However, R. Simlai, the famous preacher, will not let the occasion for a sermon pass by. Was she naked? No, she said to her: put on your Sabbath garments.)

MISHNAH: He who has 50 zuz and uses them for trade should not take135Neither the agricultural gifts to the poor nor public assistance.. One who has no need to take but takes will not die of old age until he needs the creatures136I. e., people.. One who has need to take but does not take will not die of old age until he can provide for others from what is his; for him is was said (Jer. 17:7): “Blessed be the man who will be confident in the Eternal, the Eternal will be his trust.” The same applies to a judge who delivers strictly true judgment137While compromise is usually preferred, he who negotiates a compromise does not have the same responsibility as one who has to deliver unassailable true judgment.. But one who is neither lame nor blind nor limping and presents himself as such will not die from old age until he will be one of them, as it is said (Deut. 16:20): “Justice, justice you shall pursue.” But every judge who takes bribes and bends the law will not die from old age until his eyes are dimmed, as it is said (Ex. 23:8): “Do not take bribes, for bribes blind the eyes of the seeing.”138The blinding of the seeing can also be applied to welfare fraud, as it was stated in Halakhah 6 that certifying eligibility for welfare is a judicial task.In the most trustworthy Mishnah manuscripts, the text after the quote from Jeremiah is missing. In others, only the reference to honest and dishonest judges is added. It is clear from the disconnected text that the insertion about simulants is the last. Since these additions are not discussed in the Halakhah, it seems that they are late additions to emphasize the end of the tractate (probably being added by the compilers of the Yerushalmi.) HALAKHAH: This means that 50 at work are better than 200 not at work. He who blinds his eye139He fakes blindness or swelling. or swells his legs or blows up his belly does not leave this world until it really happens to him140A slightly different version in Tosephta Peah 4:14 and Babli Ketubot68a.. Samuel ran away from his father and stayed between two huts of the poor. He heard their voices saying, on which silver142Latin argentum. will we eat today, on golden silverplate143Latin argentarius,-a,-um, adj. “of silver”. or silver silverplate? He returned and told his father about it. He said to him, we have to give thanks to the dishonest among them144Since we know that some who pose as poor are not poor, we can be discriminating and give only to those we judge worthy.. Clarification. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish went to bathe in the public baths145Greek, cf. Berakhot p. 299. of Tiberias. A poor man met them and said to them: acquire merit by me. They said to him, when we return, when we return. When they returned, they found him dead. They said, since we did not acquire merit during his lifetime, let us care for him in his death. While they were occupied with him, they found a pouch of denars hanging on him. They said, that is what Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar146Parallels in Babli Ketubot 68a, Lev. rabba 34, Ruth rabba 5.: We have to give thanks to the dishonest among them, because if there were no dishonest persons among them, if one of them was requesting alms from a man and he would not give him, he would be punished immediately. Abba bar Abba147The father of Samuel, rabbi of Nahardea and descendant of R. Joshua’s nephew. gave coins to his son Samuel to distribute to the poor. He found one poor who ate red meat and drank wine. He returned and told his father about it. The latter said to him, give him more since his soul is bitter148He has expensive tastes and lacks the money to indulge them.. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi and Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman were providers149Administrators of public charity. From here to the penultimate paragraph, the text also appears in Šeqalim 5:6, in a text with fewer scribal errors. In doubtful cases, the spelling of Šeqalim is followed. and gave a denar to Rebbi Ḥama150R. Ḥama bar Bissa, of the generation of transition from Tannaïm to Amoraïm, from the region of Lod. His son belongs to the first Amoraïm. the father of Rabbi Oshaia, but he gave it away to others. All were saying evil things about Rebbi Zachariah151Amora of the third and fourth generations. His father-in-law was the preacher in Tiberias in R. Joḥanan’s time., the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi; they said that he was taking while he did not need it. When he died, they checked and found that he was splitting it up for others. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappai used to distribute his charity in the night. Once the prince of spirits encountered him. He said to him, did not our teacher152Moses. The implication is that humans should leave the night for spirits since it is dangerous to go out then (Mishnah Avot 3:8). teach us (Deut 19:14): “Do not displace your neighbor’s boundaries.” He said to him, but is it not written (Prov. 21:14): “A gift in secret appeases anger.” He was afraid of him and fled from him. Rebbi Jonah said, it is not written, “hail to him who gives to the needy,” but (Ps. 41:2): “Hail to him who is considerate to the needy;” this refers to him who fulfills this commandment intelligently. How did Rebbi Jonah do it? When he saw a son of a prominent family who had lost his property, he used to say to him: My son, since I heard that an inheritance fell to you at another place, take and you will pay back. When he had taken it, he said to him, it is a gift. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, in our days there were old people who used to take if somebody gave to them between New Year’s Day and the Great Fastday. After that, they were not taking. They said, there153During the days of repentance, between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, the givers need the merit that comes with giving gifts to the needy; hence, the gifts are given wholeheartedly. is permission for us. Neḥemiah from Shiḥin153During the days of repentance, between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, the givers need the merit that comes with giving gifts to the needy; hence, the gifts are given wholeheartedly. met a Jerusalemite who said to him, acquire merit by giving me that chicken. He said to him, here is its value154Greek τιμή “value,” cf. Berakhot p. 604., go buy red meat; he ate and died155Being unaccustomed to red meat.. He said, come and eulogize him whom Neḥemiah killed. Naḥum from Gimzo156A Tanna of the third generation, teacher of R. Aqiba. Gimzo is a village near Lod. His surname was changed into גם זו “this also” since his motto was “this also will be for the best”, גם זו לטובה. was carrying a gift157Greek δῶρον, τό, “gift”. to the house of his father-in-law when he met a person afflicted with boils158A dirt infection, sign of poverty. who asked him, acquire merit159Give me a charitable gift. from what you have on you. He said to him, when I shall return. He returned and found him dead. He said before him, his160Meaning, “my”. It is Talmudic usage that all bad things said about one’s own person are formulated in the third person, cf. Berakhot Chapter 3, notes 195–196. eyes which saw you and did not give to you shall go blind, his hands which did not stretch out to give to you shall be cut off, his feet which did not run to give to you shall be broken. This happened to him. Rebbi Aqiba came to visit him and said, woe to me that I see you in this state. He answered, woe to me that I do not see you in this state. He asked, why do you curse me? He answered, why are you contemptuous of suffering161Since suffering for sins in this world leaves you innocent and with much merit in the World to Come.? The teacher of the great Rebbi Hoshaia’s son was blind and he used to invite him to eat with him every day. One day there were guests and he162R. Hoshaia did not invite the blind man to table. did not ask him to eat with him. In the evening, he went to him and said: Please, Sir, do not be angry with me. Since I had guests, I did not want risking injuring the Sir’s honor163It seems that handicapped persons were treated as social outcasts., therefore I did not eat with you today. He said to him, you assuaged him who is seen but does not see; may He be appeased by you Who sees but is not seen164God. The expression is the translation of Targum Yerushalmi for אל ראי, חי ראי (Gen. 16.13, 24:62).. He asked him, from where do you have this? He said, from Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob165He is R. Eliezer ben Jacob II, a contemporary of the last students of R. Aqiba, not to be confused with R. Eliezer ben Jacob I, a Tanna of the first generation whom practice always follows.. For there came a blind man to Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob’s town; Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob sat below him166Indicating that the blind man was his superior in knowledge. so that they should say if he were not a great person, Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob would not sit below him. They provided for him in honor. He asked them, what is this? They told him, because Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob sat below you. He prayed for him the following prayer: You did a good deed for one who is seen but does not see; He Who sees but is not seen may be appeased by you and do good for you. Clarification. Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina and Rebbi Hoshaiah were strolling through the synagogue of Lod. Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said to Rebbi Hoshaiah: How much money did my forefathers invest here! He answered him: How many souls did your forefathers invest here, there is no one in here who studies Torah167All the money spent on building the synagogue could have been spent either on saving the poor from starvation or to support students of Torah (probably, including building houses of study for these students.)! Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena, so is the Mishnah: Everybody who needs to take and does not take commits suicide168If he cannot survive without the help of others, one should not give private charity to one who refuses public charity. But one who can survive and does not take any charity is characterized in the last sentence of the rewritten Mishnah. and one may not have mercy on him. If he does not care for himself, would he care for others? Everybody who has no need to take but takes will not die of old age until he needs the creatures. Everybody who needs to take but does not take will not die of old age until he can provide for others from what is his; on him is was said (Jer. 17:7): “Blessed be the man who will be confident in the Eternal; the Eternal will be his trust.”