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