peah

From 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 [not] common to both yields no inference.

From 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 [not] common to both yields no 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 one; it is necessary that peah should be mentioned for the vineyard. But for the rabbis 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 out, 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 berries, is subject to peah, but that vines, which are subject to the rule of isolated berries, are not subject to peah.

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 one; it is necessary that peah should be mentioned for the vineyard. But for the rabbis 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 out, 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 berries, is subject to peah, but that vines, which are subject to the rule of isolated berries, are not subject to peah.

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 one; it is necessary that peah should be mentioned for the vineyard. But for the rabbis 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 out, 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 berries, is subject to peah, but that vines, which are subject to the rule of isolated berries, are not subject to peah.

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 one; it is necessary that peah should be mentioned for the vineyard. But for the rabbis 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 out, 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 berries, is subject to peah, but that vines, which are subject to the rule of isolated berries, are not subject to peah.

Just 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 laborer? Rebbi Jonah said, there is a difference since it says (Deut.23:26): “You may pluck rubbed ears,” even of something that is not stored.

It was stated (Tosephta Peah 1:7): “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, moist dates 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 time.

It was stated (Tosephta Peah 1:7): “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, moist dates 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 time.

Rebbi Isaac ben Ḥaqolah and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi both say taro is like a vegetable for tithes, the sabbatical year, peah, and first fruits. For vows it is questionable.

MISHNAH: Forever 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 smoothes. And he feeds domestic animals, wild animals, and fowl and is free from tithes until he smoothes, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. If a Cohen or a Levite bought all the grain of a threshing floor, the tithes belong to them until it was smoothed. He who dedicates to the Temple and then redeems is obligated for tithes unless it was smoothed by the Temple administrator.

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 heap, 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 terumah? It should say that he also is obligated for first fruits even though he did not smooth yet! But he 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 it.

It was stated: Rebbi 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 his 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 poor. 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 poor. 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 field, 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 tebel, but the tithe for the poor creates ṭebel. It became ṭebel already in the possession of the first owner! What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah the Prince? Because of a fine! What is the reason of Rebbi? Only the rich person has the power to buy ; 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.

It was stated: Rebbi 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 his 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 poor. 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 poor. 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 field, 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 tebel, but the tithe for the poor creates ṭebel. It became ṭebel already in the possession of the first owner! What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah the Prince? Because of a fine! What is the reason of Rebbi? Only the rich person has the power to buy ; 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 separate regarding peah: The river, the water canal, a private road, a public road, a private path or a public path open both summer and winter, a fallow field, a ploughed field and [another kind of] seed. He who cuts for animal feed makes a separation, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the sages say it does not create a separation unless he ploughed.

HALAKHAH: “The following separate regarding peah.” Because it has been said (Lev. 19:9, 23:22): “Your field,” that he should not give from one field for another.

It cannot be connected. If you would say that it is connected, it should separate even a field of trees, but we have stated there (Mishnah 3): “Everything separates for seeds but only a fence separates for trees.” Hence, by a fence it is connected and not connected! If you say it is connected, even hair pressing down does not separate, since we have stated: “Hair pressing down does not separate but he gives one peah for all!” That means that it is not connected. If you say it is connected then it should separate if it is one-sided, as we have stated: “If the hair was pressing down from both sides it does not separate.” Hence, from one side only it separates

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If someone gave peah from one field for another one, it does not acquire holiness.

Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Yasa: If he intended to let them acquire from the boundary strip? He avoided answering him. The opinions of Rebbi Yasa are contradictory since we have stated there (Mishnah 3:2): “The sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba about someone who sowed dill or mustard in three places.” (The Mishnah means: dill in three places or mustard in three places.) Samuel said, because the first of them does not wait for the last. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because they are usually sown in separate beds. And here he says so? It is obvious for him that it separates. What he could not decide is whether it does become sanctified as peah or maybe it does not become sanctified! Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: If someone gave peah from one field for another one, it does not acquire holiness. One understands that this means even the boundary strip.

Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Yasa: If he intended to let them acquire from the boundary strip? He avoided answering him. The opinions of Rebbi Yasa are contradictory since we have stated there (Mishnah 3:2): “The sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba about someone who sowed dill or mustard in three places.” (The Mishnah means: dill in three places or mustard in three places.) Samuel said, because the first of them does not wait for the last. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because they are usually sown in separate beds. And here he says so? It is obvious for him that it separates. What he could not decide is whether it does become sanctified as peah or maybe it does not become sanctified! Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: If someone gave peah from one field for another one, it does not acquire holiness. One understands that this means even the boundary strip.

Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, rue 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.

Rav said: Fallow land and ploughed land of a bet rova‘, other produce even the tiniest amount. Rebbi Joḥanan said: Fallow land, ploughed land, and other produce at three preliminary furrows. Do they disagree? What Rav said refers to produce subject to peah, what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to produce not subject to peah. But did we not state that fallow or ploughed land is subject to peah? What Rav said refers to an average field, what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to a plot 50 by 2.

Rav said: Fallow land and ploughed land of a bet rova‘, other produce even the tiniest amount. Rebbi Joḥanan said: Fallow land, ploughed land, and other produce at three preliminary furrows. Do they disagree? What Rav said refers to produce subject to peah, what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to produce not subject to peah. But did we not state that fallow or ploughed land is subject to peah? What Rav said refers to an average field, what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to a plot 50 by 2.

Rav said: Fallow land and ploughed land of a bet rova‘, other produce even the tiniest amount. Rebbi Joḥanan said: Fallow land, ploughed land, and other produce at three preliminary furrows. Do they disagree? What Rav said refers to produce subject to peah, what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to produce not subject to peah. But did we not state that fallow or ploughed land is subject to peah? What Rav said refers to an average field, what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to a plot 50 by 2.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Both Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah said the same. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that he who cuts for fodder separates, so Rebbi Jehudah will say that he who cuts for fodder separates. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that an obligation for peah separates, so Rebbi Meïr will say that an obligation for peah separates. But we find that Rebbi Meïr says that an obligation for peah separates since we have stated: “If locusts ate it, ants undermined it, or a storm or animals broke it, it is free; everybody agrees that if he ploughed it separates, if he did not plough it does not interrupt.” Who is “everybody”? Does not Rebbi Meïr say, if it is free from peah, but if it were obligated it would interrupt even if he did not plough. Parallel to what we stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he started before it was one-third ripe, but if it is one-third ripe one is forbidden to cut.” If he cuts he is obligated for peah. And anything that is obligated for peah separates.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Both Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah said the same. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that he who cuts for fodder separates, so Rebbi Jehudah will say that he who cuts for fodder separates. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that an obligation for peah separates, so Rebbi Meïr will say that an obligation for peah separates. But we find that Rebbi Meïr says that an obligation for peah separates since we have stated: “If locusts ate it, ants undermined it, or a storm or animals broke it, it is free; everybody agrees that if he ploughed it separates, if he did not plough it does not interrupt.” Who is “everybody”? Does not Rebbi Meïr say, if it is free from peah, but if it were obligated it would interrupt even if he did not plough. Parallel to what we stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he started before it was one-third ripe, but if it is one-third ripe one is forbidden to cut.” If he cuts he is obligated for peah. And anything that is obligated for peah separates.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Both Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah said the same. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that he who cuts for fodder separates, so Rebbi Jehudah will say that he who cuts for fodder separates. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that an obligation for peah separates, so Rebbi Meïr will say that an obligation for peah separates. But we find that Rebbi Meïr says that an obligation for peah separates since we have stated: “If locusts ate it, ants undermined it, or a storm or animals broke it, it is free; everybody agrees that if he ploughed it separates, if he did not plough it does not interrupt.” Who is “everybody”? Does not Rebbi Meïr say, if it is free from peah, but if it were obligated it would interrupt even if he did not plough. Parallel to what we stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he started before it was one-third ripe, but if it is one-third ripe one is forbidden to cut.” If he cuts he is obligated for peah. And anything that is obligated for peah separates.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Both Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah said the same. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that he who cuts for fodder separates, so Rebbi Jehudah will say that he who cuts for fodder separates. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that an obligation for peah separates, so Rebbi Meïr will say that an obligation for peah separates. But we find that Rebbi Meïr says that an obligation for peah separates since we have stated: “If locusts ate it, ants undermined it, or a storm or animals broke it, it is free; everybody agrees that if he ploughed it separates, if he did not plough it does not interrupt.” Who is “everybody”? Does not Rebbi Meïr say, if it is free from peah, but if it were obligated it would interrupt even if he did not plough. Parallel to what we stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he started before it was one-third ripe, but if it is one-third ripe one is forbidden to cut.” If he cuts he is obligated for peah. And anything that is obligated for peah separates.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Both Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah said the same. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that he who cuts for fodder separates, so Rebbi Jehudah will say that he who cuts for fodder separates. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that an obligation for peah separates, so Rebbi Meïr will say that an obligation for peah separates. But we find that Rebbi Meïr says that an obligation for peah separates since we have stated: “If locusts ate it, ants undermined it, or a storm or animals broke it, it is free; everybody agrees that if he ploughed it separates, if he did not plough it does not interrupt.” Who is “everybody”? Does not Rebbi Meïr say, if it is free from peah, but if it were obligated it would interrupt even if he did not plough. Parallel to what we stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he started before it was one-third ripe, but if it is one-third ripe one is forbidden to cut.” If he cuts he is obligated for peah. And anything that is obligated for peah separates.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Both Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah said the same. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that he who cuts for fodder separates, so Rebbi Jehudah will say that he who cuts for fodder separates. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that an obligation for peah separates, so Rebbi Meïr will say that an obligation for peah separates. But we find that Rebbi Meïr says that an obligation for peah separates since we have stated: “If locusts ate it, ants undermined it, or a storm or animals broke it, it is free; everybody agrees that if he ploughed it separates, if he did not plough it does not interrupt.” Who is “everybody”? Does not Rebbi Meïr say, if it is free from peah, but if it were obligated it would interrupt even if he did not plough. Parallel to what we stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he started before it was one-third ripe, but if it is one-third ripe one is forbidden to cut.” If he cuts he is obligated for peah. And anything that is obligated for peah separates.

Rebbi Zeïra questioned: Just as Rebbi Jehudah said, if he started before it was one-third ripe, even if he continued after it was one-third ripe he will be freed from collecting, forgotten sheaves, and peah, would Rebbi Meïr say that if he started before it was one-third ripe, even if he continued after it is one-third ripe he will be freed from collecting, forgotten sheaves, and peah?

Rebbi Zeïra questioned: Just as Rebbi Jehudah said, if he started before it was one-third ripe, even if he continued after it was one-third ripe he will be freed from collecting, forgotten sheaves, and peah, would Rebbi Meïr say that if he started before it was one-third ripe, even if he continued after it is one-third ripe he will be freed from collecting, forgotten sheaves, and peah?

MISHNAH: An irrigation canal that cannot be harvested together, Rebbi Jehudah says it separates. For all hills subject to weeding, even if cattle can not pass by with their implements, he gives one peah for everything.

Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If there was a rock along the length of his entire field, if he has to lift the plough from one side and transport it to the other side, it separates, from the other side it does not separate. But did we not state: “For terraces which are each ten hand-breadths higher than the other, he must give peah for each one separately. Less than that he gives one peah for all of them.” But for less than that, does he not have to lift the plough from one (terrace) and transport it to the other? Even for less than that he has to lift it. We had to state “ten” only because of the concluding statement: “If the heads of the terraces are connected, he gives one peah for all.”

Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If there was a rock along the length of his entire field, if he has to lift the plough from one side and transport it to the other side, it separates, from the other side it does not separate. But did we not state: “For terraces which are each ten hand-breadths higher than the other, he must give peah for each one separately. Less than that he gives one peah for all of them.” But for less than that, does he not have to lift the plough from one (terrace) and transport it to the other? Even for less than that he has to lift it. We had to state “ten” only because of the concluding statement: “If the heads of the terraces are connected, he gives one peah for all.”

Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If there was a rock along the length of his entire field, if he has to lift the plough from one side and transport it to the other side, it separates, from the other side it does not separate. But did we not state: “For terraces which are each ten hand-breadths higher than the other, he must give peah for each one separately. Less than that he gives one peah for all of them.” But for less than that, does he not have to lift the plough from one (terrace) and transport it to the other? Even for less than that he has to lift it. We had to state “ten” only because of the concluding statement: “If the heads of the terraces are connected, he gives one peah for all.”

MISHNAH: Everything separates for seeds but only a fence separates for trees. But if hair was pressing down it does not separate and he gives one peah for all. : But for carob trees all that see one another. Rabban Gamliel said, in my father’s house they used to give one peah for the olive trees they had in every direction 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.

MISHNAH: Everything separates for seeds but only a fence separates for trees. But if hair was pressing down it does not separate and he gives one peah for all. : But for carob trees all that see one another. Rabban Gamliel said, in my father’s house they used to give one peah for the olive trees they had in every direction 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.

MISHNAH: He who sows one species on his field gives one peah even though he works at two different threshing floors. If he sows two species, he gives two peot even though he threshes them together. He who sows two different kinds of wheat on his field gives one peah if he processes them together, two peot if he threshes them separately. It happened that Rebbi Simeon from Miẓpah sowed before Rabban Gamliel; they ascended to the stone hall and asked. Naḥum the scribe said: I have the tradition from Rebbi Miasha, who received it from my father, who received it from the pairs, who received if from the prophets, 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.

MISHNAH: He who sows one species on his field gives one peah even though he works at two different threshing floors. If he sows two species, he gives two peot even though he threshes them together. He who sows two different kinds of wheat on his field gives one peah if he processes them together, two peot if he threshes them separately. It happened that Rebbi Simeon from Miẓpah sowed before Rabban Gamliel; they ascended to the stone hall and asked. Naḥum the scribe said: I have the tradition from Rebbi Miasha, who received it from my father, who received it from the pairs, who received if from the prophets, 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.

MISHNAH: He who sows one species on his field gives one peah even though he works at two different threshing floors. If he sows two species, he gives two peot even though he threshes them together. He who sows two different kinds of wheat on his field gives one peah if he processes them together, two peot if he threshes them separately. It happened that Rebbi Simeon from Miẓpah sowed before Rabban Gamliel; they ascended to the stone hall and asked. Naḥum the scribe said: I have the tradition from Rebbi Miasha, who received it from my father, who received it from the pairs, who received if from the prophets, 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.

MISHNAH: A field harvested by Gentiles or robbers, undermined by ants, ruined by a storm or animals, is free. If he harvested half of it and robbers harvested the other half, it is free since the obligation of produce is when it is standing. If robbers cut half of it and he harvested the other half, he must give peah from what he cut. If he harvested half and sold half, the buyer gives peah for everything. If he cut half and dedicated half, he who redeemed it from the treasurer gives peah for everything.

MISHNAH: A field harvested by Gentiles or robbers, undermined by ants, ruined by a storm or animals, is free. If he harvested half of it and robbers harvested the other half, it is free since the obligation of produce is when it is standing. If robbers cut half of it and he harvested the other half, he must give peah from what he cut. If he harvested half and sold half, the buyer gives peah for everything. If he cut half and dedicated half, he who redeemed it from the treasurer gives peah for everything.

MISHNAH: A field harvested by Gentiles or robbers, undermined by ants, ruined by a storm or animals, is free. If he harvested half of it and robbers harvested the other half, it is free since the obligation of produce is when it is standing. If robbers cut half of it and he harvested the other half, he must give peah from what he cut. If he harvested half and sold half, the buyer gives peah for everything. If he cut half and dedicated half, he who redeemed it from the treasurer gives peah for everything.

The Mishnah, if they cut to destroy it. But if they do not cut to destroy it, it is obligated. Rebbi Hoshaia ben Shammai said, even if you say that they do not cut to destroy it, it is free since peah is given from standing produce and real estate cannot be robbed.

Because he separates from cut grain for standing grain and from standing grain for cut grain but he does not separate from cut grain for either cut or standing grain. Sometimes he has to separate from cut grain for standing grain. How can this be? If he finished his field and left something standing on it for peah, at the moment he cuts the first stalk from this, peah returns to the sheaves; he has to give from cut grain. 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.

Because he separates from cut grain for standing grain and from standing grain for cut grain but he does not separate from cut grain for either cut or standing grain. Sometimes he has to separate from cut grain for standing grain. How can this be? If he finished his field and left something standing on it for peah, at the moment he cuts the first stalk from this, peah returns to the sheaves; he has to give from cut grain. 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.

Because he separates from cut grain for standing grain and from standing grain for cut grain but he does not separate from cut grain for either cut or standing grain. Sometimes he has to separate from cut grain for standing grain. How can this be? If he finished his field and left something standing on it for peah, at the moment he cuts the first stalk from this, peah returns to the sheaves; he has to give from cut grain. 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.

Because he separates from cut grain for standing grain and from standing grain for cut grain but he does not separate from cut grain for either cut or standing grain. Sometimes he has to separate from cut grain for standing grain. How can this be? If he finished his field and left something standing on it for peah, at the moment he cuts the first stalk from this, peah returns to the sheaves; he has to give from cut grain. Not only if he finished his field but even if he cut some and said: “From here and further on I give for peah,” at the moment he cuts the first stalk from this, peah returns to the sheaves and he separates from cut grain for standing grain.

May the seller get the peah which permits the sheaves? Let us hear it from the following (Mishnah 5:4): “ Rebbi Jehudah said: When is this, if he received it for a half, a third, or a quarter.” What is the difference between this and the first case? It must be, “if you cut it, a third will be yours.” Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, this implies that the seller may get the peah which permits the sheaves. Rebbi Yose said, there the obligation of the field did not come during his ownership, but here the obligation of the field started during his ownership. It is correct that if he cut half of the field and sold what he cut, the buyer is allowed gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah. May the buyer get the peah which permits the sheaves of the seller? That is the disagreement of Rebbi and Rebbi Jehudah the Prince.

May the seller get the peah which permits the sheaves? Let us hear it from the following (Mishnah 5:4): “ Rebbi Jehudah said: When is this, if he received it for a half, a third, or a quarter.” What is the difference between this and the first case? It must be, “if you cut it, a third will be yours.” Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, this implies that the seller may get the peah which permits the sheaves. Rebbi Yose said, there the obligation of the field did not come during his ownership, but here the obligation of the field started during his ownership. It is correct that if he cut half of the field and sold what he cut, the buyer is allowed gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah. May the buyer get the peah which permits the sheaves of the seller? That is the disagreement of Rebbi and Rebbi Jehudah the Prince.

May the seller get the peah which permits the sheaves? Let us hear it from the following (Mishnah 5:4): “ Rebbi Jehudah said: When is this, if he received it for a half, a third, or a quarter.” What is the difference between this and the first case? It must be, “if you cut it, a third will be yours.” Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, this implies that the seller may get the peah which permits the sheaves. Rebbi Yose said, there the obligation of the field did not come during his ownership, but here the obligation of the field started during his ownership. It is correct that if he cut half of the field and sold what he cut, the buyer is allowed gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah. May the buyer get the peah which permits the sheaves of the seller? That is the disagreement of Rebbi and Rebbi Jehudah the Prince.

May the seller get the peah which permits the sheaves? Let us hear it from the following (Mishnah 5:4): “ Rebbi Jehudah said: When is this, if he received it for a half, a third, or a quarter.” What is the difference between this and the first case? It must be, “if you cut it, a third will be yours.” Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, this implies that the seller may get the peah which permits the sheaves. Rebbi Yose said, there the obligation of the field did not come during his ownership, but here the obligation of the field started during his ownership. It is correct that if he cut half of the field and sold what he cut, the buyer is allowed gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah. May the buyer get the peah which permits the sheaves of the seller? That is the disagreement of Rebbi and Rebbi Jehudah the Prince.

Rebbi Phineas asked: Can a harvest outside of the Land become subject to peah? Could you not say that a dedicated crop is exempt and (a crop) outside the Land is exempt; just as a dedicated crop may become obligated, so from outside the Land it may become obligated? He found it stated: (Lev. 19:9, 23:22) “When you harvest the harvest of your Land,” and not the harvest outside of the Land.

MISHNAH: Rectangles of grain between olive trees: The House of Shammai say, peah from each single one, the House of Hillel say, from one for all of them. They agree 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 spot.

MISHNAH: Rectangles of grain between olive trees: The House of Shammai say, peah from each single one, the House of Hillel say, from one for all of them. They agree 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 spot.

MISHNAH: Rectangles of grain between olive trees: The House of Shammai say, peah from each single one, the House of Hillel say, from one for all of them. They agree 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 spot.

MISHNAH: Rectangles of grain between olive trees: The House of Shammai say, peah from each single one, the House of Hillel say, from one for all of them. They agree 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 spot.

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “between olive trees.” In the House of Rebbi they stated “between fruit trees.” 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 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.

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “between olive trees.” In the House of Rebbi they stated “between fruit trees.” 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 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.

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “between olive trees.” In the House of Rebbi they stated “between fruit trees.” 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 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.

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “between olive trees.” In the House of Rebbi they stated “between fruit trees.” 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 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.

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “between olive trees.” In the House of Rebbi they stated “between fruit trees.” 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 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.

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “between olive trees.” In the House of Rebbi they stated “between fruit trees.” 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 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? If they are widely spaced, even 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 widely spaced, the House of Hillel compare it to densely planted ones.

What are we dealing with? If they are widely spaced, even 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 widely spaced, the House of Hillel compare it to densely planted ones.

MISHNAH: He who rips out moist onions for the market and keeps dry ones for storage gives peah for each batch separately; the same applies to peas and vineyards. He who thins out gives peah for what is left. He who rips out with one hand gives from the remainder for everything.

MISHNAH: He who rips out moist onions for the market and keeps dry ones for storage gives peah for each batch separately; the same applies to peas and vineyards. He who thins out gives peah for what is left. He who rips out with one hand gives from the remainder for everything.

HALAKHAH: It is stated: “In patches 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 Yose 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 sowing it should be freed from peah. But are wheat grains not also for sowing? Wheat is mostly for eating, that one is mostly for sowing. According to Rebbi Jeremiah, are vegetables subject to peah? Its kind is collected for storage. How does Rebbi Yose deal with it? It is finished and needs only to dry out.

HALAKHAH: It is stated: “In patches 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 Yose 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 sowing it should be freed from peah. But are wheat grains not also for sowing? Wheat is mostly for eating, that one is mostly for sowing. According to Rebbi Jeremiah, are vegetables subject to peah? Its kind is collected for storage. How does Rebbi Yose deal with it? 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 plucking. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who collects ears for his dough in any quantity is free from peah. Rebbi Eleazar says, even with a sickle. Rebbi Yose 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 house, he is free from fallen berries, from orlah, from the fourth year, but he is obligated for gleanings. Rebbi Yudan said, one for those which are fully ripe, one for those which are not fully ripe. Rebbi Yose 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. There if he wanted to eat them as grapes, here 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 them 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 wine [he may do so] only if he left a remainder.

It was stated: (Lev. 19:9) “The gathering of your harvest,” not the gathering of your plucking. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who collects ears for his dough in any quantity is free from peah. Rebbi Eleazar says, even with a sickle. Rebbi Yose 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 house, he is free from fallen berries, from orlah, from the fourth year, but he is obligated for gleanings. Rebbi Yudan said, one for those which are fully ripe, one for those which are not fully ripe. Rebbi Yose 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. There if he wanted to eat them as grapes, here 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 them 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 wine [he may do so] only if he left a remainder.

“He who thins out gives peah for what is left.” It was stated (Tosephta Peah 1:10): Rebbi Jehudah said: When has this been said? If he thins for sale, but if he thins for his own use he gives from the remnant for everything. Rebbi Zeïra said, that means, 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.

“He who thins out gives peah for what is left.” It was stated (Tosephta Peah 1:10): Rebbi Jehudah said: When has this been said? If he thins for sale, but if he thins for his own use he gives from the remnant for everything. Rebbi Zeïra said, that means, 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 onions 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 everything.

MISHNAH: Mother onions 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 everything.

Rebbi Jacob bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Rebbi Yose said only because of ownerless property. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Mana: Is abandoned property obligated for peah? He said to them: When he reacquired them one by one. 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 reason is only that he collects them for storing.

MISHNAH: Brothers who split give two peot. When they later form a cooperative, they give one peah. 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 himself.

MISHNAH: Brothers who split give two peot. When they later form a cooperative, they give one peah. 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 himself.

MISHNAH: Brothers who split give two peot. When they later form a cooperative, they give one peah. 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 himself.

MISHNAH: He who sells tree trunks 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 them.

MISHNAH: He who sells tree trunks 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 them.

What is the difference between them? 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 gave. But if you say that because he sold to him, excluding his obligation, he gave and may collect money from him. 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 burned. But if you say that because he sold to him, excluding his obligation, if it is burned he may collect money from him.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, a plot of a bet rova‘ is obligated for peah. Rebbi Joshua says, if its yield is two seah. Rebbi Ṭarphon says, six by six hand-breadths. Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra said, if it is enough to cut and cut a second time; practice follows his words.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Aqiba says: Any real estate is subject to peah and first fruits, to write a prozbol based on it, and to acquire simultaneously non-guaranteed property with money or contract or possession. If someone signs over his properties when bedridden and reserved for himself any real estate, his gift is permanent; if he did not reserve any real estate for himself, his gift is not permanent. If he signs over his properties to his sons and signs over some real estate for his wife, she lost her ketubah. Rebbi Yose says, if she accepted it, even if it was not in a written document, she lost her ketubah.

Rebbi Mana asked: Why does he not say: “Any crop is subject to peah?” But because he has to enunciate first fruits he formulates it as “real estate.”

There, we have stated: “Any real estate is subject to peah and first fruits.” What is the use of “any” real estate? Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if it had space for one stalk but a pearl was hidden in it.

MISHNAH: Peah is given connected to the ground. From a climbing vine and a date palm, the owner brings it down and divides it up among the poor. Rebbi Simeon says, also for smooth nut trees. Even if 99 poor people say to distribute and one says to grab, one listens to him whose request is in keeping with practice. But for a climbing vine and a date palm it is not so; even if 99 say to grab and one says to distribute, one listens to him whose request is in keeping with practice.

HALAKHAH: (Lev. 23:22) “Do not finish off the corner of your field during your harvest.” This shows that peah is given standing on the ground. One might think this also includes climbing vine and date palms, but the verse says “harvest.” Harvest is special in that a small person can do it as well as a tall person; this excludes climbing vine and date palm where a small person cannot do it as well as a tall person.

Is it not connected? He calls it by the name peah when it is on the tree. If you say not from standing produce, he calls it by the name peah when it is taken down. If you say he calls it by the name peah when it is on the tree, the removal is charged to the poor. If you say he calls it by the name peah when it is taken down, the removal is the obligation of the owner. But even if you say that he calls it by the name peah when it is on the tree, they charge the owner with taking it down because of the danger.

Is it not connected? He calls it by the name peah when it is on the tree. If you say not from standing produce, he calls it by the name peah when it is taken down. If you say he calls it by the name peah when it is on the tree, the removal is charged to the poor. If you say he calls it by the name peah when it is taken down, the removal is the obligation of the owner. But even if you say that he calls it by the name peah when it is on the tree, they charge the owner with taking it down because of the danger.

Is it not connected? He calls it by the name peah when it is on the tree. If you say not from standing produce, he calls it by the name peah when it is taken down. If you say he calls it by the name peah when it is on the tree, the removal is charged to the poor. If you say he calls it by the name peah when it is taken down, the removal is the obligation of the owner. But even if you say that he calls it by the name peah when it is on the tree, they charge the owner with taking it down because of the danger.

Is it not connected? He calls it by the name peah when it is on the tree. If you say not from standing produce, he calls it by the name peah when it is taken down. If you say he calls it by the name peah when it is on the tree, the removal is charged to the poor. If you say he calls it by the name peah when it is taken down, the removal is the obligation of the owner. But even if you say that he calls it by the name peah when it is on the tree, they charge the owner with taking it down because of the danger.

Is it not connected? He calls it by the name peah when it is on the tree. If you say not from standing produce, he calls it by the name peah when it is taken down. If you say he calls it by the name peah when it is on the tree, the removal is charged to the poor. If you say he calls it by the name peah when it is taken down, the removal is the obligation of the owner. But even if you say that he calls it by the name peah when it is on the tree, they charge the owner with taking it down because of the danger.

If the owner called it peah and nevertheless finished harvesting the entire field, I read for him: “Do not finish off the corner of your field during your harvest.” 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 the owner called it peah and nevertheless finished harvesting the entire field, I read for him: “Do not finish off the corner of your field during your harvest.” 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.”

The owner has to distribute by hand to avoid that he would see a poor person of his acquaintance and throw it before him. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon questioned: If he finished harvesting his field, you say that peah returned to the sheaves. Even so, does the owner have to distribute by hand to avoid that he would see a poor person of his acquaintance and throw it before him?

MISHNAH: If he took some of the peah and threw it on the rest, he has nothing of it. If he fell on it or spread his talith on it, one removes him from it. The same is valid for gleanings and the forgotten sheaf.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi objected before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Did we not state: (Mishnah Baba Meẓi‘a 1:4) “If somebody saw a find and fell on it, when another person came and grabbed it, he who grabbed it had the rights to it?” He answered him: Explain it if the first one did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did we not state: “If he fell on it or spread his talith on it, one removes him from it?” He said to him, that is the same, if he did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: (Tosephta Peah 2:2) “If two were pushing one another because of a sheaf and another poor person came and grabbed it from before them, he is entitled to it. He said to him, it is the same, he did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him.

MISHNAH: One does not harvest peah with sickles and one does not uproot it with axes so that they should not injure one another. Three investigation periods are there during the day, in the morning, at noontime, and in the evening. Rabban Gamliel says, they decreed this only to say that one may not do less. Rebbi Aqiba says, they decreed this only to say that one may not do more. In Bet Namer they insisted on collecting along a rope and were giving peah from every strip.