משנה: כְּלָל אָֽמְרוּ בְּפֵיאָה כָּל־שֶׁהוּא אוֹכֶל וְנִשְׁמָר וְגִידּוּלָיו מִן הָאָרֶץ וּלְקִיטָתוֹ כְּאַחַת וּמַכְנִיסוֹ לְקִיּוּם חַייָב בְּפֵיאָה. וְהַתְּבוּאָה וְהַקִּטְנִית בְּכְלָל זֶה. וּבְאִילָן הָאוֹג וְהֶחָרוּבִין הָאֶגּוֹזִים וְהַשְּׁקֵידִים הַגְּפָנִים וְהָרִימּוֹנִים הַזֵּיתִים וְהַתְּמָרִים חַייָבִין בְּפֵיאָה. 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.
הלכה: וּבְקֻצְרְכֶם אֵין לִי אֶלָּא קוֹצֵר. תּוֹלֵשׁ מְנַיִין תַּלמוּד לוֹמַר לִקְצוֹר. עוֹקֵר מְנַיִין תַּלמוּד לוֹמַר קְצִירְךָ. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא תְבוּאָה. קִיטְנִית מְנַיִין תַּלמוּד לוֹמַר בְּאַרְצְכֶם. אִילָנוֹת מְנַיִין תַּלמוּד לוֹמַר שָֽׂדְךָ. HALAKHAH: (Leviticus.19.9">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.”.”
תַּנִּי זוֹרְעִין זְרָעִים וְזַרְעֵי אִילָן כְּאַחַת וְהַזּוֹרֵעַ מִן הַחַרְצַנִּים לוֹקֶה אַרְבָּעִים. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא כְּתִיב לֹא תִזְרַע כַּרְמְךָ כִּלְאַיִם. עִיקָּר כַּרְמְךָ לֹא תִזְרַע כִּלְאַיִם. רִבִּי יוּדָן קַפּוֹדֹקִיָּא בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. תַּמָּן אָֽמְרִין אֵין זַרְעֵי אִילָן קְרוּייִן זְרָעִים וְכֹה אַתְּ אֲמַר זַרְעֵי אִילָן קְרוּייִן זְרָעִים. אָמַר לֵיהּ תַּמָּן מִיעֵט הַכָּתוּב שֶׁאֵין דֶּרֶך בְּנֵי אָדָם לִהְיוֹת קוֹרִין אוֹתָן זְרָעִים בְּרַם הָכָא רִיבָּה הַכָּתוּב עַל כָּל־זֶרַע זֵרוּעַ אֲשֶׁר יִזָּרֵעַ. 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 (Deuteronomy.25.3">Deut. 25:3).. Rebbi Zeïra said, it is written (Deuteronomy.22.9">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. Makhshirin 1:2" href="/Mishnah_Makhshirin.1.2">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 (Leviticus.11.37">Lev. 11:37) “any sown seed that may be sown.”
וְאִית דִּבְעִי נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָכָא כִּי תִבְצֹר כַּרְמְךָ מַה אַתְּ שְׁמַע מִינָהּ אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה לֹא תְדַקְדֵּק כְּמַה דְּתֵימַר וְעוֹלֵל לָמוֹ. כִּי תַּחְבּוֹט זֵיתֶךָ מַה אַתְּ שְׁמַע מִינָהּ אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה לֹא תַקִּיפוּ פְּאַת רֹאשְׁכֶם. זַיִת מַה זַיִת וְכֶרֶם מְיוּחָדִין שֶׁלְּקִיטָתָן כְּאַחַת וּמַכְנִסָן לְקִיּוּם חַייָבִין בְּפֵיאָה. אַף כָּל־דָּבָר שֶׁלְּקִיטָתוֹ כְּאַחַת וּמַכְנִיסוֹ לְקִיּוּם חַייָבִין. אִי מַה זַיִת וְכֶרֶם מְיוּחָדִין שֶׁהֵן חַייָבִין בְּבִיכּוּרִין וְחַייָבִין בְּפֵיאָה אַף כָּל־דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא חַייָב בְּבִיכּוּרִים חַייָב בְּפֵיאָה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר קְצִירְךָ. אֲפִילוּ קְצִיר אוֹרֶז אֲפִילוּ קְצִיר דוֹחָן. Some would understand it from here: (Deuteronomy.24.21">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 (Lamentations.1.22">Lament. 1:22) “to punish them repeatedly.” (Deuteronomy.24.21">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 (Leviticus.19.27">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 (Leviticus.19.9">Lev. 19:9): “Your harvest,” even the harvest of rice and millet.
יֹאמַר זַיִת וְאַל יֹאמַר כֶּרֶם. שֶׁאִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר זַיִת וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר כֶּרֶם הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר זַיִת שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר מִן הַפֶּרֶט חַייָבִין בְּפֵיאָה כֶּרֶם שֶׁהוּא חַייָב בְּפֶרֶט לֹא יְהֵֵא חַייָב בְּפֵיאָה. הוֹי צוֹרֶךְ הוּא שֶׁיְהֵא אוֹמֵר כֶּרֶם. אוֹ אִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר כֶּרֶם וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר זַיִת הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר כֶּרֶם שֶׁהוּא חַייָב בְּפֶרֶט יְהֵא חַייָב בְּפֵיאָה זַיִת שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר מִן הַפֶּרֶט יְהֵא פָּטוּר מִן הַפֵּיאָה. הוֹי צוֹרֶךְ הוּא שֶׁיֹּאמַר זַיִת וְצוֹרֵךְ הוּא שֶׁיֹּאמַר כֶּרֶם. 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 Leviticus.19.10">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.
יָצָא זַיִת וְלִימֵּד עַל כָּל־הָאִילָנוֹת פֵּיאָה. יָצָא כֶּרֶם וְלִימֵּד עַל כָּל־הָאִילָנוֹת פֶּרֶט. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁיָּצָא זַיִת וְלִימֵּד עַל הָאִילָנוֹת פֵּיאָה. כָּךְ יָצָא כֶּרֶם וְלִימֵּד עַל כָּל־הָאִילָנוֹת פֶּרֶט. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא שָׁוֶה לִשְׁנֵיהֶן מְלַמֵּד. וְדָבָר (שֶׁהוּא) [שְׁאֵינוֹ] שָׁוֶה בִשְׁנֵֵיהֶן אֵינוֹ מְלַמֵּד. 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..
עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ שֶׁל רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל נִיחָא דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל דָּרַשׁ כָּל־דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בִּכְלָל וְיָצָא לִידוֹן בְּדָבָר חָדָשׁ נֶעֱקַר מִן הַכְּלָל וַהֲרֵי הוּא בְּחִידוּשׁוֹ צוֹרֶךְ הוּא שֶׁיֵּאָמֵר פֵּיאָה בְכֶּרֶם. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּנִין דְּאִינּוּן אָֽמְרִין הֲרֵי הוּא בִכְלָלוֹ וַהֲרֵי הוּא בְחִידּוּשׁוֹ. לְאֵי זֶה דָּבָר נֶאֱמַר פֵּיאָה בְכֶּרֶם. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין אִלֻּא לֹא יָצָא אֶלָּא כֶּרֶם יְאוּת הֲוֵית מַקְשֵׁי. עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁיָּצָא כֶּרֶם וְזַיִת. אִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר זַיִת וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר כֶּרֶם הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר זַיִת שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר מִן הַפֶּרֶט חַייָב בְּפֵיאָה כֶּרֶם שֶׁהוּא חַייָב בְּפֶרֶט יִיפָּטֵר מִן הַפֵּיאָה. 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 Zevachim.49a">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..
כְּמָה דְּתֵימַר גַּבֵּי קָצִיר דָּבָר שֶׁלְּקִיטָתוֹ כְּאַחַת וְחַייָב בְּפֵיאָה וְאָמַר אַף בְּפוֹעֵל כָּךְ אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה שַׁנְייָה הוּא דִּכְתִיב וְקָטַפְתָּ מְלִילוֹת בְּיָֽדְךָ אֲפִילוּ מִדָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ לְקִיּיוּם. 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 (Deuteronomy.23.26">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..
תַּנִּי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר רוּטְבֵי תְּמָרִים פְּטוּרִין מִן הַפֵּיאָה לְפִי שֶׁאֵין הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁבָּהֶן מַמְתִּין לָאַחֲרוֹן. יְאוּת אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. מַה טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנָן. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכּוּלָּן צְרִיכִין שְׂאוֹר בַּת אַחַת. 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..
רִבִּי יִצְחָק בֶּן חֲקוֹלָה וְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי תְּרַוֵיהוֹן אָֽמְרִין קוּלְקָס לְיֶרֶק וּלְמַעַשְׂרוֹת וְלִשְׁבִיעִית וּלְפֵיאָה וּלְבִכּוּרִים וְלִנְדָרִים צְרִיכָה. 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.