משנה: גָּדִישׁ שֶׁלֹּא לוּקָט תַּחְתָּיו כָּל־הַנּוֹגְעוֹת בָּאָרֶץ הֲרֵי הוּא שֶׁל עֲנִייִם. הָרוּחַ שֶׁפִּיזְּרָה אֶת הָעֳמָרִין אוֹמְדִין אוֹתָהּ כַּמָּה לֶקֶט הִיא רְאוּיָה לַעֲשׂוֹת וְנוֹתֵן לָעֲנִייִם. רַבַּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר נוֹתֵן לָעֲנִייִם נִפְלָה. 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..
הלכה: הָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר אוֹמְדִין אוֹתָהּ כַּמָּה לֶקֶט רְאוּיָה לַעֲשׂוֹת וְנוֹתֵן לָעֲנִייִם. וְכֹהּ אַתְּ אָמַר כָּל־הַנּוֹגְעוֹת בָּאָרֶץ הֲרֵי הוּא שֶׁל עֲנִייִם. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן קְנַס קָֽנְסוּ בוֹ שֶׁגָּדַשׁ עַל גַּבֵּי לֵיקֶטָּן שֶׁל עֲנִייִם. עַד כְּדוֹן מֵזִיד אֲפִילוּ שׁוֹגֵג אֲפִילוּ כְּרִיכוֹת אֲפִילוּ חִטִּים עַל גַּבֵּי שְׂעוֹרִין אֲפִילוּ גָֽדְשׁוּ אֲחֵרִים חוּץ מִדַּעְתּוֹ וַאֲפִילוּ קָרָא לָעֲנִייִם וְלֹא בָאוּ. 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..
רִבִּי אִימִּי בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי הִיא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִין הֶבְקֵר לָעֲנִייִם הֶבְקֵר. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יָסָא שָׁמַעְנוּ שֶׁהוּא פָטוּר מִמַּעְשְׂרוֹת שֶׁהֶבְקֵר בֵּית דִּין הֶבְקֵר. כְּתִיב וְכָל־אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָבֹא לִשְׁלֹשֶׁת הַיָּמִים כַּעֲצַת הִשָּׂרִים וְהַזְּקֵנִים יָחֳרַם כָּל־רְכוּשׁוֹ. מְנַייִן שֶׁהוּא פָטוּר מִן הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת. רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אָחָא שָׁמַע לָהּ מִן הָדָא אֵין מְעַבְּרִין אֶת הַשָּׁנָה לֹא בִשְׁבִיעִית וְלֹא בְמוֹצָאֵי שְׁבִיעִית וְאִם עִבְּרוּהָ הֲרֵי זוּ מְעוּבֶּרֶת. בְּחֹדֶשׁ אֶחָד שֶׁהוּא מוֹסִיף לֹא פָטוּר הוּא מִמַּעְשְׂרוֹת. עַד כְּדוֹן שְׁבִיעִית. מוֹצָאֵי שְׁבִיעִית מְנַייִן. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבוּן שֶׁלֹּא לְרַבּוֹת בְּאִיסּוּר חָדָשׁ. 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">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 Peah 5:1:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.5.1.6">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 Pesachim.114a">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..
רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ הָדָא דְּתֵימַר עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִתִּיר רִבִּי לְהָבִיא יֶרֶק מִחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ לָאָרֶץ. אֲבָל מִשֶּׁהִתִּיר רִבִּי לְהָבִיא יֶרֶק מִחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ הִיא שְׁבִיעִית הִיא שְׁנֵי שָׁבוּעַ. תַּנִּי אֵין מְעַבְּרִין אֶת הַשָּׁנָה לֹא בִשְׁבִיעִית אֶלָּא בִשְׁאָר שְׁנֵי שָׁבוּעַ וְאִם עִבְּרוּהָ הֲרֵי זוּ מְעוּבֶּרֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא הָדָא דְתֵימַר בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁהָיוּ הַשָׁנִים כְּסִדְרָן. אֲבָל עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁאֵין הַשָׁנִים כְּסִדְרָן הִיא שְׁבִיעִית הִיא שְׁאַר שְׁנֵי שָׁבוּעַ. 15This paragraph is an aside, taken from Šebiït 6:4, also Nedarim 6:8:2-15" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.6.8.2-15">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">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 Berakhot 1:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Berakhot.1.1.1">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.
תַּנִּי שֶׁל בֵּית רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל עִבְּרוּהָ בְמוֹצָאֵי שְׁבִיעִית מִיָּד אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין מִן הָדָא לֵית אַתְּ שְׁמַע מִינָהּ כְּלוּם שְׁמוֹר אֶת חֹדֶשׁ הָאָבִיב. שָׁמְרֵהוּ עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא בְחִידּוּשׁוֹ. 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. (Deuteronomy.16.1">Deut. 16:1) “Watch the spring month.” Watch it that it should come in its renewal.
וַיי דָא אֲמַר דָּא גָּדִישׁ שֶׁלֹּא לוּקָט תַּחְתָּיו. רִבִי מָנָא בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יָסָא שָׁמַעְנוּ שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר מִמַּעַשְׂרוֹת. דִבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא מִשּׁוּם קְנָס. וּכְבֵית הִלֵּל עֲנִייִם מְעַשְּׂרִים וְאוֹכְלִין. 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.
רִבִּי זְעִירָא רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַרְבַּעַת קַבִּין לְכוֹר. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בָּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ אַרְבַּעַת קַבִּין לְכוֹר אוֹ לְבֵית כּוֹר. אָמַר לֵיהּ לְבֵית כּוֹר. תַּמָּן תַּנֵּינָן מַה קִיצְבָה כְּרִי אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יֵשׁ בָּהּ כְּדֵי נִיפְלָה. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְּנוֹפֵל לָהּ כְּדֵי לְזוֹרְעָהּ וְכָא הוּא אָמַר הָכֵן. 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. There28Bava Metzia 9:4:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bava_Metzia.9.4.1">Mishnah 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 Bava Metzia 9:4:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bava_Metzia.9.4.3">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!