## Jerusalem Talmud Peah Chapter 2

###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:1:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:1:1)

**משנה:** וְאֵילּוּ מַפְסִיקִין לְפֵיאָה הַנַּחַל וְהַשְּׁלוּלִית וְדֶרֶךְ הַיָּחִיד וְדֶרֶךְ הָרַבִּים וּשְׁבִיל הַיָּחִיד וּשְׁבִיל הָרַבִּים הַקָּבוּעַ בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה וּבִימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים. הַבּוּר וְהַנִּיר וְזֶרַע הַקּוֹצֵר לְשַׁחַת מַפְסִיק דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ מַפְסִיק אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן חָרַשׁ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** The following separate¹ for two fields separated by one of the enumerated obstacles. regarding *peah*: The river², the water canal³, a private road, a public road, a private path⁴ or a public path open both summer and winter, a fallow field, a ploughed field⁵. and [another kind of]⁶ 2:1, and it is certainly understood here. Two wheat fields separated by a field of peas require two separate *peot*. seed. He who cuts⁷. for animal feed makes a separation, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the sages say it does not create a separation unless he ploughed.

footnotes:
¹ One may not give one peah
² The Halakhah later makes it clear that one speaks of water even though the Biblical word נחל may also mean (dry) wady.
³ An aqueduct for drinking water or a water conduit that brings water from a river or lake to smaller irrigation canals. The irrigation canal that serves a field directly does not create an interruption.
⁴ A path has no minimal size, but it is required that it should be in use permanently, even in the rainy season when fields are newly seeded. Paths in use only as shortcuts on fields that have been harvested do not count. The Halakhah will discuss why public roads and paths have to be mentioned when private paths and roads already make an interruption. (In most Mishnah manuscripts, private paths are mentioned after public ones, so that the singular הקבוע applies only to private paths. The discussion will show that this is not the Yerushalmi tradition.) In the opinion of Maimonides, private roads are at least 4 cubits wide, public roads at least 16 cubits, while paths are narrower. In this he adopts the definitions of the Babli. In the opinion of R. Abraham ben David, roads are used for travelling, paths for local agricultural use, independent of their width. This latter opinion agrees better with the discussions in the Yerushalmi.
⁵ A field that has been harvested and the stubbles ploughed under while on both sides of it grain is still standing. This creates two distinct fields for purposes of peah
⁶ The word אחר translated in brackets is missing in the Mishnah in the Talmud and in one of the Tosephta manuscripts (1:8), but it appears in the separate Mishnah manuscripts and in Sifra Qedošim
⁷ Unripe grain. R. Meïr considers grain grown for animal feed a kind different from grain grown for human consumption, probably because it is exempt from peah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:1:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:1:2)

**הלכה:** וְאֵילּוּ מַפְסִיקִין לְפֵיאָה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר שָׁדְךָ. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יוֹצִיא מִשָּׂדֶה לַחֲבֵירָתָהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “The following separate regarding *peah*.” Because it has been said (*Lev*. 19:9, 23:22): “Your field⁸ Qedošim 1:22.,” that he should not give from one field for another.

footnotes:
⁸ In the singular, cf. Sifra


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:1:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:1:3)

וְאֵינוֹ מְחוּבָּר. וְאִין תֵּימַר מְחוּבָּר הוּא אֲפִילוּ שְׂדֵה הָאִילָּן מַפְסִיק. דְּתַנֵּינָן תַּמָּן הַכֹּל מַפְסִיק לִזְרָעִים וְאֵינוֹ מַפְסִיק לְאִילָּן אֶלָּא גֶדֶר. הָא גֶדֶר מְחוּבָּר וְאֵינוֹ מְחוּבָּר. אִין תֵּימַר מְחוּבָּר אֲפִילוּ שֵׂעָר כּוֹתֵשׁ לֹא מַפְסִיק דְּתַנֵּינָן שֵׁעָר כּוֹתֵשׁ אֵינוֹ מַפְסִיק אֶלָּא נוֹתֵן פֵּיאָה לַכֹּל. הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחוּבָּר. אִין תֵּימַר מְחוּבָּר הוּא אֲפִילוּ מִצַּד אֶחָד מַפְסִיק דְּתַנִּי אִם הָיָה שֵׂעָר כּוֹתֵשׁ מִיכָּן וּמִיכָּן אֵינוֹ מַפְסִיק. הָא מִצַּד אֶחָד מַפְסִיק.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It cannot be connected⁹. If you would say that it is connected, it should separate even a field of trees¹⁰, 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 down¹¹ 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 stated¹².: “If the hair was pressing down from both sides it does not separate.” Hence, from one side only it separates¹³

footnotes:
⁹ One now deals with the features that separate a field from its neighbor, such as a water canal. The problem is whether there must be a clean and total separation of two fields, or whether canals, ponds, fences, and paths separate even if they cover only parts of the boundary. The discussion centers on fences, because only for fences can we find contradictory tannaitic statements.
¹⁰ An orchard where trees are planted far enough apart that a plough drawn by a pair of oxen may pass between them.
¹¹ This is the expression of the Mishnah. A fence is no interruption if on both sides there grow trees, their branches (the “hairs”) are meshed together, and the lowest branches from both sides lie on the fence (which also may be a wall.)
¹² In a baraita
¹³ Hence, it is undecided whether the role of the fence as divider is undisputed (unless there are “hairs” from both sides, last argument) or whether it is not better than those of the Mishnah (first argument). It is not unusual that the Yerushalmi leaves questions of this kind undecided.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:1:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:1:4)

רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא הִפְרִישׁ פֵּיאָה מִשָּׂדֶה לַחֲבֵירָתָהּ לֹא קָדְשָׁה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If someone gave *peah* from one field for another one¹⁴, it does not acquire holiness¹⁵ and, hence, subject to the laws of *terumah* and tithes..

footnotes:
¹⁴ The other field being separated from the first by one of the obstacles enumerated in the Mishnah.
¹⁵ It is not peah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:1:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:1:5)

רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא נִתְכַּוֵון לְזַכּוֹת מִן הַמֵּיצָר וּשְׁרַע מִינָּהּ. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יָסָא דְּתַנֵּינָן תַּמָּן מוֹדִים חֲכָמִים לְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה בְּזוֹרֵעַ שֶׁבֶת אוֹ חַרְדָּל בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא שֶׁבֶת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת. חַרְדָּל בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁבָּהֶן מַמְתִּין לָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁבָּהֶן. רִבִּי יָסָא בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לִיזָרַע עֲרוּגוֹת עֲרוּגוֹת וְכֹה הוּא אָמַר אָכֵן. פְּשִיטָא לֵיהּ שֶׁהוּא מַפְסִיק. לֹא צִירְכָה וְלֹא קִידְּשָׁה מִשּׁוּם פֵּיאָה אִילָא קִידְּשָׁה. תַּנִּי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא הִפְרִישׁ פֵּיאָה מִשָּׂדֶה לַחֲבֵרָתָהּ לֹא קִידְּשָׁה. וּשְׁמַע מֵימַר אֲפִילוּ מֵיצָר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Yasa: If he intended to let them acquire from the boundary strip¹⁶, dealing with real estate left by a convert to Judaism who failed to start a Jewish family. Since by conversion the convert severed his ties to his former family, in the absence of a will his property becomes ownerless at his death and can be acquired by actual possession. Then the question is whether two adjacent fields can be acquired if one performs an act of possession (such as weeding) on one of them. In the Yerushalmi (*Baba Batra* 3:1, fol. 13d), R. Yasa states in the name of R. Joḥanan that if one weeded on one of two adjacent fields with the intention of thereby acquiring both fields but did not have the explicit intent to acquire the boundary strip also, he acquired only the field he weeded but no more. Then it is reported that R. Zeïra asked R. Yasa about somebody working on the boundary strip only (whether he would acquire both fields), and R. Yasa avoided answering. In the Babli (*Baba Batra* 55a), R. Assi states in the name of R. Joḥanan that boundary strip and *ḥaẓab* are dividers in respect to the property of a convert but not for *peah* whereas Ravin (Rebbi Abun) declares in the name of R. Joḥanan that it is not a divider for *peah*. For the Yerushalmi, R. Assi himself was not sure whether R. Joḥanan followed the opinion ascribed to himself in the Babli, or that ascribed to R. Abun.? He avoided answering him. The opinions of Rebbi Yasa are contradictory since we have stated there (Mishnah 3:2): “The sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba about someone who sowed dill or mustard in three places¹⁷ be given, but the sages require only one *peah* for the whole field, except for (expensive) spices..” (The Mishnah means: dill in three places or mustard in three places.) Samuel said, because the first of them does not wait for the last¹⁸. Samuel asserts that spice plants can be harvested at greatly varying times.. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because they are usually sown in separate beds¹⁹. And here he says so²⁰.? It is obvious for him that it separates²¹. What he could not decide is whether it does become sanctified as *peah* or maybe it does not become sanctified²² is exempt from *terumah* and tithes, the status of the grain growing on the boundary strip remains in limbo.! Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: If someone gave *peah* from one field for another one, it does not acquire holiness. One understands that this means even the boundary strip²³.

footnotes:
¹⁶ Every field is surrounded by a strip, mostly of grass, usually slightly elevated over the cultivated area. On this strip one may walk between fields and also deposit agricultural implements. Rebbi Zeïra asks what is the rule if some grain grew on the boundary strip and the owner of the field wants to fulfill his duty by abandoning this grain which cannot usually be harvested. Rebbi Yasa (Rebbi Assi in the Babli) avoided answering, perhaps because he did not know the answer.There is a similar problem in Baba Batra
¹⁷ The Mishnah deals with someone who spot-harvests his field, cutting at separate places and letting the rest grow for an extended period of time. Rebbi Aqiba requires that each time and at each place peah
¹⁸ Obviously, one plot is harvested at one time; otherwise, there would be no obligation for peah
¹⁹ Spices are never grown in large fields since they belong to intensive agriculture.
²⁰ In fact, he refuses to say what he should say, viz., that the boundary strip is never sown intentionally and therefore cannot be counted as peah
²¹ This is the opinion ascribed to R. Abun in the Babli.
²² Since peah
²³ Again supporting the opinion ascribed to R. Abun in the Babli. (In the Babli, Rabin is reputed to give the correct interpretations of sentences of R. Joḥanan.)


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:1:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:1:6)

רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָא אָמַר חֲצוּבוֹת מַפְסִיקִין לְפֵיאָה. רַב חִסְדָּא בְּעִי בָּהֶן חִלֵּק יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶת הָאָרֶץ. אֲתָא רִבִּי חֲנִינָא בְּשֵׁם רַב חִסְדָּא בָּהֶן תִּיחֵם יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶת הָאָרֶץ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, rue²⁴ 3:6. In modern Hebrew, following Loew and Ben Jehudah, the word denotes the sea onion, sea leek (urginea). It is more likely that bushes such as rue were used as boundary markers rather than bulbous plants whose dispersion by seeds is beyond control. (In Arabic, ח̇צ̇ב is simply “greenery”). separates for *peah*. Rav Ḥisda investigated whether they were used by Joshua to divide the Land. Rebbi Ḥanina asserted in the name of Rav Ḥisda: they were used by Joshua to fix the boundaries of the Land.

footnotes:
²⁴ The identification of חצוּב with rue or harmel (Arabic ח̇יל) is from the Gaonic commentary to Mishnah Kelim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:1:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:1:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:1:7)

שְׁלוּלִית. כָּל שֶׁהִיא מוֹשֶׁכֶת. נַחַל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוּ מוֹשֶׁךְ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
A²⁵ water canal, whenever it is flowing. A river even though it does not flow²⁶.

footnotes:
²⁵ Here starts the discussion of the terms used in the Mishnah.
²⁶ The meaning seems to be that artificial water canals separate only if there is water flowing in them whereas natural waters separate both flowing and stagnant


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:1:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:1:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:1:8)

נִתְכַּוֵון דְּתַנֵּינָן דֶּרֶךְ הַיָּחִיד וְדֶרֶךְ הָרַבִּים מַה צוּרְכָה אֲנָא מֵימַר לָךְ אֲפִילוּ דֶּרֶךְ הָרַבִּים אֵינוֹ מַפְסִיק לְאִילָּן אֶלָּא גֶּדֶֶר. מִכֵּיוָן דְּתַנֵּינָן שְׁבִיל הַיָּחִיד שְׁבִיל הָרַבִּים מַה צוּרְכָא לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַקָּבוּעַ בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה וְאֵינוֹ קָבוּעַ בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
If²⁷ it is correct that we have stated “a private road,” what is the need for “a public road?²⁸” I tell you, even a public road does not separate for trees, only a fence does. Since we have stated “a private path,” what is the need for “a public path?” To exclude one that is permanent in summer²⁹ but is not permanent in winter.

footnotes:
²⁷ The Venice print has נתכװן מכיון which is redundant. All commentators delete the first word as unintelligible but the Rome manuscript shows that the second word has to be deleted and that there is a slight shift of emphasis from the first to the second question.
²⁸ If a private road separates, the mention of a public road is redundant; it might be that there should be no mention of the private road. The answer is that for fields, the mention of public roads is redundant but that it is needed in Mishnah 3 where it is stated that all obstacles mentioned in Mishnah 1 are not separating for trees.
²⁹ I. e., used regularly every summer through many years. Nevertheless, if it is not used during the plowing and planting period it does not count as separation.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:1:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:1:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:1:9)

רַב אָמַר בּוּר וְנִיר בֵּית רוֹבַע וְזֶרַע אַחֵר אֲפִילוּ כָּל שֶׁהוּא. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר בּוּר וְנִיר וְזֶרַע אַחֵר בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה תְלָמִין שֶׁל פְּתִיחַ. מַה וּפְלִיג. מַה דָּמַר רַב בְּחִיּוּב פֵּיאָה וּמַה דָּמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בִּפְטוֹר פֵּיאָה. וְהָתַנִּי בּוּר וְנִיר חַיָיבִין בְּפֵיאָה. מִן מַה דָּמַר רַב מִשָּׂדֶה בֵינוֹנִית. מִן מַה דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בַּחֲמִשִׁים עַל שְׁתַּיִם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rav said³⁰ are due.: Fallow land and ploughed land of a bet *rova‘*³¹. 27:18), defined the area covered by two *seah*. One *seah* are six *qab*. Hence, the area covered by a quarter *qab*, the bet *rova‘*, is an area of 5000:48 = 104 1/6 square cubits. A cubit was at least 45 and at most 61 cm, probably 54.6 cm., other produce³² even the tiniest amount. Rebbi Joḥanan said: Fallow land, ploughed land, and other produce at three preliminary furrows³³. 28:24), in ploughing an uncultivated field one first ploughs wide and coarse “starter” furrows; for sowing one then ploughs narrow ones adapted to the particular seed. According to Maimonides (*Kilaim* 3:2), the coarse furrows serve to cover breaks in the soil which developed during the heat of summer. There is no practical difference between the two explanations. In any case, the total width of the three furrows cannot be larger than two cubits.. Do they disagree³⁴? What Rav said³⁵ refers to produce subject to *peah*, what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to produce not subject to *peah*³⁶ are more powerful to interrupt between fields of the same kind than those not subject to it.. But did we not state that fallow or ploughed land is subject to *peah*³⁷? What Rav said refers to an average field, what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to a plot 50 by 2³⁸, the rule of Rav becomes inapplicable and must be replaced by a smaller limit..

footnotes:
³⁰ Here starts the discussion of how large the interruption between two crops of the same kind must be so that two separate peot
³¹ In general, surface area measurements are given in the Talmudim by the amount of seed grain needed for the area in cultivation. The measurements are standardized by the tradition that the courtyard of the Tabernacle, which was 50 by 100 cubits (Ex
³² For example, if two fields of wheat are separated by a strip of barley.
³³ Three wide parallel furrows. According to Rashi (Is
³⁴ Is it necessary to assume that Rav and R. Joḥanan present different traditions? One tries to avoid disagreements over basic measurements as much as possible.
³⁵ In matters of the separating produce only.
³⁶ In the next paragraph it will be explained that, at least for Rebbis Meïr and Jehudah, plots subject to the obligation of peah
³⁷ At least for the Sages who disagree with R. Meïr in the Mishnah. Since here Rav and R. Joḥanan give different measurements for identical situations, they seem to disagree.
³⁸ If the entire field, in this example 100 square cubits, is smaller than a bet rova‘


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:1:10
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:1:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:1:10)

רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר רִבִּי מֵאִיר וְרִבִּי יְהוּדָה שְׁנֵיהֶם אָמְרוּ דָבָר אֶחָד. כְּמָה דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר הַקּוֹצֵר לְשַׁחַת מַפְסִיק כֵּן רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר הַקּוֹצֵר לְשַׁחַת מַפְסִיק. כְּמָה דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה אָמַר חִיּוּב בְּפֵיאָה מַפְסִיק כֵּן רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר חִיּוּב בְּפֵיאָה מַפְסִיק. וְהָא אַשְׁכְּחִנָן דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר חִיּיוּב בְּפֵיאָה מַפְסִיק כְּהָדָא דְּתַנִּי אָכְלָהּ גּוֹבַיי קִירְסְמוּהָ נְמָלִים שִׁבַּרְתָּהּ הָרוּחַ אוֹ בְהֵמָה פְטוּרָה. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין אִם חָרַשׁ מַפְסִיק. אִם לֹא חָרַשׁ אֵינוֹ מַפְסִיק. מָנֵי הַכֹּל מוֹדִין לֹא רִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא פְּטוֹר פֵּיאָה. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה חַיָיב אֲפִילוּ לֹא חָרַשׁ מַפְסִיק. כַּיי דְּתַנֵּינָן תַּמָּן אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן אֵימָתַי בִּזְמָן שֶׁהִתְחִיל עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא שְׁלִישׁ אֲבָל אִם הֵבִיא שְׁלִישׁ אָסוּר לִקְצוֹר. יִקְצוֹר חַיָיב בְּפֵיאָה. וְדָבָר שֶׁהוּא חִיּוּב פֵּיאָה מַפְסִיק.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Both Rebbi Meïr³⁹. and Rebbi Jehudah⁴⁰ 10:8, dealing with the prohibition of using grain from the new harvest before the presentation of the *‘omer* on the 16th of Nisan. We insist that they follow the same principle in both cases eventhough we have no statement of R. Jehudah on *peah* and no statement of R. Meïr about cutting green grain as animal fodder. said the same. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that he who cuts for fodder separates, so Rebbi Jehudah will say that he who cuts for fodder separates. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that an obligation for *peah* separates⁴¹, so Rebbi Meïr will say that an obligation for *peah* separates. But we find that Rebbi Meïr says that an obligation for *peah* separates⁴² between two fields separates the two fields into two entities from each of which one must give *peah*. since we have stated⁴³ 1:8. A field on which grain grows but which is destroyed during growth is not subject to the obligation of *peah*.: “If locusts ate it, ants undermined it, or a storm or animals broke it, it is free⁴⁴; everybody agrees that if he ploughed⁴⁵ it separates, if he did not plough it does not interrupt⁴⁶.” Who is “everybody”? Does not Rebbi Meïr say, if it is free from *peah*⁴⁷, only separate ploughing will create two obligations. But if there were a separate obligation from the start, as in the example quoted next from R. Jehudah, then it seems that there are two obligations of *peah* created., but if it were obligated it would interrupt even if he did not plough. Parallel to what we stated there⁴⁸ 10:8. There is a Biblical prohibition on using new grain for human consumption before the 16th of Nisan (*Lev.* 23:14) and a rabbinical prohibition to harvest before that time. However, that rabbinical prohibition is waived either if it would cause monetary loss (as for fields in the region of Jericho that ripen very early) or if the grain is not used for humans. R. Simeon permits cutting for fodder anytime, R. Jehudah allows it only if the grain is less than one third ripe (since afterwards it is fit for human consumption as “green kernels”).: “Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he started before it was one-third ripe, but if it is one-third ripe one is forbidden to cut.” If he cuts⁴⁹ he is obligated for *peah*. And anything that is obligated for *peah* separates⁵⁰ from this strip. If that strip separated the remaining grain into two disjoint pieces, the two fields now are separately liable for *peah*..

footnotes:
³⁹ In our Mishnah, referring to peah
⁴⁰ In Mishnah Menaḥot
⁴¹ This statement is not obvious and has to be proven later.
⁴² From the Tosephta it will be deduced that everybody, including Rebbi Meïr, agrees that an independent obligation of peah
⁴³ Tosephta Peah
⁴⁴ Cf. Mishnah 2:7.
⁴⁵ If he ploughed under the empty stalks remaining after the disaster. “It” in this sentence refers to the ruined field.
⁴⁶ If only part of the field was destroyed it is as if the entire field was sown but part of the seed grain did not germinate; it therefore remains one field.
⁴⁷ Since it belongs to the same field and without the disaster there would not have been any separate obligation of peah
⁴⁸ Mishnah Menaḥot
⁴⁹ After the grain is one-third ripened and the grain is potential human food. (“R. Yudan” here refers to R. Jehudah bar Illaï.)
⁵⁰ If he harvested a strip of unripe grain in a field, he has to give peah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:1:11
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:1:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:1:11)

רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְּעִי כְּמַה דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה אָמַר הִתְחִיל עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ וַאֲפִילוּ הֵבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ פָּטוּר מִן הַלֶּקֶט וּמִן הַשִּׁכְחָה וּמִן הַפֵּיאָה. כֵּן רִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר הִתְחִיל עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ וַאֲפִילוּ הֵבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ פָּטוּר מִן הַלֶּקֶט וּמִן הַשִּׁכְחָה וּמִן הַפֵּיאָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
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*⁵¹ 19:9, *Ruth* 2) and leaving sheaves forgotten on the field (*Deut.* 24:19), and *peah*., would Rebbi Meïr say that if he started before it was one-third ripe, even if he continued after it is one-third ripe he will be freed from collecting, forgotten sheaves, and *peah*⁵²?

footnotes:
⁵¹ R. Jehudah, in the Mishnah just quoted, only asks that one has to start cutting for fodder as long as the grain is not yet fit for human consumption, but not that one has to stop at one-third ripeness; it is clear that subsequent cutting for fodder does not turn the fodder into human food and, therefore, the farmer is free from the obligations of letting the poor collect the single stalks not bound in sheaves (Lev.
⁵² There is no logical necessity which would force R. Meïr to agree that wheat with edible green kernels does not constitute human food. The question is not answered since no other sources are available.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:2:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:2:1)

**משנה:** אַמַּת הַמַּיִם שֶׁאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לְהִיקָּצֵר כְּאַחַת רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מַפְסֶקֶת וְכָל הֶהָרִים אֲשֶׁר בַּמַּעְדֵּר יֵעָדֵרוּן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַבָּקָר יָכוֹל לַעֲבוֹר בְּכֵלָיו הוּא נוֹתֵן פֵּיאָה אַחַת לַכֹּל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** An irrigation canal that cannot be harvested together⁵³, Rebbi Jehudah says it separates. For all hills subject to weeding⁵⁴. 7:25. It means as long as the obstacle can be used agriculturally, even if it cannot be worked with ploughs or other implements drawn by animals, it does not separate for *peah* even if such a ridge separates a field into two parts as far as mechanical farming is concerned., even if cattle can not pass by with their implements, he gives one *peah* for everything.

footnotes:
⁵³ One cannot cut with one movement of a scythe on both banks of the irrigation canal. The exact description will be given in the Halakhah.
⁵⁴ The language is from Is


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:2:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:2:2)

**הלכה:** הֲווֹן בְּעִי מֵימָר וְלָא פְלִיגִין. אַשְׁכַּחַת תַּנִּי אַמַּת הַמָּיִם הַקְּבוּעָה הֲרֵי זוּ מַפְסֶקֶת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** They wanted to say that there is no disagreement⁵⁵. It was found stated: “A permanent irrigation canal separates⁵⁶,*Qedošim* 3:2 reads: “A permanent irrigation canal separates. Rebbi Jehudah says, if (it) [both banks of the canal] cannot be harvested together, it separates. For all hills subject to weeding, even if cattle cannot pass by with implements, he gives one *peah* for everything.” Hence, the majority of the Sages agree that a permanently installed irrigation canal separates for *peah* even if both banks can be cut at the same time; R. Jehudah’s opinion is in the minority.”

footnotes:
⁵⁵ The Mishnah does not mention any opinion differing from R. Jehudah. One might therefore think that it expresses a commonly held opinion even though in that case the Mishnah should have been anonymous.
⁵⁶ The Mishnah is defective. The parallel in Sifra


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:2:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:2:3)

הֲווֹן בְּעִיי מֵימָר מִן מַה דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה בְּעוֹמֵד מִצַּד אֶחָד וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִקְצוֹר מִצַּד הַשֵּׁינִי אֲבָל אִם הָיָה עוֹמֵד בְּאֶמְצַע וְקוֹצֵר מִיכַּן וּמִיכַּן אֵינוֹ מַפְסִיק. אַשְׁכָּח תַּנִּי וּפְלִיג הָיָה עוֹמֵד בְּאֶמְצַע וְקוֹצֵר מִיכַּן וּמִיכַּן מַפְסִיק מִצַּד אֶחָד אֵינוֹ מַפְסִיק.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
They wanted to say: What Rebbi Jehudah talks about is one who stands on one bank and cannot cut on the other bank, but if he stands in the middle⁵⁷ and cuts on both banks it does not separate. It was found stated⁵⁸ 1:8: “An irrigation canal that cannot be harvested together, R. Jehudah says if he has to stand in the middle in order to harvest on both banks, it separates, otherwise, it does not separate.” The text before the Yerushalmi must have been similar. in disagreement: “If he was standing in the middle and harvesting on both banks, it separates; on one bank it does not separate.”

footnotes:
⁵⁷ In the water of the irrigation canal.
⁵⁸ Tosephta Peah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:2:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:2:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:2:4)

חִיָיא בַּר אָדָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ הָיָה שָׁם סֶלַע עַל פְּנֵי כָּל שָׂדֵהוּ אִם עוֹקֵר הוּא אֶת הַמַּחֲרֵישָׁה מִצַּד זֶה וְנוֹתְנוֹ מִצַּד זֶה מַפְסִיק. מִצַּד אַחֵֵר אֵינוֹ מַפְסִיק. וְהָתַנִּי מַדְרֵיגוֹת שֶׁהֵן גְּבוֹהוֹת עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים נוֹתֵן פֵּיאָה מִכָּל אֶחֶֶד וְאֶחָד. פָּחוֹת מִיכֵּן נוֹתֵן מֵאֶחָד עַל הַכֹּל. וּפָחוֹת מִיכֵּן אֵינוֹ עוֹקֵר אֶת הַמַּחֲרֵישָׁה מִצַּד זֶה וְנוֹתְנָהּ בְּצַד זֶה. אֲפִילוּ פָּחוֹת מִיּכֵן עוֹקֵר הוּא. לָא אֲתִינָן מִיתְנֵי עֲשָׂרָה אֶלָּא בְגִין סוֹפָהּ שֶׁאִם הָיוּ רָאשֵׁי מַדְרֵיגוֹת מְעוּרָבִין שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן מֵאֶחָד עַל הַכֹּל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If there was a rock along the length of his entire field⁵⁹, if he has to lift the plough from one side and transport it to the other side, it separates, from the other side⁶⁰ it does not separate. But did we not state⁶¹ 1:9, together with the quote at the end of the paragraph, forms one sentence there.: “For terraces which are each ten hand-breadths⁶² higher than the other⁶³., he must give *peah* for each one separately. Less than that he gives one *peah* for all of them.” But for less than that⁶⁴, 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 all⁶⁵ for all and the incline makes possible the ploughing without lifting the plough. However, in general we say that a height of 10 handbreadths creates a new domain. For example, regarding the laws of Sabbath, “public domain” in which one may not carry extends only up to a height of 10 handbreadths from the ground. One might have thought that a level difference of 10 handbreadths also creates a new domain for *peah*, but this is not the case..”

footnotes:
⁵⁹ Bare rock, not a place for weeding or other agricultural work, not covered by the Mishnah. Here starts the discussion of the second sentence of the Mishnah.
⁶⁰ If he can slide the plough over the rock so that it does not lose contact with the ground.
⁶¹ Tosephta Peah
⁶² One cubit equals six hand-breadths. Ten handbreadths are about one yard difference from one terrace to the next.
⁶³ On a terraced hillside, if the agricultural machines have to be lifted up from one terrace to the next, they are distinct fields for peah
⁶⁴ A terrace wall less than three feet high.
⁶⁵ If on one side there is an incline which connects the different terraces, all counts as one field. One might think that the statement is unnecessary since we already know that anything which can be ploughed together requires one peah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:3:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:3:1)

**משנה:** הַכֹּל מַפְסִיק לִזְרָעִים וְאֵינוֹ מַפְסִיק לְאִילָן אֶלָּא גֶּדֶר. וְאִם הָיָה שֵׂעָר כּוֹתֵשׁ אֵינוֹ מַפְסִיק אֶלָּא נוֹתֵן פֵּיאָה לַכֹּל. וְלֶחָרוּבִין כָּל הָרוֹאִין זֶה אֶת זֶה. אָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל נוֹהֲגִין הָיוּ בְּבֵית אַבָּא נוֹתְנִין פֵּיאָה אַחַת לַזֵּיתִים שֶׁהָיוּ לָהֶן בְּכָל הָרוּחַ וְלֶחָרוּבִין כָּל הָרוֹאִין זֶה אֶת זֶה. רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֵּי רִבִּי צָדוֹק אוֹמֵר מִשְּׁמוֹ אַף לֶחָרוּבִין שֶׁהָיוּ לָהֶם בְּכָל הָעִיר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**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 all⁶⁶.
⁷⁴: But for carob trees all that see one another⁷⁵. Rabban Gamliel⁷⁶ said, in my father’s house they used to give one *peah* for the olive trees they had in every direction⁷⁷ for all olive trees in all four main directions. and for all carobs that saw one another. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadoq said in the former’s name: also for all carob trees they had in the entire town.

footnotes:
⁶⁶ This was explained at the beginning of Halakhah 1, notes 12–13.
⁷⁴ This Mishnah is the continuation of the preceding one.
⁷⁵ According to Maimonides, all the carob trees a man can see standing next to one of them. According to R. Abraham ben David, all the carob trees a man can see while standing on top of one of them. According to the second opinion, fences are never a problem for carob trees.
⁷⁶ Rabban Gamliel of Jabneh, speaking of the family of Hillel.
⁷⁷ Four peot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:3:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:3:2)

**הלכה:** הַכֹּל מַפְסִיק לִזְרָעִים. מַה כּוֹתֵשׁ וְעוֹלֶה בְּמַכְתֵּשׁ אוֹ כּוֹתֵשׁ עַל גַּבֵּי גֶדֶר. מִן מַה סְעָר כּוֹתֵשׁ אֵין הַגֶּדֶר כּוֹתֵשׁ. הָדָא אָמְרָה כוֹתֵשׁ עַל גַּבֵּי גֶדֶר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “Everything separates for seeds⁶⁷.” What is pressing down⁶⁸ if the leaves of trees of one orchard come down and lie across the fence to the other orchard? Does it mean that the leaves actually have to press on the fence or may they be in the air and just press down one branch on the other?? It rises while pressing as in a mortar⁶⁹ 5:3 quotes the text here as כעלי במכתש “like a pestle in the mortar,” and explains, on the basis of the same language in *Kilaim*, that the branches have to press hard on the stone fence so as to create a dusty surface on the fence. Better is the interpretation of the uncorrected text, preferred by R. Moses Margalit, that the branches on both sides may be enmeshed but be higher than the fence, since the pestle is higher except for the short moments when it touches the bottom of the mortar. or must it press down on the fence? From the text “hair was pressing down,” the fence does not press⁷⁰. That means it presses down on the fence.

footnotes:
⁶⁷ Quote from the Mishnah. However, the discussion is purely about the second sentence in the Mishnah.
⁶⁸ What is the meaning of the condition that two orchards separated by a fence are subject only to one obligation of peah
⁶⁹ Rabbenu Simson in his commentary to Kilaim
⁷⁰ While the “hair” must lie on the fence, it need not act on it. There is no eroding pressure needed on the stone fence.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:3:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:3:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:3:3)

רִבִּי מָנָא אָמַר זִמְנִין דַּהֲוֵי בָהּ בְּתוֹךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת וְזִמְנִין דַּהֲוֵי בָהּ בְּתוֹךְ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים בִּנְטוּעִין מַטַּע עֶשֶׂר לְבֵית סְאָה. מַה אַתְּ שְׁמַע מִינָהּ וְהוּא שֶׁיְּהוּ בְּתוֹךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת לְגֶדֶר וְהֵן שֶׁיְּהוּ בְּתוֹךְ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים בֵּין נוֹף לְנוֹף בִּנְטוּעִין מַטַּע עֶשֶׂר לְבֵית סְאָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Mana said: Sometimes they need to be inside four cubits and sometimes they need to be inside ten handbreadths if they are planted ten to a *bet se‘ah*. How do you understand this? They⁷¹ need to be within four cubits of the fence; the crowns have to be within ten handbreadths of one another⁷² if they are planted ten to a *bet se‘ah*⁷³ are characteristic for a tree nursery (Mishnah *Sheviït* 1:7); adult trees form an orchard if a minimum of three trees are planted on a *bet se‘ah* (Mishnah *Sheviït* 1:2). Since Maimonides*does* not quote the rules of R. Mana in his code, he seems to consider them non-operative since trees that actually bear fruit are no longer in a tree nursery..

footnotes:
⁷¹ The trees have to be planted close to the fence so that the stem of the tree whose branches lie on the fence is not farther than four cubits from the fence.
⁷² In the entire orchard, the crown of any tree must have the crown of another tree within 10 handbreadths (1 2/3 cubits) distance.
⁷³ If the trees are planted in a regular pattern, each tree gets an area of 250 square cubits, or 15.82 cubits square. This means that the crown of each fruit tree should reach a diameter of slightly over 14.2 cubits.Ten trees to a bet se‘ah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:3:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:3:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:3:4)

וְלֶחָרוּבִין כָּל הָרוֹאִין. מִי מְכַוֵּין לָהֶן אֶת הָרוּחוֹת. הָעִיר מְכַוֶונֶת לָהֶן אֶת הָרוּחוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בּוּן שֶׁל בֵּית רִבִּי הָיוּ לָהֶן אַרְבָּעָה בַדִּים לְאַרְבָּעָה רוּחוֹת הָעִיר וְהֵן נוֹתְנִין לְכָל בַּד וּבַד לְפִי רוּחוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“But for carob trees all that see.” What defines the directions for them? The town defines the directions for them⁷⁸ explains that each town has to put up markers at the end of the Sabbath territory (2000 cubits from the last house of town) in the four cardinal directions.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the family of Rebbi had four oil presses in the four directions of the town and their used to give for each oil press according to its direction⁷⁹.

footnotes:
⁷⁸ E, S, W, N are defined standing in the center of town. Chapter 5 of Mishnah Erubin
⁷⁹ The prescribed percentage of the olives processed in each of the oil presses.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:3:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:3:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:3:5)

הָיוּ שָׁם שְׁלֹשָׁה אִילָנוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים רוֹאִין אֶת הָאֶמְצָעִיִים וְהָאֶמְצָעִיִים רוֹאִין אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים וְאֵין הָרִאשׁוֹנִים רוֹאִין זֶה אֶת זֶה מַפְרִישׁ מִן הָרָאשִׁים עַל הָאֶמְצָעִיִים וּמִן הָאֶמְצָעִיִים עַל הָרָאשִׁים וְאֵינוֹ מַפְרִישׁ מִן הָרָאשִׁים עַל הָרָאשִׁים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
If there were three⁸⁰ (groups of) trees, the outer⁸¹ ones see the middle ones, the middle ones see the outer ones, but the outer ones do not see one another, then one may give from the outer ones for the middle ones and from the middle ones for the outer ones but one may not give from the outer ones for the outer ones.

footnotes:
⁸⁰ R. Simson of Sens reads: 30. This would explain the plural used for the three groups of trees.
⁸¹ While all sources have here הראשונים “the first ones”, it is clear from the context that הראשים “the extremities” are meant.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:4:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:4:1)

**משנה:** הַזּוֹרֵעַ אֶת שָׂדֵהוּ מִין אֶחָד אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה שְׁתֵּי גֳרָנוֹת נוֹתֵן פֵּיאָה אַחַת. זוֹרְעָהּ שְׁנֵי מִינִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה גוֹרֶן אַחַת נוֹתֵן שְׁתֵּי פֵּיאוֹת. הַזּוֹרֵעַ אֶת שָׂדֵהוּ שְׁנֵי מִינֵי חִטִּים עֲשָׂאָן גוֹרֶן אַחַת עוֹשֶׂה גוֹרֶן אַחַת נוֹתֵן פֵּיאָה אַחַת. שְׁתֵּי גֳרָנוֹת נוֹתֵן שְׁתֵּי פֵּיאוֹת. מַעֲשֶׂה כְּשֶׁזָּרַע רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אִישׁ הַמִּצְפָּה לִפְנֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְעָלוּ לְלִשְׁכַּת הַגָּזִית וְשָׁאֲלוּ. אָמַר נָחוּם הַלִּיבֶּלָּר מְקוּבָּל אֲנִי מֶרִבִּי מִיַישָׁא שֶׁקִּיבֵּל מֵאַבָּא שֶׁקִּיבֵּל מִן הַזּוּגּוֹת שֶׁקִּיבְּלוּ מִן הַנְּבִיאִים הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי בְּזוֹרֵעַ אֶת שָׂדֵהוּ שְׁנֵי מִינִי חִיטִּים אִם עֲשָׂאָן גּוֹרֶן אַחַת נוֹתֵן פֵּיאָה אַחַת שְׁתֵּי גֳרָנוֹת נוֹתֵן שְׁתֵּי פֵּיאוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** He who sows one species on his field gives one *peah* even though he works⁸² at two different threshing floors. If he sows two species, he gives two *peot* even though he threshes them together⁸³. He who sows two different kinds of wheat on his field gives one *peah* if he processes them together⁸⁴, two *peot* if he threshes them separately.
It happened that Rebbi Simeon from Miẓpah⁹³ sowed before Rabban Gamliel; they ascended to the stone hall⁹⁴ and asked. Naḥum the scribe⁹⁵, “of books.” He was the clerk of Rabban Gamliel I’s court. said: I have the tradition from Rebbi Miasha, who received it from my father, who received it from the pairs⁹⁶., who received if from the prophets⁹⁷, 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.

footnotes:
⁸² Literally: He makes two threshing floors. Not only the act of threshing is involved, but also the collection of threshed grain into orderly heaps. The best translation is: processing (grain on the stalk into a commercial commodity.)
⁸³ And puts them together in the same heap.
⁸⁴ That means that he treats them as one kind of wheat.
⁹³ A Mishnah collector in the times of Rabban Gamliel I; one of a very small number of scholars who lived during Second Temple times who is always mentioned with the title “Rebbi.” {It is possible that before the destruction of the Temple, “Rebbi” did not designate a rabbi but a collector of legal statements.} Miẓpah probably is today’s Nebi Samwil, N. W. of Jerusalem.
⁹⁴ The hall on the Temple Mount whose walls were formed by hewn stone and in which the high court held its sessions.
⁹⁵ Cf. Latin libellaris
⁹⁶ The pairs of authorities, chiefs and deputy chiefs of the high court in Jerusalem, who are mentioned in the first chapter of Pirqe Avot
⁹⁷ Ḥaggai, Zachariah, Malachi, who by tradition are counted as members of the “Great Assembly.”


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:4:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:4:2)

**הלכה:** קָצַר חֵצִי אַיגִּדוֹ וְחֵצִי שְׁמוּתִית לַעֲשוֹתָן גּוֹרֶן אֶחָד וְנִמְלַךְ וַעֲשָׂאָן שְׁתֵּי גֳרָנוֹת אֵינוֹ מַפְרִישׁ מִן הָאַגִּדוֹ עַל הַשְּׁמוּתִית לֹא בַתְּחִילָּה וְלֹא בְסוֹף. קָצַר חֵצִי הָאַגִּדוֹ וְחֵצִי הַשְּׁמוּתִית לַעֲשוֹתָן שְׁתֵּי גֳרָנוֹת וְנִמְלַךְ וַעֲשָׂאָן גּוֹרֶן אַחַת מַפְרִישׁ עַל הָאַגִּדוֹ שֶׁבְּסוֹף עַל הַשְּׁמוּתִית שֶׁבְּסוֹף. מִן הָאַגִּדוֹ שֶׁבַּתְּחִילָּה עַל הַשְּׁמוּתִית שֶׁבַּתְּחִילָּה. מַפְרִישׁ מִן הָאַגִּדוֹ עַל הָאַגִּדוֹ בְּשֶׁכִּילָּה אֶת שָׂדֵהוּ. אֲבָל אִם לֹא כִילָּה אֶת שָׂדֵהוּ אֲפִילוּ מִן הָאַגִּדוֹ עַל הָאַגִּדוֹ אֵינוֹ מַפְרִיש. קָצַר חֲצִי אַגִּדוֹ וְכָל הַשְּׁמוּתִית לַעֲשוֹתָן גּוֹרֶן אַחַת וְנִמְלַךְ וַעֲשָׂאָן שְׁתֵּי גֳרָנוֹת מַפְרִישׁ מִן הָאַגִּדוֹ עַל הָאַגִּדוֹ וְכָל הַשְּׁמוּתִית שֶׁשָּׁם נִפְטְרָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** If he cut half the fine wheat⁸⁵ is probably correct. The term corresponds to Syriac איגורי דחיטתא “fine quality wheat” (Payne-Smith vol. I, col. 137). The entire exposition deals only with the case of a field sown with two kinds of wheat, as in the Mishnah. and half the coarse wheat⁸⁶ shows that these rules were formulated in the region between Haifa and Beth She‘an where ח was identified with ה. The root of the word is שחם “to be darkish” (Arabic سخم، سحم; cf. also شخم “spoiled”). This is the coarser kind of wheat. to process them together and then he changed his mind and processed them separately he cannot give from the fine wheat for the coarse either the first time⁸⁷ will be given and that is at the end of the total harvest. or at the end⁸⁸. If he cut half the fine wheat and half the coarse wheat to process them separately and then he changed his mind and processed them together, he may give from the fine wheat at the end for the coarse wheat at the end, from the fine wheat the first time for the coarse wheat the first time⁸⁹. He gives from fine wheat for fine wheat if he finished harvesting his field, but if he did not finish harvesting, he may not give even from fine wheat for fine wheat⁹⁰ has to be given at the end.. If he cut half the fine wheat and all the coarse wheat to process them together and he changed his mind and processed them separately⁹¹ has to be given at the end, there is only fine wheat to be given (for the entire field) and the farmer is not obligated to separate *peah* from the coarse wheat kernels in his heap. {The emendations proposed by the commentators are unconvincing.} then he gives from the fine wheat for the fine wheat and all the coarse wheat is exempted⁹³.

footnotes:
⁸⁵ The reading of the Venice print here is איגדו, that of the Rome manuscript אגידו. This kind of wheat is usually spelled אגרו, אגורי, אגרי; this is R. Simson’s spelling here. The spelling with r
⁸⁶ Everywhere else, this kind of wheat is called שחמתית. The elision of ḥ
⁸⁷ When he cuts half of the field, since we require that the poor have a clear sign when peah
⁸⁸ Since actions count more than intentions.
⁸⁹ Here also the action cancels the prior intention. He may not give from the coarse wheat for the fine since that would be stealing from the poor. He may give from the fine wheat for the coarse since he gives to the poor more than they would be entitled to.
⁹⁰ As explained before, all peah
⁹¹ Not the fine and the coarse kinds separately but the first and the second harvests separately. In that case, since peah
⁹³ A Mishnah collector in the times of Rabban Gamliel I; one of a very small number of scholars who lived during Second Temple times who is always mentioned with the title “Rebbi.” {It is possible that before the destruction of the Temple, “Rebbi” did not designate a rabbi but a collector of legal statements.} Miẓpah probably is today’s Nebi Samwil, N. W. of Jerusalem.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:4:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:4:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:4:3)

אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אִם בָּאָת הֲלָכָה תַּחַת יָדֵיךְ וְאֵין אַתְּ יוֹדֵעַ מַה טִיבָהּ אַל תַּפְלִיגֶנָּה לְדָבָר אַחֵר שֶׁהֲרֵי כַּמָּה הֲלָכוֹת נֶאֱמְרוּ לְמֹשֶׁה בְּסִינַי וְכוּלְהֹן מְשׁוּקָּעוֹת בַּמִּשְׁנָה. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין וְיֵאוּת הִיא שְׁנֵי מִינֵי חִיטִּים אִילוּלֵי שֶׁבָּא נָחוּם וּפִירֵשׁ לָנוּ יוֹדְעִין הָיִינוּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi⁹⁸ 1:8. Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If you come to notice a practice of which you do not know the reason, do not push it aside as something alien since many practices were shown to Moses on Sinai and all of them were absorbed into the Mishnah. Rebbi Abin said, that is correct! If Naḥum had not come and explained it to us about the two kinds of wheat, could we have known⁹⁹?

footnotes:
⁹⁸ The entire following discussion on oral tradition is also in Taäniot
⁹⁹ That the rule of two kinds of wheat in one field is a practice revealed to Moses.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:4:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:4:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:4:4)

רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לְעָזָר אֶכְתָּוב לוֹ רוּבֵּי תּוֹרָתִי. וְכִי רוּבָּהּ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה נִכְתְּבָה אֶלָּא מְרוּבִּין הֵן הַדְּבָרִים הַנִּדְרָשִׁין מִן הַכְּתָב מִן הַדְּבָרִים הַנִּדְרָשִׁין מִן הַפֶּה. וְכֵינִי. אֶלָּא כֵינִי חֲבִיבִין הֵן הַדְּבָרִים הַנִּדְרָשִׁין מִן הַפֶּה מִן הַדְּבָרִים הַנִּדְרָשִׁין מִן הַכְּתָב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: (*Hos*. 8:12) “I¹⁰⁰ wrote down for him most of My teaching.”¹⁰¹ 60b), this is the definite statement of R. Eleazar. The later statement of R. Samuel bar Naḥman is attributed in the Babli to R. Joḥanan, and R. Zeïra follows the latter’s argument. But was most of the Torah written down? Rather, more things are derived from what is written than what is (only) oral tradition. Is that so? But so it is: Things derived from what is transmitted orally are preferred over those written.

footnotes:
¹⁰⁰ Words of God.
¹⁰¹ In the Babli (Giṭṭin


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:4:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:4:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:4:5)

רִבִּי יוּדָה בֶּן פָּזִי אוֹמֵר אֶכְתָּוב לוֹ רוּבֵּי תּוֹרָתִי אֵילּוּ הַתּוֹכָחוֹת. אֲפִילוּ כֵן [לֹא כְּמוֹ] זָר נֶחְשָׁבוּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Judah ben Pazi says: “I wrote down for him most of My teaching,” these are the admonitions¹⁰². 26:14–46, *Deut*. 28:15–69.. Nevertheless, is it not that (*Hos*. 8:12) “they were considered foreign”.

footnotes:
¹⁰² Lev


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:4:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:4:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:4:6)

אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין אִילוּלֵי כָתַבְתִּי לְךָ רוּבֵּי תוֹרָתִי לֹא כְּמוֹ זָר נֶחְשָׁבוּ. מַה בֵּינָן לָאוּמּוֹת. אֵילּוּ מוֹצִיאִין סִפְרֵיהֶן וְאֵילּוּ מוֹצִיאִין סִפְרֵיהֶן. אֵילּוּ מוֹצִיאִין דִּפְתֶּרֵיהֶן וְאֵילּוּ מוֹצִיאִין דִּפְתֶּרֵיהֶן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Avin said: If I had written down for you most of my teaching, would it not be considered Gentile? What is the difference between us and the Gentiles? These produce their books and those produce their books. These produce their parchments¹⁰³ 60b briefly alludes to this argument. and those produce their parchments.

footnotes:
¹⁰³ Greek διφθέρα, ἡ, “leather prepared for writing.” The argument is: If there were no oral Torah Jewish law would not differ from any Gentile law. Babli Giṭṭin


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:4:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:4:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:4:7)

רִבִּי חַגַּיי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן נֶאֱמְרוּ דְּבָרִים בְּפֶה וְנֶאֱמְרוּ דְּבָרִים בִּכְתָב וְאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין אֵי זֶה מֵהֶן חָבִיב. אֶלָּא מִן מַה דִּכְתִיב כִּי עַל פִּי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה כָּרַתִּי אִתְּךָ בְּרִית וְאֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל הָדָא אָמְרָה אוֹתָן שֶׁבְּפֶה חֲבִיבִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani: Things have been said orally and things have been said in writing, and we do not know which ones are preferred. From what is written (*Ex*. 34:27): “By the mouth of these words I concluded a covenant with you and Israel¹⁰⁴ 60b, R. Simeon ben Laqish explains the verse as part of the covenant and states that written verses may not be recited by heart and oral traditions not written down.;” it follows that the oral traditions are preferred¹⁰⁵ 60b..

footnotes:
¹⁰⁴ This argument is somewhat specious since the full verse reads: “The Eternal said to Moses, write down these words for yourself, because by the mouth of these words I concluded a covenant with you and Israel.” In Babli Giṭṭin
¹⁰⁵ A similar argument in the name of R. Joḥanan is reported in Babli Giṭṭin


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:4:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:4:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:4:8)

רִבִי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי יוּדָן בֵּירִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן חַד אָמַר אִם שִׁימַּרְתָּה מַה שֶׁבְּפֶה וְשִׁימַּרְתָּ מַה שֶׁבִּכְתָב אֲנִי כוֹרֵת אִתְּךָ בְרִית וְאִם לָאו אֵינִי כוֹרֵת אִתְּךָ בְרִית. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר אִם שִׁימַּרְתָּ מַה שֶׁבְּפֶה וְקִיַימְתָּ מַה שֶׁבִּכְתָב אַתָּה מְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר וְאִם לָאו אֵין אַתָּה מְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Yudan bar Rebbi Simeon¹⁰⁶. One said that if you kept what is oral tradition and kept what is written I will conclude a covenant with you, otherwise I shall not conclude a covenant with you. The other one said, if you watched all that is oral tradition and kept all that is written you will receive your reward, otherwise you will not receive any reward.

footnotes:
¹⁰⁶ He is Rebbi Jehudah bar Simon. The verse this homily refers to is the one quoted in the preceding paragraph.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:4:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:4:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:4:9)

רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר עֲלֵיהֶם וַעֲלֵיהֶם כָּל כְּכָל דְּבָרים הַדְּבָרִים מִקְרָא מִשְׁנָה תַּלְמוּד וַאֲגָדָה. אֲפִילוּ מַה שֶׁתַּלְמִיד וָותִיק עָתִיד לְהוֹרוֹת לִפְנֵי רַבּוֹ כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר לְמֹשֶׁה בְּסִינַי. מַה טַעַם יֵשׁ דָּבָר שֶׁיֹּאמַר רְאֵה זֶה חָדָשׁ הוּא. מֵשִׁיבוֹ חֲבֵירוֹ וְאוֹמֵר לוֹ כְּבָר הָיָה לְעוֹלָמִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said¹⁰⁷. 9:10: “The Eternal gave to me the two stone tablets, written by the Divine Finger, *and* on them *like* all *the* words that the Eternal spoke to you on the mountain at the day of assembly.” The three italicized expressions are all unnecessary for the understanding of the sentence; these are interpreted as referring to the three divisions of oral law contained in the complete Torah. {The same derivation is found in *Megillah* fol. 74d, and in very shortened form with different emphasis in Babli *Megillah* 19b.}: On them, and on them; all, like all; words, the words; Bible, Mishnah, Talmud, and Aggadah. Even what a competent¹⁰⁸ student will discover¹⁰⁹ before his teacher was said to Moses on Sinai. What is the reason? (*Eccl*. 1:10) “There is something about which one would say, look, this is new!” His colleague will answer, “it already has been forever.”

footnotes:
¹⁰⁷ The reference is to Deut
¹⁰⁸ Arabic ות̇יק “strong, safe, secure, dependable, reliable”. The interpretations of the untrained and incompetent are worthless.
¹⁰⁹ Since a student may not rule, or teach, before his teacher, the root of the word להורות must be “to become pregnant,” in this case, with an idea.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:4:10
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:4:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:4:10)

רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל אֵין לְמֵידִין לֹא מִן הַהֲלָכוֹת וְלֹא מִן הַהַגָּדוֹת וְלֹא מִן הַתּוֹסָפוֹת אֶלָּא מִן הַתַּלְמוּד. תַּנִּי רִבִּי חֲלַפְתָּא בֶּן שָָׁאוּל הִיא שְׁנֵי מִינֵי חִיטִּין הִיא שְׁנֵי מִינֵי שְׂעוֹרִין. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא כָּךְ הָיְתָה הֲלָכָה בְיָדָם וּשְׁכָחוּהָ הִיא שְׁנֵי מִינֵי חִיטִּין הִיא שְׁנֵי מִינֵי שְׂעוֹרִים. וְהָתַנֵּינָן הַמַּחֲלִיק בְּצָלִין לַחִין לַשּׁוּק וּמְקַיֵים יְבֵישִׁין לַגּוֹרֶן אִית לָךְ מֵימַר שׁוּק וְגוֹרֶן כָּךְ הָיְתָה הֲלָכָה בְיָדָן וּשְׁכָחוּהָ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Samuel: One makes inferences neither from practices¹¹⁰,*s. v.*עד., nor from homiletics¹¹¹. Unfortunately, since the sixteenth century this principle has been violated by Kabbalists in favor of practices mentioned in *Zohar*., nor from extraneous sources¹¹², but only from study¹¹³. Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: The case of two kinds of wheat is the same as the case of two kinds of barley¹¹⁴. Rebbi Zeïra said, that was part of the original practice and it was forgotten: The case of two kinds of wheat is the same as the case of two kinds of barley. But did we not state (*Mishnah* 3:3): “He who strips moist onions for the market and stores dry ones¹¹⁵ two times; this rule cannot be deduced from the stated practice regarding two kinds of wheat since one deals here with only one kind of onion. Since this Mishnah cannot be a consequence of the original *Halakhah*, neither may one assert that the ruling of R. Ḥalaphta ben Shaul was part of the original *Halakhah*. Hence, neither the statement of R. Halaphta nor the Mishnah are exempt from logical scrutiny on the basis of accepted general principles.;” can you say about market and storage that this was of the original practice and was forgotten?

footnotes:
¹¹⁰ Rules of practice declared in the Mishnah; these may be overridden by arguments in the Talmud. The interpretation of this paragraph follows R. Samuel ben Meïr (Ṛashbam) to Babli Baba batra 130b
¹¹¹ Homiletics, whether incorporated in the Talmud or given in separate midrashim
¹¹² Rashbam reads תוספתות instead of תוספות, but that may be a scribal error. The “additional sources” are tannaïtic materials not given in the Mishnah, either as single traditions or as part of a collection.
¹¹³ From the Talmud which fixes the reasons for each ruling, or from a decision made in the Talmud that practice follows the opinion of such-and-such.
¹¹⁴ If R. Ḥalaphta ben Shaul makes the inference that the rules for barley are identical with those for wheat, does he not violate Samuel’s statement that one does not draw inferences from stated practices but only from an argument about the underlying principles?
¹¹⁵ He has to give peah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:4:11
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:4:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:4:11)

רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל אֵין לְמֵידִין מִן הָהוֹרָיָיה. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין שֶׁאֵין לְמֵידִין מִן הַמַּעֲשֶׂה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רִבִי מָנָא הָדָא דְּתֵימַר בְּהַהוּא דְּלָא סְבַר בְּרַם בְּהַהוּא דִּסְבַר עֲבַד. אֲמַר לֵיהּ בֵּין סְבַר בֵּין לָא סְבַר בְּהוּא דִפְלִיגָא. בְּרַם בְּהוּא דְלָא פְלִיג בֵּין סְבַר בֵּין לָא סְבַר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Samuel: One makes no inferences from a ruling¹¹⁶. Everybody agrees that one makes no inferences from an action¹¹⁷. Rebbi Mana said to him, that means somebody who does not understand¹¹⁸, but he who understands may act. He said to him, whether one understands or one does not understand, if there is a disagreement¹¹⁹. But if there is no disagreement, whether one understands or one does not understand¹²⁰.

footnotes:
¹¹⁶ If a rabbi was asked about a practical problem and he gave a certain decision, a third party may make no practical applications of that decision unless he understands the reasoning behind the decision and agrees with it.
¹¹⁷ If one saw a rabbinic authority act in a certain way, one may not act in the same way or make inferences from this action unless one knows both the background of and the reasoning for the particular action.
¹¹⁸ The reasoning of the rabbinic authority.
¹¹⁹ If in the Mishnah or another source there is mention of a disagreement between rabbis about the correct course, action is permitted only if there is an explicit understanding of and agreement with the reasoning behind the ruling.
¹²⁰ In this case, one may act on the decision or imitate the action of a competent rabbinic authority even without a detailed inquiry into the arguments leading to decision or action.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:5:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:5:1)

**משנה:** שָׂדֶה שֶׁקְּצָרוּהָ גוֹיִם שֶׁקְּצָרוּהָ לִיסְטִים. קִרְסְמוּהָ נְמָלִין שִׁבַּרְתָּהּ הָרוּחַ אוֹ בְהֵמָה פְטוּרָה. קָצַר חֶצְיָיהּ וְקָצְרוּ לִיסְטִים חֶצְיָיהּ פְּטוּרָה שֶׁחוֹבַת הַקָּצִיר בְּקָמָה. קָצְרוּ לִיסְטִים חֶצְיָיהּ וְקָצַר חֶצְיָיהּ נוֹתֵן פֵּיאָה מִמָּה שֶׁקָּצַר. קָצַר חֶצְיָיהּ וּמָכַר חֶצְיָיהּ הַלּוֹקֵחַ נוֹתֵן פֵּיאָה לַכֹּל. קָצַר חֶצְיָיהּ וְהִקְדִּישׁ חֶצְיָיהּ הַפּוֹדֶה מִיַּד הַגִּזְבָּר הוּא נוֹתֵן פֵּיאָה לַכֹּל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** A field harvested by Gentiles¹²¹ or robbers¹²² for *s* is certainly a scribal error. Since Gentiles who rob are mentioned first, the robber here is a Jew., undermined by ants, ruined by a storm or animals, is free¹²³. If he harvested half of it and robbers harvested the other half, it is free since the obligation of produce is when it is standing¹²⁴ arises at the end of the harvest, when some grain is still standing. Since at that moment the grain is in the hands of the robbers, no obligation is incurred by the owner of the field.. If robbers cut half of it and he harvested the other half, he must give *peah* from what he cut. If he harvested half and sold half, the buyer gives *peah* for everything¹²⁵ did arise from his cutting. However, he may ask to deduct the value of the seller’s *peah*, 1⅔% of the seller’s harvest, from the selling price.. If he cut half and dedicated half¹²⁸ 3:1). The Mishnah does not have to mention that the Gentiles harvest for themselves and not for the Jew, since for the grain harvest one may not hire Gentile workers who would pick up the single stalks not bound in sheaves., he who redeemed it from the treasurer gives *peah* for everything.

footnotes:
¹²¹ Illegally, or that they bought the crop from the Jewish farmer while the grain was still standing.
¹²² Greek λῃστής; in Galilean dialect, final m
¹²³ Since the farmer gets nothing of the yield, he has no obligation to give from another field for the lost crop.
¹²⁴ The obligation of peah
¹²⁵ Since the obligation of peah
¹²⁸ (Tosephta Peah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:5:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:5:2)

**הלכה:** מַתְנִיתָא בְּשֶׁקְּצָרוּהָ לְעַצְמָן אֲבָל אִם קְצָרוּהָ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל חַיֶיבֶת. וְתַנִּי כֵן אֵין שׂוֹכְרִין פּוֹעֲלִין גּוֹיִם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינָן בְּקִיאִין בְּלֶקֶט.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** The Mishnah¹²⁷, if they cut for themselves, but if they cut for a Jew it is obligated. And we have formulated regarding this¹²⁸ 3:1). The Mishnah does not have to mention that the Gentiles harvest for themselves and not for the Jew, since for the grain harvest one may not hire Gentile workers who would pick up the single stalks not bound in sheaves.: One does not hire Gentile workers because they do not know about gleanings.

footnotes:
¹²⁷ Dealing with the first case, if the field was harvested by Gentiles.
¹²⁸ (Tosephta Peah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:5:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:5:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:5:3)

מַתְנִיתָא בְּשֶׁקְּצָרוּהָ לְאָבְדָהּ. אֲבָל אִם קְצָרוּהָ שֶׁלֹּא לְאָבְדָהּ חַיֶיבֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא בַּר שַׁמַּי וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימָא בְּשֶׁקְּצָרוּהָ שֶׁלֹּא לְאָבְדָהּ פְּטוּרָה מֵאַחַר שֶׁהַפֵּיאָה נִיתֶּנֶת בִּמְחוּבָּר לְקַרְקַע וְאֵין קַרְקַע נִגְזָל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
The Mishnah¹²⁹, if they cut to destroy it. But if they do not cut to destroy it, it is obligated¹³⁰ from what they are cutting, the farmer has to give *peah* from any grain that he manages to obtain from the field. This might apply in particular to the next case, discussed in the next paragraph, when he harvested the first half of the field, in which case the language of the Mishnah may be read to mean that the farmer is totally freed from his obligation.. Rebbi Hoshaia ben Shammai¹³¹ 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 robbed¹³² 7:5, Babli *Sukkah* 30b. The reason is that ownership of real estate is always documented; hence, real estate taken by force in a time of anarchy can always be recovered in court when the rule of law is reestablished.
According to R. S. Cirillo, since the robbers are not owners of the field, they are not owners of the grain as long as it stands. It is true that they become owners of the grain as soon as they cut it; the legal owner then has a claim for damages against them but not a claim to the actual grain. Hence, when the robbers cut the grain, there is no obligation of *peah* incurred by the farmer since neither he nor his employees are doing the harvesting. There also is no obligation on the robbers since the grain comes into their possession only after it is cut and the obligation of *peah* is already a past event. As a consequence, the field is cut without anybody incurring the obligation of *peah*..

footnotes:
¹²⁹ Dealing with the second case, if the field was harvested by Jewish robbers.
¹³⁰ Since the robbers, while they are Jewish, are not expected to follow Jewish law and give peah
¹³¹ A fifth generation Galilean Amora from Caesarea Philippi (קצרין), a colleague of R. Mana II.
¹³² This is a principle repeated many times in both Talmudim, cf. Kilaim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:5:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:5:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:5:4)

מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מַפְרִישׁ מִן הַקָּצִיר עַל הַקָּמָה וּמִן הַקָּמָה עַל הַקָּצִיר וְאֵינוֹ מַפְרִישׁ מִן הַקָּצִיר לֹא עַל הַקָּצִיר וְלֹא עַל הַקָּמָה. פְּעָמִים שֶׁהוּא מַפְרִישׁ מִן הַקָּצִיר עַל הַקָּמָה. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא כִּילָּה אֶת שָׂדֵהוּ וְשִׁיֵיר בָּהּ כְּדֵי פֵיאָה כֵּיוָן שֶׁקָּצַר שִׁיבּוֹלֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה חָזְרָה פֵיאָה לָעוֹמָרִין מַפְרִישׁ מִן הַקָּצִיר. וְלֹא סוֹף דָּבָר שֶׁכִּילָּה אֶת שָׂדֵהוּ. אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ בְּשֶׁקָּצַר וְאָמַר מִיכָּן וְהֵילָךְ אֲנִי מַפְרִישׁ פֵּיאָה. כֵּיוָן שֶׁקָּצַר שִׁיבּוֹלֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה חָזְרָה פֵיאָה לָעוֹמָרִין מַפְרִישׁ מִן הַקָּצִיר עַל הַקָּמָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Because¹³³, once incurred, may be discharged also from cut grain as explained in Mishnah and Halakhah 1:6. he separates¹³⁴ for the poor. from cut grain for standing grain and from standing grain for cut grain but he does not¹³⁵ 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 grain¹³⁶. 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.

footnotes:
¹³³ The Mishnah must deal separately with the cases of robbers cutting the entire field or only part of the field because the obligation of peah
¹³⁴ Meaning that he sets aside as peah
¹³⁵ If everything is done correctly.
¹³⁶ Since he stole from the poor by his action, some obligation is transferred to the grain already harvested as explained in Mishnah 1:6.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:5:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:5:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:5:5)

הַמּוֹכֵר מַהוּ שֶׁיִּזְכֶּה בְּפֵיאָה שֶׁהִיא מַתֶּרֶת אֶת הָעוֹמָרִין. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אֵימָתַי בִּזְמָן שֶׁקִּיבְּלָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ לְמֶחֱצָה לִשְׁלִישׁ וְלִרְבִיעַ. מַה בֵּינָהּ לְקַדְמִיתָא אֶלָּא לִכְשֶׁתִּקְצֹר שְׁלִישׁ תְּהֵא שֶׁלָּךְ. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בָּר חִיָיא הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁהַמּוֹכֵר זָכָה בְּפֵיאָה שֶׁהִיא מַתֶּרֶת אֶת הָעוֹמָרִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי תַּמָּן לֹא נִתְחַיְיבָה שָׂדֵהוּ בִרְשׁוּתוֹ בְּרַם הָכָא נִתְחַיְיבָה שָׂדֵהוּ בְרְשׁוּתוֹ. אִילּוּ קָצַר חֲצִי שָׂדֵהוּ וּמָכַר מַה שֶׁקָּצַר הַלּוֹקֵחַ מוּתָּר בְּלֶקֶט וּבְשִׁכְחָה וּבְפֵיאָה יְאוּת. הַלּוֹקֵחַ מַהוּ שֶׁיִּזְכֶּה בְּפֵיאָה שֶׁהִיא מַתֶּרֶת אֶת הָעוֹמָרִין שֶׁל מוֹכֵר בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרִבִּי וּדְרִבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
May the seller get the *peah* which permits the sheaves¹³⁷ the buyer is obligated to give also for the grain he himself cut? The problem is that nobody is permitted to take his own *peah*.? Let us hear it from the following (Mishnah 5:4): “¹³⁸ of the field he is working on. Then Rebbi Jehudah explains (nobody dissenting) that this is only true for the sharecropper who has leased the field and has property rights to 50%, 33%, or 25% of the crop. But if the landlord acts as the owner of the field at all times and the sharecropper has no property rights to the crop except that he will receive 50%, 33%, or 25% of the harvest after it is harvested, then the *peah* was never his and, being poor, he may go and collect from the *peah* with the rest of the poor. Rebbi Jehudah said: When is this, if he received it for a half, a third, or a quarter.” What is the difference between this and the first case¹³⁹? It must be, “if you cut it, a third will be yours¹⁴⁰.” Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, this implies that the seller may get the *peah* which permits the sheaves¹⁴¹ the field is already sold, the *peah* was never the seller’s and he may take his part among the other poor who come to collect.. Rebbi Yose¹⁴² arises during the buyer’s harvest, the potential obligation started with the seller’s harvest. Hence, the seller should be barred from taking his part of the *peah*. In contrast, the sharecropper who is given ownership only of a part of the harvest, not of the standing grain, has nothing at all to do with the obligation of *peah*. said, there the obligation of the field did not come during his ownership, but here the obligation of the field started during his ownership. It is correct that if he cut half of the field and sold what he cut, the buyer¹⁴³ is allowed gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and *peah*. May the buyer get the *peah* which permits the sheaves of the seller¹⁴⁴ that he will give for the seller’s harvest? The answer might be yes, unless we are afraid of unfair competition. This is the essence of the last argument in the quarrel between Rebbi and Rebbi Jehudah II the Prince as explained at the end of Halakhah 1:6.? That is the disagreement of Rebbi and Rebbi Jehudah the Prince.

footnotes:
¹³⁷ This refers to the case when the farmer cuts half the harvest and then sells the field with the remaining crop. If the seller is legally below the poverty line, may he take from the peah
¹³⁸ The Mishnah deals with the case of the sharecropper who is not permitted to take from the peah
¹³⁹ Of the usual sharecropper.
¹⁴⁰ Only after the harvest is completed does the sharecropper have a claim.
¹⁴¹ Since at the moment of the actual obligation of peah
¹⁴² He shows that the argument of R. Abin bar Ḥiyya is faulty. While the actual obligation of peah
¹⁴³ Since he is poor and never acquired any ownership of the real estate, he may take everything a poor person is entitled to. This sentence is R. Yose’s analysis of the correct parallel to the Mishnah of the sharecropper.
¹⁴⁴ If the buyer is legally poor, may he take for himself the peah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:5:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:5:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:5:6)

רִבִּי פִינְחָס בְּעִי קְצִירַת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ מַהוּ שֶׁתְּהֵא חַיֶיבֶת בְּפֵיאָה. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ פָּטוּר וְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ פָּטוּר. אִי מַה הֶקְדֵּשׁ חַיָיב אַף חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ חַיָיב. אַשְׁכָּח תַּנִּי קְצִיר אַרְצְכֶם וְלֹא קְצִיר חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Phineas asked¹⁴⁵: 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 obligated¹⁴⁶, 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 Land¹⁴⁷.

footnotes:
¹⁴⁵ Here starts the discussion of the last case of the Mishnah, if part of the field was dedicated to the upkeep of the Temple.
¹⁴⁶ As explained in the Mishnah, if the field is sold by the Temple officials with the crop still standing.
¹⁴⁷ Under any circumstance.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:5:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:5:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/2:5:7)

קָצַר הַגִּיזְבָּר חֲצִי חֶצְיָיהּ וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לִקְצוֹר אֶת הַשְּׁאָר עַד שֶׁפָּדָה אֶת כּוּלָּהּ מַפְרִישׁ מִן הַקָּצִיר עַל הַקָּצִיר. וְכָל מַה שֶׁנִּקְצָר בִּרְשׁוּת הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ כְּבָר נִפְטָר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
If the treasurer cut half of the half but did not finish to harvest the rest before somebody redeemed everything, he gives from the harvest for what was harvested¹⁴⁸ also for the harvest of the original owner. However, since the verse speaks to individuals, “when you cut the harvest of *your* land”, the obligation is only on private individuals. It does not apply to the Temple which is the collective property of all of Israel. but all that was harvested in the possession of the Temple is already exempted.

footnotes:
¹⁴⁸ As explained in the Mishnah, the buyer has to give peah