## Jerusalem Talmud Peah Chapter 5

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

**משנה:** גָּדִישׁ שֶׁלֹּא לוּקָט תַּחְתָּיו כָּל הַנּוֹגְעוֹת בָּאָרֶץ הֲרֵי הוּא שֶׁל עֲנִיִים. הָרוּחַ שֶׁפִּיזְּרָה אֶת הָעֳמָרִין אוֹמְדִין אוֹתָהּ כַּמָּה לֶקֶט הִיא רְאוּיָה לַעֲשׂוֹת וְנוֹתֵן לָעֲנִיִים. רַבַּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר נוֹתֵן לָעֲנִיִים נִפְלָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** For a grain stack under which gleanings were not collected, all ears that touch the ground are for the poor¹. If the wind dispersed any sheaves², 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 fall³.

footnotes:
¹ Since 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.”
² In 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.
³ Which has been determined once and for all and is explained in the Halakhah.


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

**הלכה:** הָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר אוֹמְדִין אוֹתָהּ כַּמָּה לֶקֶט רְאוּיָה לַעֲשׂוֹת וְנוֹתֵן לָעֲנִיִים. וְכֹהּ אַתְּ אָמַר כָּל הַנּוֹגְעוֹת בָּאָרֶץ הֲרֵי הוּא שֶׁל עֲנִיִים. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן קְנַס קָנְסוּ בוֹ שֶׁגָּדַשׁ עַל גַּבֵּי לֵיקֶטָּן שֶׁל עֲנִיִים. עַד כְּדוֹן מֵזִיד אֲפִילוּ שׁוֹגֵג אֲפִילוּ כְּרִיכוֹת אֲפִילוּ חִטִּים עַל גַּבֵּי שְׂעוֹרִין אֲפִילוּ גָדְשׁוּ אֲחֵרִים חוּץ מִדַּעְתּוֹ וַאֲפִילוּ קָרָא לָעֲנִיִים וְלֹא בָאוּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**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 come⁴ 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..

footnotes:
⁴ The translation follows the interpretation of Maimonides (Mattenot Aniïm


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 5:1:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 5:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/5:1:3)

רִבִּי אִימִּי בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי הִיא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִין הֶבְקֵר לָעֲנִיִים 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. מְנַיִין 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 מְנַיִין. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבוּן שֶׁלֹּא לְרַבּוֹת בְּאִיסּוּר חָדָשׁ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
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 abandoned⁵ 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 abandoned⁶. It is written (*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 destruction⁷ 1:2..” From where that it⁸ is free from tithes? Rebbi Jonathan, the son of Rebbi Isaac bar Aḥa⁹) of an unclear note in Babli *Pesaḥim* 114a, R. Isaac bar Aḥa is quoted as “R. Isaac” without a patronymic. understood it from the following¹⁰: One intercalates¹²(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 tithes¹³? That refers to the Sabbatical year. What about the year after the Sabbatical? Rebbi Abun said, not to prolong the prohibition of new grain¹⁴ sacrifice on the 16th of Nisan. An intercalation of a month, which always falls in early spring, unnecessarily postpones the harvest of new grain..

footnotes:
⁵ As 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
⁶ The grain given in lieu of gleanings is given by a decree of the High Court, not by personal choice. Hence, it is legally abandoned.
⁷ If 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 Note 24, the text also appears in Šeqalim
⁸ Property abandoned by decree of court.
⁹ According to the interpretation of A. Zacut (Sefer Yoḥasin
¹⁰ Tosephta Sanhedrin 1:2, Babli Sanhedrin 12a, Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 1:2 (Note 207), Nedarim 6:3 (Note 83). (Addenda and Corrigenda by Guggnheimer)
¹² Since 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
¹³ Since 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.
¹⁴ New grain may be eaten only after the Omer


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 5:1:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 5:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/5:1:4)

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.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹⁵ 6:4, also *Nedarim*6:13. 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 Land¹⁶ 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 Mishnah *Berakhot* 1:1.. But after Rebbi permitted the importation of vegetables from outside the Land, the Sabbatical year is as any other year¹⁷. 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 order¹⁸, but now that years are not in order¹⁹ 4:2)., the Sabbatical year is like any other year.

footnotes:
¹⁵ This paragraph is an aside, taken from Šebiït
¹⁶ The soil outside the Land of Israel is unclean (cf. Amos
¹⁷ Since there is enough food for everybody.
¹⁸ Taxes were paid on income, which means that in Sabbatical years the farmer did not have to pay taxes.
¹⁹ Now 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


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

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.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated: The house of Rabban Gamliel intercalated immediately after the end of the Sabbatical year²¹ 1:2, in the Venice print מד. Rebbi Avin said, from this²² you do not infer anything. (*Deut*. 16:1) “Watch the spring month.” Watch it that it should come in its renewal.

footnotes:
²¹ Reading of the parallel in Seqalim
²² All 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.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 5:1:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 5:1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/5:1:6)

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 עֲנִיִים מְעַשְּׂרִים וְאוֹכְלִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
What text implies this²³ 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 fine²⁴. Following the House of Hillel, the poor give tithes and eat.

footnotes:
²³ Which Mishnah text implies that property decreed ownerless by the court is legally abandoned property.In Šeqalim
²⁴ As 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.)


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 5:1:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 5:1:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/5:1:7)

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.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
²⁵ Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Four *kab* per *kor*²⁶ 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 kor*²⁷ 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*. There²⁸ 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 Yerushalmi (*Baba Meẓi‘a*9:5, 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 fall²⁹105b 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 seed³⁰; 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!

footnotes:
²⁵ Here 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.
²⁶ In the Babli, Baba Meẓi‘a
²⁷ Do you mean 4 qab
²⁸ Mishnah Baba Meẓi‘a
²⁹ This is the same expression as the one used here by Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. The Babli Baba Meẓi‘a
³⁰ I. 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


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

**משנה:** שִׁיבּוֹלֶת שֶׁבְּקָצִיר וְרֹאשָׁהּ מַגִּיעַ לַקָּמָה אִם נִקְצֶרֶת עִם הַקָּמָה הֲרֵי הִיא שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת וְאִם לָאו הֲרֵי הִיא שֶׁל עֲנִיִים. שִׁיבּוֹלֶת שֶׁל לֶקֶט שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בְגָדִישׁ מְעַשֵּׂר שִׁיבּוֹלֶת וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְכִי הֵיאַךְ הֶעָנִי הַזֶּה מַחֲלִיף דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לִרְשׁוּתוֹ אֶלָּא מְזַכֶּה אֶת הֶעָנִי בְכָל הַגָּדִישׁ וּמְעַשֵּׂר שִׁיבּוֹלֶת אַחַת וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** ³¹: A single ear on the field to be harvested and its head reaches to the grain that is still standing, if it can be cut together with standing grain, it belongs to the owner, otherwise it is for the poor³². An ear of gleanings that was mixed up in a stack of grain, he gives tithes for one ear and gives it to him³³. Rebbi Eliezer said, how can the poor man exchange something that never was in his possession³⁴? But he has to give the poor rights to the entire stack³⁵; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives it to him.

footnotes:
³¹ Here start the laws of forgotten sheaves and other forgotten harvests.
³² If it can not be cut in one movement of the sickle together with some stalks of grain still standing in bunches, it is like a forgotten sheaf and one may not return to take it.
³³ Since the farmer is required to give to the poor something that may be consumed right away, after it is mixed up in the stack it cannot be given away until at least the heave of the tithe has been given. Hence, one ear has to be given to the Cohen as heave, the other one to the poor in lieu of gleanings. In this sentence, “he” is the farmer and “him” refers to the poor.
³⁴ The procedure of the first Tanna does not work, since the poor man does not receive gleanings but grain in lieu of gleanings. But since the gleanings never were in the poor man’s possession, the poor person has no right to exchange his gleanings for the stalk which the owner gives to him and if the owner later uses that ear of gleanings in his stack he still robs the poor.
³⁵ This is known as “a gift on condition that it must be returned,” which legally is a gift as long as it is with the recipient. In our case, the poor has to get possession of the stack only long enough to accept any other stalk in lieu of the gleaning he should be given; then the stack reverts to the owner and now the latter may give the heave of the tithe to the Cohen and a stalk to the poor.


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

**הלכה:** אֵי זוּ הִיא קָמָה שֶׁהִיא מַצֶּלֶת אֶת הַקָּמָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּהָדָא דְּתַנֵּינָן שִׁיבּוֹלֶת שֶׁל קָצִיר וְרֹאשָׁהּ מַגִּיעַ לָקָּמָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְהוּא שֶׁיְּהֵא הַקָּצִיר סוֹבְבָהּ וְהוּא שֶׁיְּהֵא רֹאשָׁהּ מַגִּיעַ לַקָּמָה וְהוּא שֶׁתְּהֵא יְכוּלָה לְהִיקָּצֵר עִם הַקָּמָה. הָיְתָה יְכוֹלָה לְהִקָּצֵר עִם הַקָּמָה וְאֵין הַקָּמָה יְכוֹלָה לְהִיקָּצֵר עִמָהּ נִיצּוֹלֶת. הָיוּ שְׁתַּיִם הַפְּנִימִית יְכוֹלָה לְהִיקָּצֵר עִם הַקָּמָה הַחִיצוֹנָה וְאֵין הַחִיצוֹנָה יְכוֹלָה לְהִיקָּצֵר עִם הַקָּמָה הַפְּנִימִית נִיצּוֹלֶת וּמַצֶּלֶת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** What is standing grain that saves standing grain³⁶? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the same as we have stated: a single ear on the field to be harvested and its head reaches to the standing grain. Rebbi Yose said, only if the harvested field surrounds it³⁷, and only if its head reaches the standing grain, and only if it can be cut together with standing grain. If it can be cut together with standing grain but standing grain cannot be cut with it³⁸, it is saved. If there were two, the inner one can be cut together with the outermost standing grain, but the outer one cannot be cut with the standing grain; the inner one is saved and saves³⁹.

footnotes:
³⁶ In Mishnah 6:7 it is stated that standing grain saves other standing grain which the farmer forgot to cut. The question is, how far away may an entire uncut patch be from the main uncut field that it should not be forgotten? The answer is the same as in our Mishnah, that the head of one of the stalks of the forgotten patch may be bent, without breaking the stem, to touch the as yet uncut part of the field.
³⁷ Otherwise, it never can be counted as forgotten. In contrast to the next two conditions which restrict the case in which it is not forgotten, this one restricts the possible applications of the rules of forgotten produce.
³⁸ If the angle of the sickle with the ground is too large when the harvester stands close to the unharvested grain, the harvester cannot start cutting the single stalk and reach the standing patch with one sweep of the sickle.
³⁹ It saves the outer one if the outer one could be cut together with the inner one and the inner one could be cut together with standing grain. Hence, the notion of being saved is transitive for any row of stalks that could be cut in pairs.


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

אָמַר רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא רוֹמֵס הָיִיתִי זֵתִים עִם רִבִּי חִיָיא הַגָּדוֹל וְאָמַר לִי כָּל זַיִת שֶׁאַתְּ יָכוֹל לִפְשׁוֹט יָדְךָ וְלִיטְלוֹ אֵינוֹ שִׁכְחָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁעָבַר עָלָיו וּשְׁכָחוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא שִׁכְחָה. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא שִׁיבּוֹלֶת שֶׁל קָצִיר וְרֹאשָׁהּ מַגִּיעַ לָקָּמָה. שִׁיבּוֹלֶת שֶׁבְּקָצִיר אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִפְשׁוֹט יָדוֹ וְלִיטְלָהּ. רִבִּי לָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא בְּאוּמָן הַשֵּׁנִי שָׁנוּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Hoshaia said, when I was mashing olives with the great Rebbi Ḥiyya, he said to me: Any olive that you can reach when stretching out your hand is not forgotten⁴⁰. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he passed it over and forgot it, it is forgotten⁴¹. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Hoshaia: A single ear on the field to be harvested and its head reaches to the grain. Can you not stretch out your hand and take a single ear on the harvested field⁴²? Rebbi Illai in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: They said that about the second row⁴³.

footnotes:
⁴⁰ After shaking the olive tree you may go around over all branches you worked on and take the olives still on the tree. It is only when you move your ladder that the remainder becomes property of the poor.
⁴¹ If in his mind he is finished with one branch, he may not return to it.
⁴² The condition that the ear must touch the standing stalks is certainly much more restrictive than that a harvester, standing in front of the grain, cannot pluck by hand on the other side.
⁴³ The Mishnah speaks of a stalk left over from cutting the first row. If in harvesting the second row one returns to the place of that ear, it is as when in plucking leftover olives one returns to a harvested spot after moving the ladder and then even R. Ḥiyya agrees that this is forgotten property.


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

דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְהַצִּיל וּשְׁכָחוֹ מַהוּ שֶׁיֵּעָשֶׂה שִׁכְחָה. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא עִימֵּר אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן וְאֶת הַשֵּׁנִי וְאֶת הַשְּׁלִישִׁי וְשָׁכַח אֶת הָרְבִיעִי. אִית תְּנָיֵי תַּנִּי אִם נָטַל אֶת הַחֲמִישִׁי הֲרֵי זוּ שִׁכְחָה. וְאִית תְּנָיֵי תַּנִּי אִם שָׁהָא לִיטּוֹל הַחֲמִישִׁי הֲרֵי זוּ שִׁכְחָה. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיא מָאן דְּאָמַר נָטַל אֶת הַחֲמִישִׁי בִּשֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם שִׁישִׁי. מָאן דְּאָמַר אִם שָׁהָא לִיטּוֹל אֶת הַחֲמִישִׁי בִּשֶׁאֵין שָׁם שִׁישִׁי. אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נָטַל אֶת הַחֲמִישִׁי לֹא כְּבָר נִרְאֶה לוֹ הָרְבִיעִית לִידוֹן כְּשׁוּרָה. הָדָא אָמְרָה דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְהִצֹּיל וּשְׁכָחוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא שִׁכְחָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Can something that is apt to be saved but was forgotten become legally forgotten? Let us hear from the following: “When he removed⁴⁵127a. R. S. Lieberman points out that this parallels Biblical דִּשֵּׁן “removed the ashes”, from the noun דשן “ashes.” the first, second, and third sheaves⁴⁶ but forgot⁴⁷ the fourth, some state: If he took away the fifth one, it (the fourth) becomes legally forgotten, but some state: If he waited long enough that he could have taken away the fifth one, it becomes legally forgotten.” Rebbi Avin bar Ḥiyya said, he who says, “if he removed the fifth one,” (speaks of the case) where there is a sixth one⁴⁸, but he who says, “if he waited long enough that he could have removed the fifth one,” (speaks of the case) where there is no sixth one⁴⁹. Before he took away the fifth one, would not the fourth one be apt to be considered starting a row⁵⁰? That means that something that is apt to be saved but was forgotten can become legally forgotten.

footnotes:
⁴⁵ עימר as a verbal form “removing the sheaf” is defined by Rashi in Šabbat
⁴⁶ He not only bound them but he also removed them to a storage place or threshing floor. This statement puts the standard row of sheaves at three sheaves. Hence, the full second row would be sheaves 4,5,6.
⁴⁷ To remove the fourth after it was bound.
⁴⁸ Because sheaves in a row are saved by the next sheaf just as stalks in a row are saved by the next stalk. Hence, the fourth can become legally forgotten only if the fifth, which saves it from being legally forgotten, is removed.
⁴⁹ Since there is no row of three sheaves, they will be taken to be removed individually and not as a row. It suffices that the fifth could have been finished and removed.
⁵⁰ If there are six sheaves, the fourth does not become legally abandoned until the sheaf which saves it is removed.


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

דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְהַצִּיל וּשְׁכָחוֹ מַהוּ שֶׁיֵּעָשֶׂה שִׁכְחָה. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא סְאָה תְבוּאָה עֲקוּרָה וּסְאָה שֶׁאֵינָה עֲקוּרָה וְתַצִּיל עֲקוּרָה אֶת שֶׁאֵינָה עֲקוּרָה. הָדָא אָמְרָה דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְהַצִּיל וְשָׁכַח הֲרֵי הוּא שִׁכְחָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה תִּיפְתָּר בְּקוֹצֵר שׁוּרָה וּמְעַמֵּר שׁוּרָה וּכְבָר שָׁכַח אֶת הַקָּמָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁכַּח אֶת הָעוֹמָרִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Can something that is apt to save but was forgotten become legally forgotten? Let us hear from the following⁵² (about .9 cubic feet) cannot be legally forgotten.” Then Mishnah 6:8 adds: “One *seah* of cut grain and one *seah* of uncut grain do not combine.” That means, both of them may become legally forgotten.: “One *seah* of cut grain and one *seah* of uncut grain.” Here the cut grain should save the uncut grain⁵³ are exempt from the law of forgotten sheaves. Then there is no reason why cut and uncut grain should not be combined.. That means that something that is apt to save, but was forgotten, can become legally forgotten. Rebbi Jonah⁵⁴ said, explain it if he was cutting and removing the sheaves row by row⁵⁵ each. Hence, the two do not have to be adjacent in space or time and the Mishnah has no implication for our question.. He already forgot the standing grain before he might forget the sheaves.

footnotes:
⁵² Mishnah 6:6 reads: “Standing grain in the volume on two seah
⁵³ If they are contiguous and would combine. In Halakhah 6:8 it is pointed out that Mishnah 6:8 seems to follow the ruling of Rabban Gamliel in Mishnah 6:5 that sheaves which add up to a volume of 2 seah
⁵⁴ In Halakhah 6:8, “Rebbi Jonathan.” The reading here is the more likely one since Rebbi Jonathan is a very early Amora.
⁵⁵ The field contains much more than two rows of a seah


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

כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה. מֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שִׁבּוֹלִים וְאוֹמֵר אִם לֶקֶט הוּא הֲרֵי זֶה יָפֶה וְאִם לָאו הֲרֵי מַעְשְׂרוֹתֶיהָ קְבוּעִין בְּזוּ וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר שֶׁמָּא אוֹתָהּ שֶׁקָּבַע בָּהּ מַעְשְׂרוֹת לֶקֶט הוּא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה מֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שִׁבּוֹלִים וְאוֹמֵר אִם לֶקֶט הוּא זֶה הֲרֵי יָפֶה וְאִם לָאו הֲרֵי מַעְשֲׂרוֹתֶיהָ קְבוּעִין בְּזוּ וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת אַחַת מֵהֶן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
How does he do it⁵⁶? He brings two ears and says: If this one is gleanings, all is fine; but if not, then its tithes are contained in the other one, and he gives him⁵⁷ the first one. Do we not have to worry that the one used to contain tithes in it was gleanings? Rebbi Jonah said, he brings two ears and says: If this one is gleanings, all is fine; but if not, then its tithes are contained in the other one, and he gives him one of them⁵⁸ 4:10.].

footnotes:
⁵⁶ Here starts the discussion of the second sentence of the Mishnah, the requirement that the farmer give tithes before he delivers the replacement for the gleanings to the poor. The problem is that heave and tithes can be given only from produce subject to the laws of heave and tithes. Gleanings are exempt from these laws and, therefore, cannot be used as either heave or tithes.
⁵⁷ The poor person. The other one is given to the priest.
⁵⁸ He must treat the two ears equally and make the declaration twice. He then is restricted to give the ear only to a poor person who may eat tithes, i. e., a Levite or a Cohen. The other ear is then to be given as tithes, not necesarily to a poor person. [Interpretation of this elliptic statement given by R. David ben Zimra to Maimonides, Mattenot Aniïm


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

רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא דְּתַנֵּינָן תַּמָּן שֶׁרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר כָּל שֶׁחִילוּפָיו בְּיַד כֹהֵן פָּטוּר מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת. וְרִבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵיב. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי צָרִיךְ לְזַכּוֹתוֹ לְכֹהֵן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הָדָא דְּרִבִּי בָּא פְּלִיגָא עַל דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ דְּתַנֵּינָן תַּמָּן אֶלָּא מְזַכֶּה אֶת הֶעָנִי בְגָדִישׁ וּמְעַשֵּׂר שִׁיבּוֹלֶת אַחַת וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי צָרִיךְ לְזַכּוֹתוֹ לְכֹהֵן הוֹי לֵית הִיא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא כָּל גַּרְמָהּ אָמַר דְּהִיא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. תְּנָיָיא קוֹמָיָיא סָבְרֵי מֵימַר אֵינוֹ מְזַכֶּה אֶת הֶעָנִי בְּכָל הַגָּדִישׁ אֶלָּא שִׁבּוֹלֶת אַחַת. הַתְּנָיָיא אֲחָרָיָיא סָבְרֵי מֵימַר מְזַכֶּה אֶת הֶעָנִי בְּכָל הַגָּדִישׁ. וְהַתְּנָיָיא קַדְמִיָיא סְבַר מֵימַר בְּזַכֵּה מִימִינוֹ לִשְׂמֹאלוֹ וְאֵינָה זְכִיָיה. וְהַתְּנָיָא אֲחָָרָיָיא סְבַר מֵימַר אֵינוּ מְזַכֵּה מִימִינוֹ לִשְׂמֹאלוֹ וּזְכִיָיה הִיא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abbahu⁵⁹ in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this follows Rebbi Yose⁶⁰, as we have stated there⁶¹ 2:6 deals with a sheep whose first lambs are male twins of which it is unknown which one was the firstborn. It is then decreed that one of them be given to the Cohen, and the other one (who might be the firstborn and, if without blemish, should be brought as sacrifice) should graze until it develops a bodily defect and then can be eaten. The first Tanna (representing R. Meïr) insists that the second animal is subject to the rule of obligatory gifts to the Cohen as profane meat. Rebbi Yose disagrees, and in a *baraita* (also Babli *Bekhorot*18a) explains that every animal whose exchange is in the hand of the Cohen is freed from the rule of obligatory gifts. The Babli explains, in an apparent disagreement with the interpretation of the Yerushalmi, that this is not a general principle but it underlines the special status of the second animal which, as a potential sacrifice, may not be shorn or used for work.: “For Rebbi Yose says that everything whose replacement is in the hand of the Cohen is freed from the obligatory gifts, but Rebbi Meïr obligates him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest⁶². Rebbi Yose⁶³ said, the statement of Rebbi Abba contradicts Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish since we have stated here: “He has to give the poor rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives to him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest, hence⁶⁴ this is not from the words of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Mana said, the Mishnah itself testifies that it is by Rebbi Yose⁶⁵. The first Tanna wants to say that he transfers as property to the poor not the entire stack but only one ear. The other Tanna wants to say that he transfers the entire stack as property to the poor. The first Tanna wants to say that this⁶⁶ is like the transfer of property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is no transfer. The other Tanna wants to say that it is not transferring property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is transfer⁶⁷.

footnotes:
⁵⁹ Here we discuss the last part of the Mishnah, the disagreement between the Sages and R. Eliezer on whether it is possible to transfer property of a single ear or whether it is necessary first to give the entire stack to the poor.
⁶⁰ Bar Ḥalaphta, the Tanna.
⁶¹ The Mishnah Bekhorot
⁶² It is not enough to designate an ear as tithes; it must actually be delivered into the hand of the Cohen.
⁶³ The later Amora.
⁶⁴ This is the Amora Rebbi Yose’s inference.
⁶⁵ Everybody agrees that transfer of property must take place, but not necessarily delivery; the Tanna R. Yose requires only transfer of property rights.
⁶⁶ The symbolic transfer of the entire stack to the poor as a “gift on condition that it be returned” is considered a subterfuge without legal validity.
⁶⁷ And is legally valid.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 5:2:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 5:2:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/5:2:8)

וְהָתַנִּי רִבִּי זְעִירָא רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מֻחְלְפָא שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִִּי לִיעֶזֶר תַּמָּן הוּא זָכָה לוֹ. וְכֹא הוּא אָמַר הָכִין. בְּשִיטָּתָךְ הֵשִׁיבֵהוּ בְּשִׁיטָּתוֹ דְּאַתְּ אָמַר עַל יְדֵי הַחִילוּפִין. הֵיאַךְ הֶעָנִי הַזֶּה מַחֲלִיף דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לִרְשׁוּתוֹ אֶלָּא מְזַכֶּה אֶת הֶעָנִי בְכָל הַגְּדִישׁ וּמְעַשֵּׂר שִׁיבּוֹלֶת וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Zeïra stated⁶⁸: Rebbi Abbahu in the name of R. Joḥanan: The reasoning of Rebbi Eliezer is inverted! There⁶⁹ he makes him acquire, and here he says thus? He answered “according to your reasoning⁷⁰,” in your reasoning that you say it is by exchange⁷¹. “How can the poor man exchange something that never was in his possession? But he has to give the poor man rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives to him.”

footnotes:
⁶⁸ These three words are not in the text of R. Simson of Sens and not in that of R. Solomon Cirillo. The text of R. Simson is certainly smoothed in the sense of standard Hebrew grammar; the text of R. S. Cirillo may be smoothed.
⁶⁹ In chapter 4, Mishnah 6, Rebbi Eliezer declares that any person can collect for a poor one, so that the second one is the immediate owner and the collector never has ownership. How can this be squared with the statement of R. Eliezer in the current Mishnah?
⁷⁰ A standard expression in both Talmudim. Rebbi Eliezer points out a logical flaw in the reasoning of his opponents; the objection is irrelevant for himself, by Mishnah 4:6.
⁷¹ Since the Sages oppose R. Eliezer in Mishnah 4:6, holding that the non-poor X can never acquire gifts to the poor for the poor Y, how can the owner transfer ownership in gleanings by exchange? R. Eliezer’s procedure with the formal gift is needed only for his opponents in 4:6; for himself he will rule that the owner may acquire the gleanings for the poor recipient.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 5:3:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 5:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/5:3:1)

**משנה:** אֵין מְגַלְגְּלִין בְּטוֹפֵיחַ דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים מַתִּירִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵיפְשָׁר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** One does not use a waterwheel with buckets⁷², the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages do permit it, because it is impossible⁷³ (s. v. טפח) in the name of R. Daniel Gaon.]. A householder wandering from one place to another who was in need of taking gleanings, forgotten sheaves, *peah*, and tithes of the poor⁷⁴ should repay them once he comes home, the words of Rebbi Eliezer⁷⁵. But the Sages say, he was poor at that moment⁷⁶.

footnotes:
⁷² After the harvest, before the poor had cleaned out vineyard (or field), to avoid hurting the vines (or to prepare the field for the next season.)
⁷³ To do otherwise, since the vineyard would dry up. [This translation follows תוספתא כפשוטה p. 155; it is not much different from the explanation of Arukh
⁷⁴ Since his money had run out.
⁷⁵ Taking into account his property at his place of residence, at no time was he eligible for public assistance.
⁷⁶ Having no money with him and unable to get credit.


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

**הלכה:** תַּנִּי הַמְּרַבֵּץ שָׂדֵהוּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא יָרַד עָנִי לְתוֹכָהּ אִם הֶזֵּיקוֹ מְרוּבָּה עַל שֶׁל עָנִי מוּתָּר. וְאִם הֶיזֵּק עָנִי מְרוּבָּה עַל שֶׁלּוֹ אָסוּר. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ מֵנִיחָן עַל הַגֶּדֶר וְהֶעָנִי בָּא וְנוֹטֵל אֶת שֶׁלּוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** It was stated⁷⁷ 2:20. There, the reading is: “R. Jehudah says, he collects (the part of the poor) and deposits it on the fence.”: He who waters his field before a poor person had entered it, if his potential loss is greater than the poor man’s, it is permitted, but if the poor man’s loss is greater than his, it is prohibited. Rebbi Jehudah says, in both cases he deposits them on the fence and the poor man comes and takes what is his.

footnotes:
⁷⁷ Tosephta Peah


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

מֻחְלְפָא שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה. תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּא מֵידָל בְּשֶׁלּוֹ כָּךְ הוּא מֵידָל בְּשֶׁל עֲנִיִים. וְכֹא הוּא אָמַר הָכִין. תַּמָּן הֵן גָּרְמוּ לְעַצְמָן וְלֹא בָאוּ. בְּרַם הָכָא הֲרֵי בָּאוּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
The reasoning of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted: There⁷⁸, he says that just as he prunes for himself, so he prunes for the poor; but here he says thus⁷⁹! There, they caused it for themselves since they did not come⁸⁰, but here they came.

footnotes:
⁷⁸ Mishnah 7:5: “If somebody is pruning vines, just as he is pruning his, he may prune the poor’s, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Meïr says, he is empowered to do it on his own vines, but not on the poor’s.” One prunes new shoots of vines at the start of the growing season; at that moment, the poor have rights only to the grapes growing singly, not in bunches, directly on the branch.
⁷⁹ He collects and puts the poor’s part aside.
⁸⁰ Nobody is wasting time to pluck budding single grape berries. In Halakhah 7:5, there is an another answer given: Since by pruning one makes the vine grow more grape bunches, the poor’s part also will be increased in the future.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 5:3:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 5:3:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/5:3:4)

מֻחְלְפָא שִׁיטָּתִין דְּרַבָּנִין. תָּמַּן אִינּוּן אָמְרִין אִם הֶזֵּיקוֹ מְרוּבָּה עַל שֶׁל עָנִי. וְכֹא אִינּוּן אָמְרִין הָכֵין. תַּמָּן אֶפְשַּׁר בְּרַם הָכָא אֵיפְשַׁר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
The reasoning of the rabbis is inverted: There⁸¹, they say if his potential loss is greater than the poor’s, and here they say thus⁸²! There, it is possible⁸³, but here it is impossible.

footnotes:
⁸¹ In Mishnah 7:5, R. Meïr, who disagrees with R. Jehudah, is identified with the anonymous opponent of Rebbi Jehudah in the Tosephta quoted at the start of this Halakhah.
⁸² In our Mishnah, they permit using the water wheel to mechanically water the vineyard.
⁸³ To prune only after the poor collected their share.


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

וְהָא רִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר אֵין מְגַלְגְּלִין וְשָׁמִין שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת בְּהֶפְסֵידוֹ. וְהָא רַבָּנִין אָמְרִין מְגַלְגְּלִין וְשָׁמִין לָעֲנִיִים בְּהֶפְסֵידָן. וּלְמִי הוּא מְשַׁלֵּם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה לָעֲנִיֵי אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר דְּלָא כֵן מַה נָן אָמְרִין. אָמַר רִבִּי חִיָיא בַּר אָדָא לְמִידַּת הַדִּין נִצְרְכָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Now Rebbi Meïr says, one does not use the water wheel, and one estimates the loss to the owner. Now the rabbis say, one uses the water wheel and estimates the loss to the poor⁸⁴. To whom does he pay? Rebbi Jonah said, to the poor of his place, because otherwise, what could we say⁸⁵? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, it is needed for the measure of justice⁸⁶.

footnotes:
⁸⁴ So why does R. Meïr insist on not watering, if all accounts can be satisfied with money?
⁸⁵ There is no individual claimant; hence, there would be no payment unless the head of the local charity institution brings action in the name of all local, potentially empowered, poor.
⁸⁶ Even the administrator of charity could not bring action unless specifically empowered to do so. It is therefore not superfluous to restrict the potential claimants to those represented by the administrator of charity.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 5:4:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 5:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/5:4:1)

**משנה:** בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁהָיָה עוֹבֵר מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם וְצָרִיךְ לִיטּוֹל לֶקֶט שִׁכְחָה וּפֵיאָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר עָנִי וּכְשֶׁיַּחְזוֹר לְבֵיתוֹ יְשַׁלֵּם דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים עָנִי הָיָה בְאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה. הַמַּחֲלִיף עִם הָעֲנִיִים בְּשֶׁלּוֹ פָטוּר וּבְשֶׁל עֲנִיִים חַיָיב. שְׁנַיִם שֶׁקִּבְּלוּ שָׂדֶה בְּאָרִיסוּת זֶה נוֹתֵן לְזֶה חֶלְקוֹ וּמַעֲשֵׂר עָנִי וְזֶה נוֹתֵן לְזֶה חֶלְקוֹ וּמַעֲשֵׂר עָנִי. הַמְּקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה לִקְצוֹר אָסוּר בְּלֶקֶט וּבְשִׁכְחָה וּבְפֵיאָה וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר עָנִי. אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אֵימָתַי בִּזְמָן שֶׁקִּבְּלָהּ מִמֶּנָּה לְמֶחֱצָה לִשְׁלִישׁ וְלִרְבִיעַ אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ שְׁלִישׁ מַה שֶׁאַתָּה קוֹצֵר שֶׁלָּךְ מוּתָּר בְּלֶקֶט וּבְשִׁכְחָה וּבְפֵיאָה וְאָסוּר בְּמַעֲשֵׂר עָנִי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If he⁸⁷ in exchange for grain from his storage, what he takes is not subject to tithes, since gleanings and *peah* are exempt, but what the poor take is subject to heave and tithes. switches with the poor, what he receives is exempt but what the poor get is obligated. If two persons received a field as sharecroppers⁸⁸, one gives his part and his tithes of the poor to the other one⁸⁹, and vice-versa. He who receives a field to harvest is barred from its gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and *peah*. Rebbi Jehudah said, when is this so⁹⁰? When he received it for one-half, one third, or one quarter⁹¹; but if he told him, one third of what you will harvest will be yours⁹², he may take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and *peah* but not the tithes of the poor.

footnotes:
⁸⁷ If the farmer takes from the poor their gleanings or peah
⁸⁸ That means, both are poor. [The meaning of the word אריס is “cultivator of the soil”, from Arabic اريس, designating a tenant farmer. In both Talmudim, the designation is restricted to sharecroppers.]
⁸⁹ Nobody may take tithes of the poor, gleanings, etc., from his own harvest even if he is poor. Since the sharecropper has a proprietary interest in the growing plants, he may not take any of the gifts to the poor. But if two poor people work two sides of one field, each one is entitled to all the gifts to the poor accruing from the other’s half.
⁹⁰ The Babli postulates that everywhere R. Jehudah is mentioned with the question אימתי, he does not disagree with the anonymous text of the Mishnah but gives it a restrictive definition. The Yerushalmi seems to agree with this.
⁹¹ The standard terms of a sharecropper’s contract.
⁹² In this case, the sharecropper has no property claim to the standing grain; the harvest is the landowner’s and the sharecropper may take the gifts to the poor from this crop. However, tithes of the poor, like any other tithes, are an obligation on the threshed grains and there the sharecropper is already an owner and the tithes of the poor are prohibited to him.


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

**הלכה:** תַּנִּי אַב וּבְנוֹ אִישׁ וּקְרוֹבוֹ שְׁנֵי אַחִין שְׁנֵי שׁוּתָפִין פּוֹדִין זֶה לָזֶה מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְנוֹתְנִין זֶה לָזֶה מַעֲשֵׂר עָנִי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן תָּבוֹא מְאֵירָה לְמִי שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן לְאָבִיו מַעֲשֵׂר עָנִי. אָמַר מְנַיִין שֶׁאִם הָיוּ שְנֵיהֶן עֲנִיִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** It is stated⁹³ 4:7 in a slightly different wording. A third version, in which the answer to R. Jehudah is missing, is given in Babli *Qiddushin* 32a.: A father and his son⁹⁴, a man and his relative, two brothers, two associates redeem Second Tithe⁹⁵ 14:25). After the destruction of the Temple, Second Tithe has to be redeemed for a symbolic amount since the redemption money then has to be destroyed. However, it is spelled out in the last chapter of *Leviticus* that a person who redeems any of his dedications has to add another 25% to the redemption sum. A redemption by a third party is not subject to this surtax. It is therefore in everybody’s interest to let a third party redeem Second Tithes. for one another and give tithe of the poor to one another⁹⁶. Rebbi Jehudah said, a curse should come upon him who gives tithe of the poor to his father⁹⁷. He said, why? If they were both poor⁹⁸!

footnotes:
⁹³ Tosephta Maäser Šeni
⁹⁴ The grownup son who earns his own money.
⁹⁵ Cf. Chapter 1, Note 127. In the times of the Temple, if the accumulated amount of Second Tithe was too large, the produce could be redeemed and the money taken to Jerusalem to be spent on similar food (Deut.
⁹⁶ If they qualify as poor.
⁹⁷ Even if his father can no longer work and has no savings, the son should not treat him as receiver of charity.
⁹⁸ If the son himself qualifies for public assistance as a poor person, it is acceptable that he give the tithe of the poor of his plot to his father.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 5:4:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 5:4:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/5:4:3)

מַה בֵּינָהּ לְקַדְמִיתָא אֶלָּא לִכְשֶׁתִּקְצוֹר שְׁלִישׁ הֲרֵי הִיא שֶׁלָּךְ. אָמַר רִבִּי חִיָיא בַּר רִבִּי בּוּן הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁהַמּוֹכֵר זַכַּיי בְּפֵיאָה שֶׁהִיא מַתֶּרֶת אֶת הָעוֹמָרִים. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בּוּן תַּמָּן נִתְחַיְיבָה שָׂדֵהוּ בִרְשׁוּתוֹ בְּרַם הָכָא לֹא נִתְחַיְיבָה שָׂדֵהוּ בִרְשׁוּתוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
What⁹⁹ is the difference between this and the first case¹⁰⁰? It must be “if you cut it, a third will be yours¹⁰¹.” Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, that implies that the seller may get the *peah* which permits the sheaves¹⁰² the field is already sold, the *peah* was never the seller’s and he may take from it if he is poor.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun¹⁰³ 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 come during his ownership, but here the obligation of the field did not come during his ownership.

footnotes:
⁹⁹ This paragraph is almost identical with one in Chapter 2, Halakha 7, with references to “here” and “there” switched as required. The name of the tradent has been switched from the correct “Abin bar Ḥiyya” to a non-existent “Ḥiyya bar Abin”. The discussion is about the ruling by R. Jehudah that the sharecropper may take the gifts to the poor if his share is only produce which is already cut.
¹⁰⁰ Of the usual sharecropper who has rights to the growing plants.
¹⁰¹ Only after the harvest is completed does the sharecropper get rights.
¹⁰² In the situation of Mishnah 2:7, at the moment of the actual obligation of peah
¹⁰³ He shows that the argument of R. Abin bar Ḥiyya is faulty. While the actual obligation of peah


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

אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בַּר נַגָּרִי שַׁנְיָיה הִיא בְּלֶקֶט וּבְשִׁכְחָה וּבְפֵיאָה שֶׁהֵן בַּעֲזִיבָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abbahu bar Naggari¹⁰⁴ said, there is a difference for gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and *peah* because they have to be abandoned.

footnotes:
¹⁰⁴ An Amora whose time and place cannot be determined. His reasoning parallels R. Yose’s: Gleanings etc. have to be abandoned on the field and it was not the sharecropper’s field. But tithes, including the tithe of the poor, have to be given after threshing, and in that poor and rich are in the same situation.


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

**משנה:** הַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֵהוּ הַמּוֹכֵר מוּתָּר וְהַלּוֹקֵחַ אָסוּר. לֹא יִשְׂכּוֹר אָדָם אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל עַל מְנָת שֶׁיְּלַקֵּט בְּנוֹ אַחֲרָיו. וּמִי שֶׁאֵינוּ מֵנִיחַ אֶת הָעֲנִיִים לְלַקֵּט אוֹ שֶׁהוּא מֵנִיחַ אֶת אֶחָד וְאֶת אֶחָד לָאו אוֹ שֶׁהוּא מְסַיֵיעַ אֶת אֶחָד מֵהֶן הֲרֵי זֶה גוֹזֵל אֶת הָעֲנִיִים. עַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר אַל תַּסֵּג גְּבוּל עוֹלָם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If someone sells his field, the seller is permitted¹⁰⁵ but the buyer is barred. Nobody should hire a worker on condition that his son may collect gleanings after him¹⁰⁶. He who does not let the poor collect gleanings, or who lets one person collect but not the other, or helps one of them, robs the poor. On him it was said (*Prov.* 22:28, 23:10): “Do not displace an eternal boundary¹⁰⁷22:28, Rashi comments: “Do not displace an eternal boundary,” do not change established usage; our teachers said: He who puts a basket under the vine at harvest time so that the single berries fall into it, on him it is said, do not displace an eternal boundary. On *Prov.* 24:10, Rashi writes, “Nor intrude on the land of orphans,” the gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and *peah* which belong to them..”

footnotes:
¹⁰⁵ If he is poor at harvest time.
¹⁰⁶ And for this pay him smaller wages, since he is paying his debts with the money of the poor.
¹⁰⁷ The implication is from the second part of the verse: “Nor intrude on the land of orphans.” On Prov.


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

**הלכה:** מַתְנִיתָא בְּשֶׁמָּכַר לוֹ שָׂדֵהוּ וְקָמָתָהּ. אֲבָל מָכַר לוֹ קָמָה וְשִׁיֵיר לוֹ שָׂדֶה אֵצֶל זֶה אֲנִי קוֹרֵא שָׂדְךָ וְאֵצֶל זֶה אֲנִי קוֹרֵא קְצִירְךָ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** Our Mishnah is about someone who sold the field with the standing crop. But if someone sold the standing crop and retained the field for himself, for him I read “your field”, for the other one I read “your harvest.¹⁰⁹ 24:19 reads: “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field,” both the owner of the field and the owner of the harvest are forbidden to take of the gleanings and *peah*.”

footnotes:
¹⁰⁹ Since Deut.


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

אִם עוֹשֶׂה כֵן הֲרֵי זֶה גוֹזֵל אֶת הָעֲנִיִים. בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה כֵן גוֹזֵל עֲנִיִים. פּוֹעֵל שֶׁעָשָׂה כֵן הֲרֵי זֶה גוֹזֵל לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת וְלָעֲנִיִים וְעַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר אַל תַּסֵּג גְּבוּל עוֹלָם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“By doing so, he robs the poor.” The owner who does that robs the poor¹¹⁰. The worker who does that robs the owner¹¹¹, or, if the owner does not know that he lets his son take everything, by not letting him fulfil the Biblical commandments. The Babli (*Baba Meẓi‘a* 12a) disagrees and postulates as standard labor practice that the worker’s minor son may collect gleanings after his father. The Babli must restrict the meaning of the Mishnah to the case that the worker agrees to take wages smaller than customary. and the poor, and about him it was said: “Do not displace an eternal boundary.”

footnotes:
¹¹⁰ Either by not giving at all or by limiting the chances of the disfavored.
¹¹¹ He robs the owner of the merit, either leading him into sin by offering to work for lower wages on condition that his son get all gleanings and peah


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

רַב יִרְמְיָה וְרַב יוֹסֵף חַד אָמַר אֵלּוּ עוֹלֵי מִצְרַיִם. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר אֵלּוּ שֶׁיָּרְדוּ מִנִּכְסֵיהֶן. לְסַמְיָא צְוָוחִין סַגְיָא נְהוֹרָיָא. אָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק וַעֲנִיִים מְרוּדִים תָּבִיא בָּיִת. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין אִם עָשִׂיתָ כֵּן מַעֲלֶה אֲנִי עָלֶיךָ כְּאִלּוּ הֵבֵאתָ בִּיכּוּרִים לְבֵית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן תָּבִיא. וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן רֵאשִׁית בִּכּוּרֵי אַדְמָתְךָ תָּבִיא בֵּית יי אֱלֹהֶיךָ וגו׳.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rav Jeremiah and Rav Joseph¹¹², one said these are the ones who came up from Egypt, the other said these are the ones who lost their property; a blind man is called “plenty of light.¹¹³” Rebbi Isaac said, (*Is.* 58:7) “degraded poor you shall bring to your house¹¹⁴.” Rebbi Abin said, if you do this¹¹⁵, I will credit it to you as if you had presented First Fruits in the Temple. It says here, “you shall bring,” and it says there (*Ex.* 23:19): “The first fruits of your land you shall bring to the Eternal’s Temple¹¹⁶ 20 (p. 335) that there is a clear disagreement between Babylonian and Galilean Amoraïm in the interpretation of “to bring” in this verse, and the interpretation given here is Babylonian..”

footnotes:
¹¹² This homily is based on a reading in the Mishnah, not אַל תַּסֵּג גְּבוּל עוֹלָם but אַל תַּסֵּג גְּבוּל עוֹלִים “do not displace the boundary of the rising.” This reading is attested to by Maimonides in his Commentary and is found in most Mishnah manuscripts of Babylonian type. One might assume that the scribes of most of the Mishnah manuscripts of Yerushalmi type were more versed in Biblical verses and copied from memory rather than from the text before them. As explained before, the part important for theMishnah is the second part of the verse. Here, by a change of vocalization, one author wants to give a better parallel to “orphan” than “eternal”.
¹¹³ Those coming down in the world are called “rising”.
¹¹⁴ He objects to the previous homily since a verse explicitly called the poor “degraded.”
¹¹⁵ To bring the poor into your house. This homily no longer is connected to the Mishnah.
¹¹⁶ See the commentary of I. A. Rabin to Mekhilta Mišpatim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 5:6:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 5:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/5:6:1)

**משנה:** הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁשְּׁכָחוּהוּ פוֹעֲלִים וְלֹא שְׁכָחוֹ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שְׁכָחוֹ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת וְלֹא שְׁכָחוּהוּ פוֹעֲלִים עָמְדוּ הָעֲנִיִים בְּפָנָיו אוֹ שֶׁחִיפּוּהוּ בְקַשׁ הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ שִׁכְחָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** A sheaf forgotten by the workers but not by the owner, by the owner but not by the workers, or the poor stood before it or covered it with straw¹¹⁷, is not a forgotten sheaf.

footnotes:
¹¹⁷ Anything the poor hide in any way when the sheaves are loaded to be brought to the barn.


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

**הלכה:** הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁשְּׁכָחוּהוּ פוֹעֲלִין וְלֹא שְׁכָחוֹ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֵינוֹ שִׁכְחָה דִּכְתִיב קְצִירְךָ וְשָׁכַחְתָּ. שְׁכָחוֹ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת וְלֹא שְׁכָחוּהוּ פוֹעֲלִים אֵינוֹ שִׁכְחָה דִּכְתִיב כִּי תִקְצוֹר וְשָׁכַחְתָּ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשֵּׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֲפִילוּ חַמָּרִין שֶׁהֵן עוֹבְרִין בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְרָאוּ עוֹמֶר אֶחָד שֶׁשְּׁכָחוּהוּ פוֹעֲלִים וְלֹא שְׁכָחוֹ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֵינוֹ שִׁכְחָה עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁכְּחוּהוּ כָּל אָדָם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** A sheaf forgotten by the workers but not by the owner is not a forgotten sheaf since it is written (*Deut.* 24:19): “When you harvest and you forget¹¹⁸.” If the owner forgot but the workers did not, it is not a forgotten sheaf since it is written: “When you are harvesting and you forget.” Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah¹¹⁹ 3:1. says in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Even if donkey drivers¹²⁰ passing by on the road saw a sheaf forgotten by the workers but not by the owner¹²¹ 5:1) it seems that he read: “was forgotten by the workers and by the owner.”, it is not a forgotten sheaf unless everybody forgot it.

footnotes:
¹¹⁸ The verse reads: “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field and forget a sheaf on the field, you may not return to take it.” Since “harvesting a harvest” is redundant language, it is split into two. “Your harvest” refers to the owner, “harvesting” refers to the farmhands who do the actual work. Both have to forget. (This implies that the owner must have known of the sheaf.)
¹¹⁹ A fifth generation Tanna, from Kefar Acco, student of R. Simeon (bar Ioḥai). His statement also appears in Tosephta Peah
¹²⁰ In the Tosephta and the original scribe (who usually is better than the corrector) of the Leyden manuscript: “others”.
¹²¹ The language is difficult but is attested to by the Yerushalmi manuscripts and R. Simson of Sens. According to R. Saul Lieberman, it means that the owner never knew of the sheaf and he was not on the field during harvest. In our Tosephta manuscripts, “and not by the owner” is missing. R. Moshe Margalit writes that in his Tosephta manuscript, “by the workers” also is missing; there is only a reference to “them” who forgot. From the text of Maimonides (Mattenot Aniïm


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 5:6:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 5:6:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/5:6:3)

הָיָה עוֹמֵד בָּעִיר וְאוֹמֵר יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁהַפּוֹעֲלִין שְׁכֵיחִין עוֹמָרִין שֶׁבְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וּשְׁכָחוּהוּ אֵינוֹ שִׁכְחָה. הָיָה עוֹמֵד בַּשָּׂדֶה וְאָמַר יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁהַפּוֹעֲלִין שְׁכֵיחִין עוֹמָרִין שֶׁבְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי הֲרֵי זוּ שִׁכְחָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּשָּׂדֶה וְשָׁכַחְתָּ וְלֹא בָּעִיר וְשָׁכַחְתָּ. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל אַף לְעִנְיָין מִצִיאָה כֵן. מַה נָן קַיָימִין אִם בְּיָכוֹל לִיגַּע בָּהֶן בְּתוֹךְ הָעִיר אֲפִילוּ בְּתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ. רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְהוּא שֶׁיָּכוֹל לִיגַּע בָּהֶן אֲפִילוּ בְּתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
If he stood in town and said: I know that the workers are forgetting sheaves at place X; if they forgot it is not a forgotten sheaf¹²³ 3:1, reading of the Vienna manuscript. The Erfurt manuscript and printed editions have “this is a forgotten sheaf;” this is the Babylonian version (*Baba Meẓi‘a* 11a). The parallel in the Babli in every case adopts a position opposite to that taken by the Yerushalmi. The explanation given here follows the analysis in *Tosephta Kifshutah* 1, p. 159–160.. If he stood on the field and said: I know that the workers are forgetting sheaves at place X; [if they forgot] it is a forgotten sheaf, since it says (*Deut.* 24:19): “On your field and you forget a sheaf.” On the field you forget, but in town you do not forget. Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Samuel¹²⁴ 11a) has: “Rav Jehudah said, Samuel said,” as direct transmission.: The same holds in regard to found objects¹²⁵ 1:4: “If he saw them running after a lost object, a deer with broken bones, pigeon chicks not yet able to fly, and he said: My field should acquire this for me, it acquires for him” (on condition that the field be either fenced in or that something is growing which makes it inaccessible to the public.) In the case of sheaves, if he is not standing on the field and wants the field to acquire the sheaf, it is valid. However, if he stands in or near the field, the field cannot acquire for him since the sheaf is his and nobody can acquire anything he already owns. Hence, if he stands in his field and claims that sheaf but later forgets it, the earlier remembrance will not help him since, in that case, the field will not acquire for him. In our case he must be able to go and reach the slowly moving animals before they leave his field.. Where are we holding? If he may touch it, in the city, even inside his field¹²⁶. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if he can touch them, even inside his field.

footnotes:
¹²³ Tosephta Peah
¹²⁴ In the Rome manuscript, “Rebbi Zeïra, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel.” Since Rav Jehudah was Samuel’s student and R. Zeïra’s teacher, the formula of indirect quote “in the name of” there is superfluous. The Babli (Baba Meẓi‘a
¹²⁵ This refers to the Mishnah Baba Meẓi‘a
¹²⁶ Does he acquire only if the deer is so severely injured that he still will find it inside his field when he goes there from town? In the name of R. Joḥanan, the answer given confirms the questioner’s opinion.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 5:6:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 5:6:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/5:6:4)

הָיָה כּוּלּוֹ מְחוּפֶּה בְקַשׁ. נִשְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא וְכֵן הַסּוּמָא שֶׁשָּׁכַח יֵשׁ לוֹ שִׁכְחָה. וְסוּמָא לֹא כְּמִי שֶׁכּוּלּוֹ בְקַשׁ מְחוּפֶּה הוּא. רִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר בְּזוֹכֵר אֶת הַקַּשִּׁים. אֲתָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹנָה כְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא כְּמַה דְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא אָמַר בְּזוֹכֵר אֶת הָעֶלְיוֹן כֵּן רִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר בְּזוֹכֵר אֶת הַקַּשִּׁים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
If it was completely covered by straw¹²⁷? Let us hear from the following: “The blind¹²⁸ who forgot makes a forgotten sheaf.” Is a blind person not like a sheaf completely covered by straw? Rebbi Jonah said, if he remembered the straw¹²⁹. Rebbi Jonah’s position is parallel to Rebbi Zeïra’s; just as Rebbi Zeïra said¹³⁰, if he remembers the upper one, so Rebbi Jonah said, if he remembered the straw.

footnotes:
¹²⁷ Not intentionally covered by the poor, but a sheaf lying covered under straw, which nobody noticed when the sheaves were taken in.
¹²⁸ If the farmer is blind, his disability does not change the laws.
¹²⁹ Since he will come back to collect the straw, he must stumble upon the sheaf. The sheaf is not forgotten since he will be returning to it.
¹³⁰ Chapter 6, Halakhah 3, speaking about two sheaves to be taken by one of the workers and forgotten by the farmer. The farmer personally lifted the upper one; by lifting he acquired it permanently. The lower one was covered and, therefore, cannot be a forgotten sheaf. Rebbi Zeïra explains that the lower, covered sheaf is forgotten unless the farmer remembered the upper, already acquired one.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Peah 5:7:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Peah 5:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Peah/r/5:7:1)

**משנה:** הַמְּעַמֵּר לְכוֹבָעוֹת וּלְכוּמָסוֹת לַחֲרָרָה וּלְעוֹמָרִין אֵין לוֹ שִׁכְחָה. מִמֶּנּוּ לְגוֹרֶן יֵשׁ לוֹ שִׁכְחָה. הַמְּעַמֵּר לְגָדִישׁ יֵשׁ לוֹ שִׁכְחָה מִמֶּנּוּ וּלְגוֹרֶן אֵין לוֹ שִׁכְחָה. זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל הַמְּעַמֵּר לְמָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא גְּמַר מְלָכָה יֵשׁ לוֹ שִׁכְחָה מִמֶּנּוּ וּלְגוֹרֶן אֵין לוֹ שִׁכְחָה. לְמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ גְּמַר מְלָאכָה אֵין לוֹ שִׁכְחָה. מִמֶּנּוּ וּלְגוֹרֶן יֵשׁ לוֹ שִׁכְחָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** He¹³¹ who makes sheaves as helmets¹³², round bundles¹³³, wheels¹³⁴, and small sheaves¹³⁵ is not subject to the law of forgotten sheaves. If he takes them from there to the threshing-floor, the rules on forgotten sheaves apply. If he makes sheaves for a stack, it is subject to the rules on forgotten sheaves. If he takes them from there to the threshing-floor, the rules on forgotten sheaves do not apply. This is the principle: Everybody who makes sheaves for a place that is the end of his work¹³⁶ is subject to the rule on forgotten sheaves, from there to the threshing-floor is not subject to the rule on forgotten sheaves¹³⁷. To a place that is not the end of his work it is not subject to the rule on forgotten sheaves, from there to the threshing-floor¹³⁸ is subject to the rule on forgotten sheaves.

footnotes:
¹³¹ Translation and interpretation follows in the main Maimonides in his Commentary on the Mishnah. “He” is the farmer, the owner of the crop.
¹³² As explained in the Halakhah, sheaves bound together at the top, just under the ears, looking like hats.
¹³³ Bound together at the bottom. Loew accepts a derivation parallel to Arabic כמז “collecting and making round bundles with one’s hands.”
¹³⁴ Grain bundles in the shape of wheels.
¹³⁵ Needed to make stacks, not to be taken directly to the threshing floor.
¹³⁶ As harvester; from there a new phase of the work starts.
¹³⁷ That transport is no longer part of the harvest.
¹³⁸ The end of the harvest.


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

**הלכה:** רִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר מִן לְעֵיל. כְּמַה דְתֵימָר וְכוֹבַע נְחוֹשֶׁת עַל רֹאשׁוֹ. לְכוּמָסוֹת. רִבִּי אֲבִינָא אָמַר מִן לְרַע כְּמַה דְתֵימָר הֲלֹא הוּא כָּמוּס עִמָּדִי. לַחֲרָרָה. גַּלְגַּל. לְעוֹמָרִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כִּי תִקְצוֹר קְצִירְךָ בְשָׂדְךָ וְשָׁכַחְתָּ עוֹמֶר בַּשָּׂדֶה. מַה קְצִיר שֶׁאֵין אַחֲרָיו קְצִיר. אַף עוֹמֶר שֶׁאֵין אַחֲרָיו עוֹמֶר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** Rebbi Jonah says, from the top, as you say (*1Sam.* 17:5): “A brass helmet on his head.” Round bundles, Rebbi Avinah said, from the bottom, as you say (*Deut.* 32:34): “It is hidden with me.” ¹³⁹חֲרָרָה a wheel. Small sheaves, Rebbi Joḥanan said (*Deut.* 24:19): “When you will be harvesting the harvest of your field and you forget a sheaf on the field,” just as harvest has no other harvest after it¹⁴⁰, is not subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf., so too a sheaf, which has no other sheaf-making after it.

footnotes:
¹³⁹ With the different meanings of the Hebrew/Aramaic root חרר, this could mean 1) something burned (a charcoal-broiled cake), 2) a round mass, 3) a hole, 4) freedom. Hence, it is necessary to spell out that meaning 2) is meant.
¹⁴⁰ On the same field. This would imply that he who cuts part of his field green either for fodder or for Grünkern