Yerushalmi Peah 1:5 ירושלמי פאה א׳:ה׳

MISHNAH: Forever²⁷⁵A person who cuts his entire field without leaving peah has later to give peah to the poor. “Smoothing" is a technical term that designates the end of processing the grain harvest, when after threshing and cleaning from chaff, the grain is put into orderly heaps to be stored. The Mishnah states that the obligation of giving peah must be fulfilled as long as the relevant produce is in the hand of the farmer, but if it is given before smoothing then it is free from terumah and the two tithes. If peah is given later, the farmer has first to give terumah and tithes before he can discharge his obligation for peah. [In the Mishnah manuscripts there is a second sentence, that he who declares part of his crop as abandoned is freed from the relative terumah and tithes if it is abandoned before smoothing. This sentence is missing in the Yerushalmi and in the Munich manuscript of the Babli.]
The Halakhah takes the expression: “Forever he gives,” as meaning that he can give under the rules of peah until he has smoothed the heap, even if he gave peah from grain standing on the field, and avoid the obligation of terumah and tithes for that amount. That seems to contradict our understanding of Mishnah 3. he gives as peah and it is free from tithes until he smoothes. He may take from the threshing floor and sow and it is free from tithes until he smoothes²⁷⁶Since seed grain is not food.. And he feeds domestic animals, wild animals, and fowl and is free from tithes until he smoothes, the words of Rebbi Aqiba²⁷⁷In the Mishnah manuscripts the sentence is anonymous; the previous one about seed grain is attributed to R. Aqiba. From the Halakhah later on (Note 287) it will be clear that the original Mishnah in the Yerushalmi also attributed only the statement about seed grain to R. Aqiba.. If a Cohen or a Levite bought all the grain of a threshing floor, the tithes belong to them until it was smoothed²⁷⁸There is nothing in the Torah which states that a Cohen could not give his own terumah and tithes to himself. But the rabbis ordained that Cohen and Levite have to give their tithes away in order to create a level playing field, lest Cohen and Levite farmers could drive the others out of business since they have a built-in 10% advantage in costs over the non-Levitic farmer. In the opinion of Maimonides, the rule was established in order to prevent the monopolizing of tithes by a few wealthy priests. However, if a priest bought produce before it was obligated for tithes, he may keep the tithe but not terumah.. He who dedicates²⁷⁹His crop or his field. to the Temple and then redeems is obligated for tithes unless it was smoothed by the Temple administrator²⁸⁰Temple property is not subject to the laws of tithes. Hence, if the obligation of giving terumah and tithes arose in private properly, it must be fulfilled; but if it arises in the property of the Temple, it does not apply even if the produce is later sold to private individuals..

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jacob bar Zabdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Nehemiaḥ bar Uqban turned it in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If someone separated first fruits from a smoothed heap²⁸¹Which now falls under the obligation of separating terumah and the first tithe. (While the first tithe is a civil obligation of the farmer towards the Levite, the terumah of the tithe is a religious obligation and it is a deadly sin to eat from the produce as long as that terumah of the tithe is still not separated from the rest of the grain. The first terumah is called the great terumah.) It is now asserted that First Fruits, which are brought to the Temple and will be eaten there by the priests, are not subject to terumah even though peah, which is eaten by the poor, can no longer be separated from the heap before the farmer separates the two terumot from his grain., it is free from the great terumah. Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose: Does not the Mishnah say so: “Forever he gives peah and it is free from tithes until he smoothes.” Hence, if he smoothed he is obligated, but this does not apply to terumah²⁸²Since the Mishnah speaks only of the obligation of tithes, not terumah.? It should say that he also is obligated for first fruits even though he did not smooth yet²⁸³This is the answer of R. Yose to R. Haggai, refuting his argument: If the Mishnah is supposed to mention every detail, it certainly should have mentioned First Fruits since they are really supposed to be designated when grain or fruits are still on field or tree. Hence, “tithes” is a catchword for all obligations and the Mishnah does not prove anything for the rule under discussion.! But he²⁸⁴Rebbi Abbahu or Rebbi Joḥanan, whoever is the author of the statement about First Fruits, referred to the Mishnah Terumot 3:7: “From where do we know that First Fruits precede terumah? Each of them is called (in the Torah) terumah and beginning’, but First Fruits should precede everything because they are first before everything.” is the one who said this: “Why are they called firstlings? Because they are first before everything else.” And anything which precedes something else, the latter is obligated for it²⁸⁵This is a general principle which will be discussed at length in Demai 5:1. The fixed order of Biblical obligations is First Fruits (where applicable), terumah, First Tithe, Second Tithe. Hence, if somebody gave First Tithe before he gave terumah, he has to separate terumah from this First Tithe and he may not include terumah for the First Tithe in the terumah that he will give from the remaining grain, but terumah carries no obligation of tithe. As a consequence, First Fruits carry no obligation of terumah and even the fact that the heap now is under the obligation of terumah and tithes has no influence. This is the justification of R. Joḥanan/Abbahu..

Our Mishnah²⁸⁶The Mishnah declares that “forever one may give as peah,” meaning even after the prescribed 1 2/3% have been given. But earlier, it was agreed that once this amount is given, there is no more peah to be given separately. Hence, one must consider that the amount given before the heap was smoothed was given as property abandoned to the poor. Even for the House of Shammai, calling this peah strictly speaking would be a misnomer but, since for the House of Shammai property abandoned to the poor follows exactly all the rules of peah, it is free from all obligation of terumah and tithes; this is an admissible freedom in the use of language. is from the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say (Mishnah 6:1): “Property abandoned to the poor is ownerless property.”

It turns out that Rebbi Aqiba²⁸⁷This refers to the part of the Mishnah in which R. Aqiba permits the use of grain for seeds and animal feed without the duty of tithing. While R. Aqiba disagrees with the practice of the Bene Ḥanun, he will agree that tithes are applicable only to produce used for human food. is like the stores of Bene Ḥanun as it has been stated²⁸⁸Sifra Deut. #105, quoted in Babli Bava Meẓia‘ 88a where the name of the locality is corrupted to Bet Hini. It seems that these stores were located at or near the Mount of Olives and were destroyed at the start of the Roman siege of Jerusalem.: Why were the stores of Bene Hanun destroyed three years before the destruction of the Temple? Because they eliminated produce from the duty of tithes since they were inferring (Deut. 14:22) “You should certainly give tithes²⁸⁹The verse reads: “You should certainly give tithes from all produce of your seed.” Since the buyer did not sow, he is not included in the command. (As usual, only the first words of the verse are quoted; this never implies that the inference necessarily is from these words.),” that excludes the buyer, (Deut. 14:23) “You should eat,” that excludes the vendor²⁹⁰This excludes the farmer who sells his produce which then he cannot eat. The people of Bene Ḥanun were punished since the Jewish people under Ezra and Nehemiah had accepted the duty to give tithes and observe the laws of the Land in their rabbinic interpretation (Shevi‘it 6:1, fol. 36b). Rebbi Aqiba will agree that according to all interpretations, produce that is not used as food is freed from the obligations..

Rebbi Joḥanan said, they fined them so that they should not run after wine presses and threshing floors²⁹¹This sentence refers to the statement of the Mishnah that a Cohen or a Levite, who had received or bought grain before it was made a staple in a smooth heap, has to give terumah to another Levite or Cohen, even though from the Torah there seems to be no reason to assume that the Cohen cannot eat his own terumah. The reason given is that we do not want Cohen or Levi to go and help with the harvest in order to exert moral pressure on the farmer to give terumah and tithes to him personally, since the Torah declares (Num. 5:10): “Everybody shall have control over his own Holy Things.” The prohibition for a Cohen to exert pressure to force a non-Cohen to give him the required gifts is emphasized in Tosephta (Demai5:20) and in both Talmudim stating that terumah and tithes may not be given to the Cohen or Levi as payment for helping in the harvest.
One does not really talk about fines here but about preemptive rules to avoid monopolization of priestly emoluments in the hands of a few individuals. The same reasoning applies to the Cohen butcher in the next paragraph..

A butcher who is a Cohen²⁹²Following Deut 18:3, the Cohen has to receive one front leg, the lower jaw, and the rennet bag from every slaughtered animal. Butcher here means a person who buys animals, slaughters them and then sells their meat. From the Torah, the Cohen might give the dues to himself. But as rabbinic decree this is allowed only during the first week after opening the store; all other parts destined for Cohanim he has to give away to other Cohanim.. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One frees him for one week. Rebbi Yose said, I went to the South and I heard Rebbi Hanan, the father of Rebbi Simeon²⁹³Neither Rebbi Ḥanan nor Rebbi Simeon are known otherwise from rabbinic literature; probably the name is garbled and the next “R. Simeon” should be “R. Joshua” as indicated in the translation. in the name of Rebbi (Simeon) [Joshua] ben Levi: One frees him for one week. Rebbi Yudan compares it to the statement of Rebbi Joḥanan, they fined them. Rebbi Yose said to him, if it is because of a fine, even one week should not be free for him²⁹⁴And nobody ever prohibited Cohanim from being butchers. [R. Joseph mentioned in the text is R. Yose, the colleague of R. Yudan.]. A grocer²⁹⁵Who buys meat from a wholesale butcher to sell it in his retail store. who is a Cohen, Rebbi Yudan said, one frees him for one week. Rebbi Yose said, one does not free him for one week. According to Rebbi Yose, what is the difference between the grocer and the butcher? The grocer may cheat²⁹⁶By mixing meat from a Cohen butcher with that from non-Cohen butchers he may make his customers believe that all meat is from a Cohen butcher and, therefore, is exempt from the gifts to the Cohen. But the butcher sells only meat that he slaughtered himself and, therefore, everybody knows the amount of his obligation. Hence, since from the Torah he may take the gifts for himself, he may take them for one week., the butcher cannot cheat.

It was stated²⁹⁷Usually, “stated” refers to a tannaïtic statement. The statement here is amoraïc; it does not refer to any tannaïtic source.: Rebbi²⁹⁸The Patriarch R. Jehudah I, in the Babli usually called “R. Jehudah the Prince”. R. Jehudah the Prince is the Patriarch R. Jehudah II, grandson of R. Jehudah I and Amora of the second generation. In the Babli, he usually is referred to as ר יהוּדה נשׂיאה. and Rebbi Jehudah the Prince did not disagree about produce bought on the field from a Gentile that it is subject to tithes because the Jew takes his²⁹⁹The Gentile’s place. Since the harvest determines the obligations and the harvest was Jewish, the obligations of Jewish law fall on the harvest. place, nor about harvested produce bought from the Gentile that it is free from tithes. What did they disagree about? About him who buys harvested produce from his fellow in a year of tithes for the poor³⁰⁰Second Tithe and tithe of the poor were defined in Note 127. The definition of “poor” for eligibility of tithe and public assistance will be given in the last chapter.. Rebbi Judah the Prince said, one takes it from him whether he be poor or rich. But Rebbi said, one takes it from the rich, one does not take it from the poor³⁰¹In contrast to the Cohen, the poor man who separates the tithe of the poor from the grain may then repossess it, not as owner but as poor person.. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah the Prince? Just as nobody has any rights on the single stalks, the forgotten sheaves, and the peah of his own field³⁰²Mishnah 5:4. However, that Mishnah also denies the sharecropper the right to the tithe of the poor, hence the argument attributed to Rebbi Jehudah the Prince is redundant. While this is not stated explicitly, it is implicit in the fact that one looks for a second reason to sustain R. Jehudah’s ruling., so he should have no right to his tithe for the poor. What is the reason of Rebbi? Single stalks, the forgotten sheaves, and peah do not cause tebel³⁰³Ṭebel is a technical term of unknown etymology which designates produce under obligation of terumah and tithes from which terumah has not been taken in both forms. To eat such produce is a deadly sin. It is stated in Demai 4:3 that eating produce under obligation for the tithe of the poor similarly is a deadly sin., but the tithe for the poor creates ṭebel. It became ṭebel already in the possession of the first owner³⁰⁴Since the obligation for the tithes of the poor is created by the act of harvesting, the corresponding amount is no longer a property of the farmer and cannot be sold; the buyer cannot acquire it even if he is poor! Hence, the argument attributed to Rebbi does not hold.! What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah the Prince? Because of a fine³⁰⁵That poor people should not distort the market to the detriment of farmers because they get 10% more value for their money in buying grain than rich people.! What is the reason of Rebbi? Only the rich person has the power to buy³⁰⁶There will be no distortion of markets because the poor neither have the money nor (as explained in the next sentence) can they find credit for such buys. [It might be that loans were more readily taken on in the time of R. Jehudah the Prince, in the inflationary environment of the military anarchy, than in the time of Rebbi, when currency and prices were stable under the Severan dynasty.] ; it is not in the power of the poor to buy. As Rebbi Jehudah the Prince says, he may take a loan; but Rebbi says that he will not be able to borrow.