Yerushalmi Peah 2:1 ירושלמי פאה ב׳:א׳

MISHNAH: The following separate¹One may not give one peah for two fields separated by one of the enumerated obstacles. regarding peah: The river²The Halakhah later makes it clear that one speaks of water even though the Biblical word נחל may also mean (dry) wady., the water canal³An 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., a private road, a public road, a private path⁴A 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. or a public path open both summer and winter, a fallow field, a ploughed field⁵A 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. and [another kind of]⁶The 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 2:1, and it is certainly understood here. Two wheat fields separated by a field of peas require two separate peot. seed. He who cuts⁷Unripe 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. for animal feed makes a separation, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the sages say it does not create a separation unless he ploughed.

HALAKHAH: “The following separate regarding peah.” Because it has been said (Lev. 19:9, 23:22): “Your field⁸In the singular, cf. Sifra Qedošim 1:22.,” that he should not give from one field for another.

It cannot be connected⁹One 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.. If you would say that it is connected, it should separate even a field of trees¹⁰An orchard where trees are planted far enough apart that a plough drawn by a pair of oxen may pass between them., 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 down¹¹This 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.) 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 stated¹²In a baraita.: “If the hair was pressing down from both sides it does not separate.” Hence, from one side only it separates¹³Hence, 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.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If someone gave peah from one field for another one¹⁴The other field being separated from the first by one of the obstacles enumerated in the Mishnah., it does not acquire holiness¹⁵It is not peah and, hence, subject to the laws of terumah and tithes..

Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Yasa: If he intended to let them acquire from the boundary strip¹⁶Every 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, 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 places¹⁷The 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 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 last¹⁸Obviously, one plot is harvested at one time; otherwise, there would be no obligation for peah. 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 beds¹⁹Spices are never grown in large fields since they belong to intensive agriculture.. And here he says so²⁰In 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.? It is obvious for him that it separates²¹This is the opinion ascribed to R. Abun in the Babli.. What he could not decide is whether it does become sanctified as peah or maybe it does not become sanctified²²Since peah 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 strip²³Again 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.).

Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, rue²⁴The identification of חצוּב with rue or harmel (Arabic ח̇יל) is from the Gaonic commentary to Mishnah Kelim 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.

A²⁵Here starts the discussion of the terms used in the Mishnah. water canal, whenever it is flowing. A river even though it does not flow²⁶The 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.

If²⁷The 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. it is correct that we have stated “a private road,” what is the need for “a public road?²⁸If 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.” 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 summer²⁹I. 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. but is not permanent in winter.

Rav said³⁰Here starts the discussion of how large the interruption between two crops of the same kind must be so that two separate peot are due.: Fallow land and ploughed land of a bet rova‘³¹In 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. 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 produce³²For example, if two fields of wheat are separated by a strip of barley. even the tiniest amount. Rebbi Joḥanan said: Fallow land, ploughed land, and other produce at three preliminary furrows³³Three wide parallel furrows. According to Rashi (Is. 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 disagree³⁴Is it necessary to assume that Rav and R. Joḥanan present different traditions? One tries to avoid disagreements over basic measurements as much as possible.? What Rav said³⁵In matters of the separating produce only. refers to produce subject to peah, what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to produce not subject to peah³⁶In the next paragraph it will be explained that, at least for Rebbis Meïr and Jehudah, plots subject to the obligation of peah 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 peah³⁷At 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.? What Rav said refers to an average field, what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to a plot 50 by 2³⁸If the entire field, in this example 100 square cubits, is smaller than a bet rova‘, the rule of Rav becomes inapplicable and must be replaced by a smaller limit..

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Both Rebbi Meïr³⁹In our Mishnah, referring to peah. and Rebbi Jehudah⁴⁰In Mishnah Menaḥot 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 separates⁴¹This statement is not obvious and has to be proven later., so Rebbi Meïr will say that an obligation for peah separates. But we find that Rebbi Meïr says that an obligation for peah separates⁴²From the Tosephta it will be deduced that everybody, including Rebbi Meïr, agrees that an independent obligation of peah between two fields separates the two fields into two entities from each of which one must give peah. since we have stated⁴³Tosephta Peah 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 free⁴⁴Cf. Mishnah 2:7.; everybody agrees that if he ploughed⁴⁵If he ploughed under the empty stalks remaining after the disaster. “It” in this sentence refers to the ruined field. it separates, if he did not plough it does not interrupt⁴⁶If 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..” Who is “everybody”? Does not Rebbi Meïr say, if it is free from peah⁴⁷Since it belongs to the same field and without the disaster there would not have been any separate obligation of peah, 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 there⁴⁸Mishnah Menaḥot 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 cuts⁴⁹After the grain is one-third ripened and the grain is potential human food. (“R. Yudan” here refers to R. Jehudah bar Illaï.) he is obligated for peah. And anything that is obligated for peah separates⁵⁰If he harvested a strip of unripe grain in a field, he has to give peah from this strip. If that strip separated the remaining grain into two disjoint pieces, the two fields now are separately liable for peah..

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 peah⁵¹R. 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. 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 peah⁵²There 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.?