Yerushalmi Peah 2:4 ירושלמי פאה ב׳:ד׳

MISHNAH: He who sows one species on his field gives one peah even though he works⁸²Literally: He makes two threshing floors. Not only the act of threshing is involved, but also the collection of threshed grain into orderly heaps. The best translation is: processing (grain on the stalk into a commercial commodity.) at two different threshing floors. If he sows two species, he gives two peot even though he threshes them together⁸³And puts them together in the same heap.. He who sows two different kinds of wheat on his field gives one peah if he processes them together⁸⁴That means that he treats them as one kind of wheat., two peot if he threshes them separately.
It happened that Rebbi Simeon from Miẓpah⁹³A Mishnah collector in the times of Rabban Gamliel I; one of a very small number of scholars who lived during Second Temple times who is always mentioned with the title “Rebbi.” {It is possible that before the destruction of the Temple, “Rebbi” did not designate a rabbi but a collector of legal statements.} Miẓpah probably is today’s Nebi Samwil, N. W. of Jerusalem. sowed before Rabban Gamliel; they ascended to the stone hall⁹⁴The hall on the Temple Mount whose walls were formed by hewn stone and in which the high court held its sessions. and asked. Naḥum the scribe⁹⁵Cf. Latin libellaris, “of books.” He was the clerk of Rabban Gamliel I’s court. said: I have the tradition from Rebbi Miasha, who received it from my father, who received it from the pairs⁹⁶The pairs of authorities, chiefs and deputy chiefs of the high court in Jerusalem, who are mentioned in the first chapter of Pirqe Avot., who received if from the prophets⁹⁷Ḥaggai, Zachariah, Malachi, who by tradition are counted as members of the “Great Assembly.”, a practice going back to Moses on Sinai, that he who sows two different kinds of wheat on his field gives one peah if he stores them together, two peot if he stores them separately.

HALAKHAH: If he cut half the fine wheat⁸⁵The reading of the Venice print here is איגדו, that of the Rome manuscript אגידו. This kind of wheat is usually spelled אגרו, אגורי, אגרי; this is R. Simson’s spelling here. The spelling with r is probably correct. The term corresponds to Syriac איגורי דחיטתא “fine quality wheat” (Payne-Smith vol. I, col. 137). The entire exposition deals only with the case of a field sown with two kinds of wheat, as in the Mishnah. and half the coarse wheat⁸⁶Everywhere else, this kind of wheat is called שחמתית. The elision of ḥ shows that these rules were formulated in the region between Haifa and Beth She‘an where ח was identified with ה. The root of the word is שחם “to be darkish” (Arabic سخم، سحم; cf. also شخم “spoiled”). This is the coarser kind of wheat. to process them together and then he changed his mind and processed them separately he cannot give from the fine wheat for the coarse either the first time⁸⁷When he cuts half of the field, since we require that the poor have a clear sign when peah will be given and that is at the end of the total harvest. or at the end⁸⁸Since actions count more than intentions.. If he cut half the fine wheat and half the coarse wheat to process them separately and then he changed his mind and processed them together, he may give from the fine wheat at the end for the coarse wheat at the end, from the fine wheat the first time for the coarse wheat the first time⁸⁹Here also the action cancels the prior intention. He may not give from the coarse wheat for the fine since that would be stealing from the poor. He may give from the fine wheat for the coarse since he gives to the poor more than they would be entitled to.. He gives from fine wheat for fine wheat if he finished harvesting his field, but if he did not finish harvesting, he may not give even from fine wheat for fine wheat⁹⁰As explained before, all peah has to be given at the end.. If he cut half the fine wheat and all the coarse wheat to process them together and he changed his mind and processed them separately⁹¹Not the fine and the coarse kinds separately but the first and the second harvests separately. In that case, since peah has to be given at the end, there is only fine wheat to be given (for the entire field) and the farmer is not obligated to separate peah from the coarse wheat kernels in his heap. {The emendations proposed by the commentators are unconvincing.} then he gives from the fine wheat for the fine wheat and all the coarse wheat is exempted⁹³A Mishnah collector in the times of Rabban Gamliel I; one of a very small number of scholars who lived during Second Temple times who is always mentioned with the title “Rebbi.” {It is possible that before the destruction of the Temple, “Rebbi” did not designate a rabbi but a collector of legal statements.} Miẓpah probably is today’s Nebi Samwil, N. W. of Jerusalem..

Rebbi⁹⁸The entire following discussion on oral tradition is also in Taäniot 1:8. Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If you come to notice a practice of which you do not know the reason, do not push it aside as something alien since many practices were shown to Moses on Sinai and all of them were absorbed into the Mishnah. Rebbi Abin said, that is correct! If Naḥum had not come and explained it to us about the two kinds of wheat, could we have known⁹⁹That the rule of two kinds of wheat in one field is a practice revealed to Moses.?

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: (Hos. 8:12) “I¹⁰⁰Words of God. wrote down for him most of My teaching.”¹⁰¹In the Babli (Giṭṭin 60b), this is the definite statement of R. Eleazar. The later statement of R. Samuel bar Naḥman is attributed in the Babli to R. Joḥanan, and R. Zeïra follows the latter’s argument. But was most of the Torah written down? Rather, more things are derived from what is written than what is (only) oral tradition. Is that so? But so it is: Things derived from what is transmitted orally are preferred over those written.

Rebbi Judah ben Pazi says: “I wrote down for him most of My teaching,” these are the admonitions¹⁰²Lev. 26:14–46, Deut. 28:15–69.. Nevertheless, is it not that (Hos. 8:12) “they were considered foreign”.

Rebbi Avin said: If I had written down for you most of my teaching, would it not be considered Gentile? What is the difference between us and the Gentiles? These produce their books and those produce their books. These produce their parchments¹⁰³Greek διφθέρα, ἡ, “leather prepared for writing.” The argument is: If there were no oral Torah Jewish law would not differ from any Gentile law. Babli Giṭṭin 60b briefly alludes to this argument. and those produce their parchments.

Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani: Things have been said orally and things have been said in writing, and we do not know which ones are preferred. From what is written (Ex. 34:27): “By the mouth of these words I concluded a covenant with you and Israel¹⁰⁴This argument is somewhat specious since the full verse reads: “The Eternal said to Moses, write down these words for yourself, because by the mouth of these words I concluded a covenant with you and Israel.” In Babli Giṭṭin 60b, R. Simeon ben Laqish explains the verse as part of the covenant and states that written verses may not be recited by heart and oral traditions not written down.;” it follows that the oral traditions are preferred¹⁰⁵A similar argument in the name of R. Joḥanan is reported in Babli Giṭṭin 60b..

Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Yudan bar Rebbi Simeon¹⁰⁶He is Rebbi Jehudah bar Simon. The verse this homily refers to is the one quoted in the preceding paragraph.. One said that if you kept what is oral tradition and kept what is written I will conclude a covenant with you, otherwise I shall not conclude a covenant with you. The other one said, if you watched all that is oral tradition and kept all that is written you will receive your reward, otherwise you will not receive any reward.

Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said¹⁰⁷The reference is to Deut. 9:10: “The Eternal gave to me the two stone tablets, written by the Divine Finger, and on them like all the words that the Eternal spoke to you on the mountain at the day of assembly.” The three italicized expressions are all unnecessary for the understanding of the sentence; these are interpreted as referring to the three divisions of oral law contained in the complete Torah. {The same derivation is found in Megillah fol. 74d, and in very shortened form with different emphasis in Babli Megillah 19b.}: On them, and on them; all, like all; words, the words; Bible, Mishnah, Talmud, and Aggadah. Even what a competent¹⁰⁸Arabic ות̇יק “strong, safe, secure, dependable, reliable”. The interpretations of the untrained and incompetent are worthless. student will discover¹⁰⁹Since a student may not rule, or teach, before his teacher, the root of the word להורות must be “to become pregnant,” in this case, with an idea. before his teacher was said to Moses on Sinai. What is the reason? (Eccl. 1:10) “There is something about which one would say, look, this is new!” His colleague will answer, “it already has been forever.”

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Samuel: One makes inferences neither from practices¹¹⁰Rules of practice declared in the Mishnah; these may be overridden by arguments in the Talmud. The interpretation of this paragraph follows R. Samuel ben Meïr (Ṛashbam) to Babli Baba batra 130b,s. v.עד., nor from homiletics¹¹¹Homiletics, whether incorporated in the Talmud or given in separate midrashim. Unfortunately, since the sixteenth century this principle has been violated by Kabbalists in favor of practices mentioned in Zohar., nor from extraneous sources¹¹²Rashbam reads תוספתות instead of תוספות, but that may be a scribal error. The “additional sources” are tannaïtic materials not given in the Mishnah, either as single traditions or as part of a collection., but only from study¹¹³From the Talmud which fixes the reasons for each ruling, or from a decision made in the Talmud that practice follows the opinion of such-and-such.. Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: The case of two kinds of wheat is the same as the case of two kinds of barley¹¹⁴If R. Ḥalaphta ben Shaul makes the inference that the rules for barley are identical with those for wheat, does he not violate Samuel’s statement that one does not draw inferences from stated practices but only from an argument about the underlying principles?. Rebbi Zeïra said, that was part of the original practice and it was forgotten: The case of two kinds of wheat is the same as the case of two kinds of barley. But did we not state (Mishnah 3:3): “He who strips moist onions for the market and stores dry ones¹¹⁵He has to give peah two times; this rule cannot be deduced from the stated practice regarding two kinds of wheat since one deals here with only one kind of onion. Since this Mishnah cannot be a consequence of the original Halakhah, neither may one assert that the ruling of R. Ḥalaphta ben Shaul was part of the original Halakhah. Hence, neither the statement of R. Halaphta nor the Mishnah are exempt from logical scrutiny on the basis of accepted general principles.;” can you say about market and storage that this was of the original practice and was forgotten?

Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Samuel: One makes no inferences from a ruling¹¹⁶If a rabbi was asked about a practical problem and he gave a certain decision, a third party may make no practical applications of that decision unless he understands the reasoning behind the decision and agrees with it.. Everybody agrees that one makes no inferences from an action¹¹⁷If one saw a rabbinic authority act in a certain way, one may not act in the same way or make inferences from this action unless one knows both the background of and the reasoning for the particular action.. Rebbi Mana said to him, that means somebody who does not understand¹¹⁸The reasoning of the rabbinic authority., but he who understands may act. He said to him, whether one understands or one does not understand, if there is a disagreement¹¹⁹If in the Mishnah or another source there is mention of a disagreement between rabbis about the correct course, action is permitted only if there is an explicit understanding of and agreement with the reasoning behind the ruling.. But if there is no disagreement, whether one understands or one does not understand¹²⁰In this case, one may act on the decision or imitate the action of a competent rabbinic authority even without a detailed inquiry into the arguments leading to decision or action..