Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

In the following halachah, the Rambam explains how each of the five factors he mentions here is significant and excludes a different type of produce.

I.e., protected against thieves.

To keep over a long period of time.

All these concepts are implied by the word “harvest”; see the Sifri to the prooftext cited.

I.e., they are used for dye and the like.

I.e., they don't have roots in the earth through which they derive nurture.

I.e., a field does not have to be of a given size.

The prooftext uses a plural term.

I.e., talcing the produce for themselves. If, however, they harvested it for the sake of the Jews, pe’ah must be given, as stated in Halachah 10.

Although pe’ah must be given even if the grain was harvested (Chapter l, Halachah 2), that is only because the obligation was incurred at the time of harvest. In these instances, the field was destroyed and the Jew received no benefit from the harvest. Hence, there is no obligation to leave pe’ah.

The pe’ah is included in the standing grain. Since that was stolen by the thieves, it is considered as if they stole the portion due the poor.

He need not, however, leave pe’ah for the portion stolen by the thieves.

For the pe’ah is in the remaining half. Since the purchaser was obviously aware that the first half of the field had been harvested, he implicitly accepted the responsibility to leave pe’ah for the part of the field that had been harvested previously. For the owner has no right to sell the portion of the crops belonging to the poor [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe’ah 2:8)].

I.e., he purchases the field from the Temple treasury with the understanding that he must leave pe’ah for the entire field.

Since he consecrated the crop after he harvested it, he was already obligated to leave pe’ah for it.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 23, which mentions laws that are relevant to this situation.

He does not have to leave pe’ah for the amount that he harvested previously. The rationale is that since he harvested it indiscriminately, his act is not considered as significant. It is as if he picked some grapes haphazardly. As the Rambam continues to state, pe’ah is not required for such a harvest. Hence, when he harvests the grapes for the vat, he must leave pe’ah only for the grapes he is harvesting at that time.

As explained above, a person is obligated to leave pe’ah only when he “harvests” his field. If he just gathers his food in a haphazard sporadic manner, he is not considered to have harvested and hence, is not liable to leave pe’ah.

Here, also, the same rationale applies. Since the produce did not ripen completely, reaping it is not considered as a “harvest” (Menachot 71b).

Or any of the other “presents to the poor” [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe’ah 4:7)].

For at the time he harvested it, it was his private property.

Because at the time he harvested it, he was not obligated to observe these mitzvot.

The Rambam’s wording is perplexing, for he refers to two differing opinions in the Mishnah (Pe’ah 4:6). To explain: That mishnah states: “When a gentile harvested his field and afterwards, converted, he is exempt from pe’ah, leket, and shichachah. Rabbi Yehudah obligates him in shichachah, because shichachah applies only when sheaves [are transferred).”
The first opinion in the Mishnah maintains that we draw an equation between the obligation of shichachah that applies to standing grain and the obligation of shichachah that applies to sheaves. Since shichachah does not apply to one, it does not apply to the other. Rabbi Yehudah, by contrast, maintains that each obligation of shichachah should be considered independently. The Rambam subscribes to the first opinion, but borrows the wording used by Rabbi Yehudah.

The Radbaz explains that we suspect that they will give either less than the required amount and thus disadvantage the poor or give more than the required amount and thus disadvantage the owner.

The fact that the individuals who did the actual harvesting were not obligated to fulfill the mitzvah does not remove the responsibility from the owner of the field.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 2.

For the produce he leaves as pe’ah is not his, and hence, he is not obligated to tithe it. Nor are the poor, because they were not the owners at the time it was harvested. See Hilchot Terumot 2:9.

I.e., one might think that he is liable, because such a large gift would be considered as a present (for which tithes must be given) and not as pe’ah. Hence it is necessary to state that this is not so (Radbaz).

For he is already obligated to give tithes once he completes winnowing.

Without subtracting the amount set aside as tithes from the pe’ah.

The Tosefta (Pe’ ah, ch. 1) states that this measure was instituted for the sake of the poor, so that their time would not be wasted waiting in limbo until the owner of the field designated a portion of the field as pe’ah. Instead, they could judge when he would complete his harvest and come at that time alone.

He need not, however, leave pe’ah for the entire field. The pe’ah that he separated originally is effective in discharging the obligation for the crops harvested before it was separated.

On one side of his field. Our translation is based on the gloss of the Radbaz.

Although the owner did not explicitly say “And also this,” we interpret that as his intent. Since this question is left unresolved by Nedarim 6b, the Rambam rules stringently (Kessef Mishneh).

For they are acting on the owner’s behalf.

If, however, a poor person sees the owner separating pe’ah, he may take it, for he can assume that the owner consciously separated it.

In contrast to the following halachah, here the Rambam is speaking about orchards with low trees which are not dangerous for the poor to climb.

Instead of each person grabbing whatever he could.

For the Torah instructs us to “leave” the pe’ah for the poor, implying that each one takes what he can get (Radbaz).

Obviously, people vying with each other at heights for food could be severely dangerous.

As he harvests the remainder of his crop.

Because of the danger involved.

Neither less, nor more.

I.e., minchah ketanah, an hour and fifteen minutes before sunset.

So it was established that pe’ah would be divided in the morning so that they would receive a portion at that time.

Thus a time was established to enable every type of poor person to gather the pe’ah at an appropriate time.

I.e., he is attempting to take possession of it, but is not employing accepted kinyanim, formal means of acquisition and hence, he is not entitled to that grain.

And would rightfully belong to him.

See Hilchot Gezeilah ViAveidah 17:3, Hilchot Mechirah 4:15, which quote this principle as a binding construct in Jewish business law.

For he has no right to acquire it himself.

A coin of the Talmudic period.

And therefore able to be acquired by the finder.

And he acquires it through a formal kinyan.

I.e., even if at the time the stream was dried out, the ravine itself constitutes a separation (Radbaz). The Kessef Mishneh, however, interprets the Rambam as referring to a stream with water.

I.e., an irrigation ditch constitutes a separation only when water flows through it throughout the year.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Pe’ah 2:2), the Rambam explains that this refers to a situation where a person standing on one side of the irrigation ditch cannot extend his hand and harvest the produce growing on the other.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam makes a distinction between a path owned by a private individual and one used by people at large, explaining that a path owned by a private person is continually used by him. Hence, even if it is narrow, it is considered a separation. The public, by contrast, have many paths at their disposal and will not necessarily follow a particular path. Hence, unless a public path is very wide vr permanent, it is not considered as a separation.

We are speaking here about a situation where it is unnecessary to make a separation because of the laws of kilayim (mixed species; see Hilchot Kilayim, the latter part of ch. 3). If it is necessary to make a separation for that reason, that separation will be large enough to constitute a separation for pe’ah as well.

As stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 7, one is not obligated to leave pe'ah for such a field if he harvested it in such a preliminary state. Nevertheless, unless he plows it, the harvest alone is not considered significant enough to have divided the field with regard to the other crops (Kessef Mishneh). If it already grew to a third of its development and hence required pe'ah for its own crop, it is only considered as a divider if the land was plowed (Radbaz).

According to the Rambam’s opinion, this is a far smaller figure, while according to the Ra’avad, the difference is not that great (Radbaz). The Ra’avad bases his interpretation on the treatment of this subject in the Jerusalem Talmud (Pe’ah 2:2), claiming that that text does not support the Rambam’s ruling. The Kessef Mishneh explains that there is a version of the Jerusalem Talmud that supports the Rambam’s position and maintains that the Ra’avad’s version is in error.

The latter measure is slightly more than ten and one fifth cubits by ten and one fifth by approximately ten and one fifth cubits (Hilchot Kilayim 3:9 and notes).

Since the entire field is larger, the area which creates the separation must also be larger.

The Radbaz questions why leniency is granted with regard to separation when another crop is sown and explains that it is uncommon to sow a small amount of a second crop in between two larger portions of one crop. Hence, one can assume that it was done so only for the sake of making a distinction.

If, however, one does not plow the consumed portion, it is not considered as a separation (Menachot 71b).

This follows the second interpretation given by the Rambam in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe’ah 2:2).

Since the rock divides the field, it is considered as two separate entities. Hence, he must leave pe’ah for each portion of the field individually. The commentaries question why this instance is different than the terraces that are less than ten handbreadths higher than each other mentioned in the first clause, for there too, he must lift the plow and move it to the side while plowing. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the terraces are different because they can be sewn and hence they appear as a single field, while the rock cannot be sewn.

The tenn the Rambam uses literally means “the mold used to make bricks.” That term is employed because the squares resemble such a mold [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe’ah 3:1)].

I.e., had there not been trees in the field, the entire field would have been sown as a single entity. It was the presence of the trees alone that caused him to divide it. Thus since it is essentially one field, he leaves one portion of pe'ah.

An area 50 cubits by 50 cubits (Hilchot Shabbat 16:3; Hilchot Kilayim 4:7).

Instead, he considered each block separate for other reasons. Hence, pe’ah should be left for each one individually. The Ra’avad takes issue with the Rambam, basing his objections on the Jerusalem Talmud (Pe’ah 3:1). The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that the Rambam had a different version of the Jerusalem Talmud and that accounts for the difference between their positions. They also maintain that the Rambam’s position is sounder logically, for the larger the field, the more likely it is that each separate block should be considered an independent field.

Needless to say, there must be a distinction between the vegetables and the onions so that the laws of kilayim, mixed species, are not violated.

In this instance as well, the physical separation does not cause the squares to be considered as separate fields. The Radbaz suggests that the reason the principle stated in Halachah 4 that if another crop separates between two plantings of one crop, separate portions of pe’ah should be left - does not apply here is that there is no obligation to leave pe’ah for vegetables.

The commentaries note that the Rambam’s statements here appear to contradict his statement in Hilchot Kilayim I :9, in which he states that it is customary to sow entire fields of mustard seed. They are, however, reinforced by his statements in Hilchot Kilayim 3:18.

And thus each square is considered as a separate field, requiring its own pe’ah.

For the whole field will be considered as a single entity.

For then it appears as a single field.

For then each portion appears as a separate field. The Ra’avad disputes the Rambam’s ruling based on his interpretation of the Jerusalem Talmud (Pe’ah 3:1). The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain the Rambam’s position within the context of that passage.

The commentaries note that there are some species of peas that are considered vegetables - and for which pe’ah need not be left - and others are considered as legumes. Here we are speaking about a species that are considered legumes.

For each is considered as a separate harvest. The Radbaz explains that even if the person does not divide the field into separate portions, but rather harvests a small amount from each place both times, the two harvests are considered as separate. The difference in the time when they are harvested and the purpose for which they are harvested distinguishes them from each other.

This halachah is speaking about a situation where a person transgressed and harvested his entire field and then desires to correct his actions by leaving pe’ah. The Radbaz states that the Rambam’s ruling applies even if he makes these grain heaps at separate times.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe’ah 2:5), the Rambam gives examples: “thin kernels or thick kernels, red wheat and green wheat.”

I.e., a point from the Oral Tradition for which there is no direct source in the Written Law.

Before the harvesting of the field (Radbaz).

As is the law concerning partners (Chapter 2, Halachah 3).

For at the time the grain was harvested, there was no obligation to separate pe’ah from it, for the obligation to separate pe’ah applies to the standing grain (Chapter 2, Halachah 4). Hence the partner who receives the harvested grain considers the situation analogous to that of a person who harvests half a field and then sells the remainder, in which instance, the purchaser - i.e., the second partner is obligated to separate pe’ah for the entire field (ibid. :5).

The rationale is that the second partner does not accept that rationale. Instead, he claims that we apply the principle of bereirah - that retroactively, it is considered as if the two partners’ portions were divided from the outset. Thus from the outset, he was never required to do more than separate pe’ah from his individual portion.
One might protest that in this situation, the outcome is that the poor people do not receive their pe’ah. Indeed, that is the case. Our Sages did not resolve whether the principle of bereirah should be applied or not. Hence, each partner can claim that the responsibility for leaving pe’ah for the first half of the field lies on the other partner and not on him. Neither is not obligated to pay from his own funds, because in financial matters, we follow the principle: When one desires to expropriate money from a colleague, the burden of proof is upon him.

Before harvesting the second half of the field, agreeing that each one received half of the grain that was harvested and half of the grain to be harvested (Kessef Mishneh).

Since they reestablished their partnership, one pe’ah can be left for the remaining portion of the field. Either of the partners may do this, leaving a portion for his own grain and that of his partner. He does not have to do this for the grain in the first part of the field, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

Since there was no pe’ah required to be left for it originally, there is no requirement to leave pe’ah for it now.

And did not leave pe'ah for this harvest although he was obligated to do so.

I.e., the crops that ripened initially, but were not harvested. Since they ripened at the same time as those which harvested first, they can be included in the same pe’ah.

Since this portion ripened before the second portion was harvested, it and the second portion could be considered as part of a single field and one measure of pe'ah would be sufficient for them both.

For each portion of the field is considered as a separate entity.

Chu/in 138a derives this from the exegesis of Leviticus 23:22: “When you reap the harvest of your land” which implies that the obligation to leave pe’ah begins when one starts reaping.

Based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe’ah 2:3), it appears that if trees are separated by a fence that is ten handbreadths high, they are considered as in separate fields unless their branches are intermingled above. If their branches are intenningled above, they are considered as one field, regardless of the height of the fence.

Since they are not partners, the portion of each one is considered individually.

I.e., in contrast to other trees that are separated by fences, different laws apply with regard to carobs (Rav Yosef Corcus).

Since they can see each other, the principles stated in the first clause apply.

Because they cannot see each other.

The owner is not obligated to leave pe’ah for the fruit harvested for this reason, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

Chapter 2, Halachah 6.

For the primary reason he harvested it was to diminish the pressure on his vines. Since he is not interested in the harvest per se, he is not obligated to leave pe’ah.

The fact that he takes the produce home demonstrates that his harvest is a calculated act and hence requires pe'ah.

I.e., he was gathering several stalks of grain together in his hand in order to cut them with a sickle. In the process, some fell from his hand. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe’ah 4:10), the Rambam summarizes the principle as follows: “[Crops] encompassed by the hand or by the sickle that fall are leket.”

For three is a significant quantity that the owner would not be willing to abandon willfully.

I.e., that fell when he moved the sickle or his hand back.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Pe’ah 4:5) derives this from exegesis of the phrase (Leviticus 23:22): “You shall not gather the gleanings of your harvest.” “Your harvest” implies crops cut with a sickle.

This does not contradict the concept stated in the previous note. Since this is the usual way these crops are harvested, the laws of leket apply when produce falls from one’s hands.

Since it did not fall from his hand as a by-product of the harvesting process.

The Sifri derives this law from the exegesis of the phrase (Deuteronomy 24:19): “Do not return to take it.” As long as the stalk of grain can be harvested together with the standing grain, one is not “going back” to harvest it. A question, however, arises: Why does the Rambam (and his source, Pe’ah 5:2) mention this law in the context of the laws of leket and not together with those governing shichichah (the subject of the verse cited)? This question is resolved in Halachah 4.

And thus meets the criteria mentioned in the previous halachah.

I.e., it is considered as the owner's.

The Rambam here is explaining why it must be possible for the inner stalk to be harvested with the remainder of the standing grain, and the outer grain together with the inner grain, for otherwise the outer grain is considered as if it fell from the sickle, and is considered leket (Kessef Mishnah. Cf. Merkavat Hamishnah).

This refers to the previous halachah and serves as an explanation why these stalks are considered as leket (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).

Because, generally, the laws of leket do not apply to grain that was not harvested.

As in the following halachot, where the owner is penalized for mixing his harvest with the leket.

This area is 75000 sq. cubits. Shiurei Torah 3:31 states that according to the Rambam, a kav is equivalent to 1626 grams.

Thus mixing his harvest with the leket.

The Radbaz writes that, as stated in the following halachah, this measure is a penalty imposed upon the owner. Hence, even when there is no doubt involved, as exemplified there, we give the poor all the stalks that are touching the ground. Hence, the Rambam’s words must be interpreted as meaning: Since we penalized the owner, the produce is taken from him in the case of a doubt.

As in Halachah 5.

And thus there is no doubt which is leket and which is ordinary produce.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe’ah 4:11), the Rambam speaks of the grain “behind the reapers.”

And thus appears to have been there for a long time.

For it is possible that the black kernel is from the present year, but from inferior grain.

There is no obligation to separate tithes from leket. The stipulation is necessary because tithes must be separated while the produce is still in one's possession, before the stalk is given to the poor.

We have translated the Rambam’s words directly, although there is an obvious difficulty with them. If we say, as implied by his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe’ah 5 :2), that one of the stalks will be designated for the tithes, then since the identity of thatstalk is not known and one of the stalks will be given to the poor, it is possible that the poor will be given the stalk that contains the tithes. Furthermore, leket cannot be used for tithes. Therefore, the commentaries (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh, et al) suggest that we are speaking about a third stalk which would also be used for the tithes of the entire field. The stipulations are made separately on the two stalks and then one is given to the poor and the other to the owner. And the third stalk is used for the tithes of the field.

Le., a poor man who is entitled to collect leket.

I.e., this would be like a tip for the worker. In addition to his wages, he would receive the leket his son would collect. This is, however, considered as stealing from the poor, because the worker is likely to hire himself out for a l9wer wage in return for this consideration. As indicated by the continuation of the halachah, there is no difficulty with the worker’s family collecting the leket. Since he - and/or they - are poor, they have that privilege. The difficulty is with stipulating it in his contract.

Since they are not being paid a wage, but instead receive the produce and give a major share back to the owner, there is no difficulty in having the son collect the leket from the field, for they will not reduce their share for the license to have their son collect the leket. The other poor do not feel that the share-cropper is infringing upon their rights, because they expect that - were they to have the opportunity - their sons would be given the same privilege.

As stated above, since the worker is poor, both his wife and his children are given this privilege.

The Tzaphnat Paneach differentiates between this instance and that of the share-cropper mentioned in the previous clause, noting that here the worker’s wife is mentioned and there she is not. He states that the wife of the share-cropper or the like is not entitled to collect the leket. Since he owns the produce, he is not entitled to collect a share. And since he is not entitled to collect a share, his wife may not do so either. His son may, however, because he is an independent person. The rationale is that theshare-cropper is the owner of the harvest and he pays a share to the owner of the land. In this instance, by contrast, the harvest belongs to the owner and he pays a share to the worker. Hence, the worker is poor and his wife has the right to collect the leket.

For unlike terumah and other agricultural obligations, the owner has no right to control who will be the recipient of leket.

And thus abandon the leket.

See Chapter 9, Halachah 13.

I.e., instead of leaving it to be the property of the poor, he desires to declare it ownerless so that it can be acquired by the rich as well as the poor.

I.e., once the majority has fallen, the status of the entire quantity is defined (Radbaz).

But instead, it belongs to the poor (see Temurah 25a). The rich may not take it.

Individual grapes that fall that must be left for the poor, as stated in Leviticus 19:10.

This law follows the same logic which motivates Halachot 6-7 which states that an owner who makes a grainheap on the place where leket has fallen must give all the stalks touching the ground to the poor. In this instance as well, since his grapes become mixed with those which fell as peret, we penalize him and preventing him from taking any of the individual grapes.
The Jerusalem Talmud (Pe’ah 6:4) mentions two opinions: one which states that this stringency applies only to half a cluster and one that it applies even to the entire cluster. The Rambam follows the latter view.

So that all the individual grapes will fall into it.

An underdeveloped grape cluster which should be left for the poor, as stated in Leviticus, loc. cit..

These two Hebrew terms are defined in the following halachah.

The Hebrew term used by the Rambam literally means “backbone.”

I.e., the small clusters are not large enough to prevent all the individual grapes from touching his palm. The Ra’avad offers a different interpretation of this phrase which is taken from the Jerusalem Talmud (Pe’ah 7:4). The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh support the Rambam’s interpretation.

Which means “infant” in Hebrew.

As stated above with regard to pe’ah (Chapter 2, Halachah 15). Here too, the command for the mitzvah uses the term “leave,” implying that the mitzvah is not to give the underdeveloped clusters to the poor, but to allow them to collect them.
The Radbaz writes that if a- vine is elevated to a high trestle and it would be dangerous for the poor to climb up and collect the underdeveloped clusters, the owner should harvest them for the poor. Note the parallel in Chapter 2, Halachah 16.

Thus this ruling parallels the ruling in Chapter 4, Halachah 3, with regard to leket.

I.e., and not to any other type of fruit.

I.e., the obligation to observe these mitzvot begins “When you harvest... “and not before.

Instead, they are included in his consecration.

Once he becomes aware of the underdeveloped clusters, they become the property of the poor and the owner cannot consecrate them, because a person cannot consecrate property that does not belong to him (the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Pe’ah 7:8, based on the Jerusalem Talmud and Arachin 28a). Tosafot Yom Tov asks: Since, as stated in the previous halachah, the poor are not entitled to the produce until the owner begins his harvest, seemingly, it remains the property of the owner and he has the right to consecrate it. He explains that although the poor do not have the right to collect it until the harvest begins, these clusters belong to them and not the owner and he does not have the right to consecrate them.

Because the grapes from the clusters belonging to the poor are deriving benefit from land and vine consecrated to the Temple treasury.

I.e., for their increase in value from the time they were consecrated until they became ripe (ibid.).

I.e., just as he shows no concern for the clusters that will ultimately be his, he may ignore those that will ultimately belong to the poor. For until the harvest, there is no prohibition against cutting them off. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Pe’ah 7:5.

For the obligation to leave ollelot takes effect only at the time of the harvest and the person performing the harvest is Jewish. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh note that the Rambam’s source, the Tosefta (Pe’ah, the conclusion of ch. 3), also states the converse: that if a Jew sells his field to a gentile, the obligation to leave ollelot no longer applies and they question why the Rambam omits this point.

Produce from which terumah has not been separated.

They belong to the poor and tithes need not be separated from them.

The tenth which the Levites must separate from the tithes that they receive and give to the priests.

I.e., as stated in Halachah 20, they are the Levite’s private property and he can do with them as he sees fit. The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, but the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain the Rambam’s position.

The Ra’avad adds that he is also not obligated to leave pe’ah. The Kessef Mishneh states that, as indicated by Chapter 2, Halachah 67, the Rambam would also accept this ruling.

Neta Revai'i refers to the produce of the fourth year of a tree's growth which must be brought to Jerusalem and eaten in a state of ritual purity or exchanged for money that is brought to Jerusalem and used to purchase food that must be eaten in a state of ritual purity (see Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni, chs. 9-10). The owner is not considered as having harvested the grapes, but rather as having picked them for immediate use, e.g., as a snack. Hence he is freed from these obligations.

For the ollelot belong to the poor and are not dependent on whether one harvests the grapes to use as wine or as fruit.

In which instance, he is not obligated for those he picked first, since he is not harvesting but taking the grapes for immediate use.