Matnot Aniyim - Chapter 3

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.