Matnot Aniyim - Chapter 4

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.