משנה: מַלְבְּנוֹת הַתְּבוּאָה שֶׁל בֵּין הַזֵּתִים. בֵּית שַׁמַּאִי אוֹמְרִין פֵּיאָה מִכָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִין מֵאַחַת עַל הַכֹּל. מוֹדִין שֶׁאִים הָיוּ רָאשֵׁי הַשּׁוּרוֹת מְעוּרָבִין שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן פֵּיאָה מֵאַחַת עַל הַכֹּל. הַמְנַמֵּר אֶת שָׂדֵהוּ וְשִׁייֵר קְלָחִים לַחִים רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר פֵּיאָה מִכָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים מֵאֶחָד עַל הַכֹּל. מוֹדִין חֲכָמִים לְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה בְּזוֹרֵעַ שֶׁבֶת אוֹ חַרְדָּל בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן פֵּיאָה מִכָּל־אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. MISHNAH: Rectangles1This is the interpretation of Maimonides. R. Simson of Sens prefers to derive מלבן from לבן, “white”; a “white field” by definition is one of grain or legumes. [Then “a white field of grain” would be redundant.] Since מַלְבֵּן is a masculine word with a feminine plural, the gender of the numeral “one” in the Mishnah is undetermined and different manuscripts and prints vary between אחד ,אחת, usually not in a consistent manner. of grain between olive trees2The Halakhah will explain that the disagreement is only for a standard field; there is no disagreement on fields planted wider or narrower than the standard.: The House of Shammai say, peah from each single one, the House of Hillel say, from one for all of them. They agree3The House of Shammai accept the position of the House of Hillel. that one gives one peah for all of them if the edges of the rows are touching.
If someone harvests his field in spots and leaves moist stalks, Rebbi Aqiba says, peah from each spot, but the Sages say, from one for all of them. The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba that he who sows dill or mustard at three different places gives peah from each spot20This is explained in Peah 2:1:5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.2.1.5">Chapter 2, Notes 17–19..
הלכה: אֲנָן תַּנֵּינָן שֶׁבֵּין הַזֵּיתִים. תְּנָיֵי דְּבֵית רִבִּי שֶׁבֵּין אִילָנוֹת. מַתְנִיתִין צְרִיכָה לִדְבֵּית רִבִּי וּדְבֵית רִבִּי צְרִיכָן לְמַתְנִיתִן. אִילּוּ תַנֵּינָן אֲנָן וְלָא תַנּוֹן דְּבֵית רִבִּי הֲוֵינָן אָֽמְרִין לֹא אֲמַרְנָהּ אֶלָּא שֶׁבֵּין הַזֵּיתִים דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא חַייָב בְּפֵיאָה. אֲבָל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא פְּטוֹר פֵּיאָה אַף בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מוֹדִין שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן פֵּיאָה מֵאֶחָד עַל הַכֹּל. הֲוֵי צוּרְכָה לְמַתְנִיתָה דְּרִבִּי. אוֹ אִלּוּ תְּנָיֵי דְּבֵית רִבִּי וְלָא תַנֵּינָן אֲנָן הֲוֵינָן אָֽמְרִין לֹא אָֽמְרוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁבֵּין הָאִילָנוֹת דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא פְּטוֹר פֵּיאָה. אֲבָל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא חַייָב בְּפֵיאָה אַף בֵּית הִלֵּל מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן פֵּיאָה מִכָּל־אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. הֲוֵי צוּרכָה לְמַתְנִיתִן וְצוּרְכָה לְמַתְנִיתָא דְּב͏ֵי רִבִּי. HALAKHAH: We have stated: “between olive trees.” In the House of Rebbi they stated “between fruit trees.4Even though Rebbi edited the generally accepted Mishnah, either later generations changed the wording or, more likely, Rebbi insisted in his Yeshivah that in addition to the official Mishnah one would retain a more general version.” Our Mishnah needs the one of the House of Rebbi and that of the House of Rebbi needs our Mishnah. If we had stated, but not the House of Rebbi, we would say that it said only “between olive trees”, which in themselves are subject to peah, but for those which are free from the obligation of peah5Since only the trees enumerated in Mishnah 1:5 are subject to peah, a general statement “fruit trees” includes (as a majority) those that are not subject to peah. even the House of Shammai will agree that he gives one peah for all of them. Hence, our Mishnah needs that of Rebbi. Or if there were the declaration of the House of Rebbi but we had not stated ours, we would say that it refers only to those which are between trees free from the obligation of peah, but for trees which in themselves are subject to peah even the House of Hillel will agree that he gives peah from each single one. Hence, both our Mishnah and the baraita of the House of Rebbi are needed.
מַה נָן קַייָמִין. אִי בִּמְרוּוָחִין אַף בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן פֵּיאָה מֵאֶחָד עַל הַכֹּל. אִם בִּרְצוּפִין אַף בֵּית הִלֵּל מוֹדוּ שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן פֵּיאָה מִכָּל־אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. אֶלָּא כִּי נָן קַייָמִין בִּנְטוּעִין מַטַּע עֶשֶׂר לְבֵית סְאָה. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי עָֽבְדִין לוֹן כִּמְרוּוָחִין. וּבֵית הִלֵּל עָֽבְדִין לוֹן כִּרְצוּפִין. What are we dealing with? 6This text is self-contradictory; it is the confluence of two contradictory texts. The text of Maimonides (Hilkhot Mattenot Aniïm 3:9) seems to have been: “If they are widely spaced, also the House of Hillel will agree that he gives one peah for all of them. If they are densely planted, the House of Shammai will agree that he gives peah from each single one. But we deal with the case of 10 plants on a bet se’ah. The House of Shammai compare it to widely spaced, the House of Hillel compare it to densely planted,” inverting the roles of Shammai and Hillel in the first clause. But the version of R. Abraham ben David (loc. cit.) is: “If they are widely spaced, also the House of Shammai will agree that he gives one peah for all of them. If they are densely planted, the House of Hillel will agree that he gives peah from each single one. But we deal with the case of 10 plants on a bet se’ah. The House of Shammai compare it to densely planted ones, the House of Hillel compare it to widely spaced,” inverting the statements in the second clause. There is no direct manuscript evidence of any Yerushalmi manuscript for one reading over the other. If they are widely spaced, even the House of Shammai will agree that he gives one peah for all of them7Following R. Abraham ben David, the House of Shammai will agree that there are too few trees to make a difference; it is one field with some holes.. If they are densely planted, the House of Hillel will agree that he gives peah from each single one8Since there are few open places large enough to allow wheat to be sown (which by the laws of kilaim must be well separated from the trees); hence, each patch is a separate field.. But we deal with the case of 10 plants on a bet se’ah9See Chapter 2, Notes 31,73.. The House of Shammai compare it to widely spaced10This follows the text of Maimonides who argues that with widely spaced trees the owner could have sown one field. The fact that he chose to make separate rectangles proves that he wants to treat them as separate fields. (Maimonides translates מלבן by “rectangle.”), the House of Hillel compare it to densely planted ones12Hence, each spot sown is a separate field. R. David ben Zimra, in his commentary to Maimonides, points out that this argument supports Maimonides’s reading in the preceding paragraph. “Seeds” usually refers to grain..
מַה טַעְמָא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי. שֶׁאֵין דֶּרֶךְ בְּנֵי אָדָם לִהְיוֹת מַכְנִיסִין זְרָעִים בֵּין הָאִילָנוֹת. אַתְיָא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. כְּמָה דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אֲמַר אֵין דֶּרֶךְ בְּנֵי אָדָם לִהְיוֹת מַכְנִיסִין בְּצָלִים בֵּין הַיֶּרֶק. כֵּן בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים אֵין דֶּרֶךְ בְּנֵי אָדָם לִהְיוֹת מַכְנִיסִין זְרָעִים בֵּין הָאִילָנוֹת. מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְבֵית שַׁמַּאי יוֹדוּן לְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי לֹא יוֹדֶה לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי יוֹדוּן לְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי שֶׁכֵּן אֵין דֶּרֶךְ בְּנֵי אָדָם לִהְיוֹת מַכְנִיסִין בְּצָלִים בֵּין הַיֶּרֶק. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי לֹא יוֹדֵי לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי שֶׁכֵּן דֶּרֶךְ בְּנֵי אָדָם לִהְיוֹת מַכְנִיסִין זְרָעִים בֵּין הָאִילָנוֹת. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? People do not usually introduce seeds between trees12Hence, each spot sown is a separate field. R. David ben Zimra, in his commentary to Maimonides, points out that this argument supports Maimonides’s reading in the preceding paragraph. “Seeds” usually refers to grain.. Does it turn out that the House of Shammai are like Rebbi Yose13Since Rebbi Yose (ben Ḥalaphta) was the leading authority of his generation in the tradition of the House of Hillel, this would be remarkable indeed.? Just as Rebbi Yose said that people do not usually introduce onions between vegetables14This refers to the second part of Mishnah 4 in this chapter: “Rectangular beds of onions planted among other vegetables, R. Yose says: Peah from each bed, but the Sages say: From one bed for all of them.” According to R. Yose, onions are detrimental to other vegetables growing near them., so the House of Shammai say that people do not usually introduce seeds between trees! It is reasonable to say that the House of Shammai will agree with Rebbi Yose but Rebbi Yose will not agree with the House of Shammai15In a poor country, the land between trees is much too valuable to be left lying fallow. Hence, everybody will sow between the trees if at all possible.. The House of Shammai will agree with Rebbi Yose that people do not usually introduce onions between vegetables. Rebbi Yose will not agree with the House of Shammai because people usually introduce seeds between trees.
הָיָה שָׁם גֶּדֶר כְּמָן דְּהוּא אִילָן. הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם. If there was a fence there, it is like a tree16If each tree has 250 square cubits around it, one follows the House of Hillel’s opinion in the Mishnah.. How about two17If there are two fences, do the House of Hillel still allow one peah for all? The question is asked but not answered [which for practical purposes is a negative answer.]?
עַד כְּדוֹן בִּמְעוּרָבִין מִיכָּן וּמִיכָּן. הֲרֵי מֲעוּרָבִין מִצַּד אֶחָד אוֹ בִשְׁלֹשָׁה תְלָמִים שֶׁל פַּתִּיחַ אוֹ אֲפִילוּ כָּל־שֶׁהוּא. So far18This refers to the last clause of the Mishnah, that one gives only one peah if the beds grown from seeds are connected at more than one place. if they are combined from one side and the other. If they were combined only on one side, either by three coarse furrows19See Peah 2:1:9" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.2.1.9">Chapter 2, Note 33. Is it necessary that the beds touch in the width of three coarse furrows or is any contact acceptable? The answer here again is not given, which means for practical purposes that it is negative. or at any place?
הַמְנַמֵּר שָׂדֵהוּ כו׳. כְּהַדֵּין נִימְרָה. מָקוֹם הַזְּבָלִין עוֹלִין תְּחִילָּה נִמְרָה קְרִיי לָהּ. “He who harvests his field in spots,” etc. Like a spotted field22The leopard is נמר in Hebrew; the Mishnah means: He who makes his field look like a leopard. The Talmud notes that a field which is fertilized unevenly and, hence, whose growth is spotty, is called in agricultural terminology נימרה "leopard-like." It is not clear whether we talk only of a field that is growing at different rates at different points (and, therefore, cannot be harvested at one time) or also of a field that looks normal but whose owner harvests in spots so that it looks "leopard like" at harvest time.; the place where fertilizer makes plants grow early is called “spotted.”
עַד כְּדוֹן כְּשֶׁהָיָה יָבֵשׁ מִיכָּן וּמִיכָּן וְלַח בְּאֶמְצַע. הָיָה לַח מִיכָּן וּמִיכָּן יָבֵשׁ בְּאֶמְצַע. So far if it was dry on both sides and moist in the middle23Since grain usually is harvested when dry, in the case contemplated the farmer will legitimately harvest the dry sides and leave the green patch in the middle for a later harvest. In this case, R. Aqiba will consider the separate dry patches as separate fields since they can be harvested separately without difficulty.. How about being moist on both sides and dry in the middle24In this case, access to the ripe grain is difficult and one may wonder whether R. Aqiba will insist that the cutting is a separate harvest. The question is not resolved (since practice follows the majority of the “Sages”, including most of R. Aqiba’s own surviving students, about whom see the Introduction to tractate Berakhot.)?
רִבִי בָּא רִבִּי חִייָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַתְייָא דְרִבִּי מֵאִיר בְּשִׁיטַת רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה רַבּוֹ. כְּמוֹ דְּרִבִי עֲקִיבָה אָמַר לַח וְיָבֵשׁ שְׁנֵי מִינִין כֵּן רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר לַח וְיָבֵשׁ שְׁנֵי מִינִין. אָֽמְרֵי חֲבֵרָייָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְלָמָּה לִי כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אֲפִילוּ כְּרִבָּנִין דְּתַנֵּינָן תַּמָּן הַמַחֲלִיק בְּצָלִין לַחִים לְשׁוּק וּמְקַייֵם יְבֵישִׁין לְגוֹרֶן אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי שְׁמָעִנָן שׁוּק וְגוֹרֶן שְׁנֵי מִינִין. לַח וְיָבֵשׁ שְׁנֵי מִינִין. חֶצְיוֹ לַח וְחֶצְיוֹ יָבֵשׁ אוּף רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה מוֹדֶה. וְהָתַנֵּינָן מוֹדִין חֲכָמִים לְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה בְּזוֹרֵעַ שֶׁבֶת אוֹ חַרְדָּל בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת. כֵּינִי שֶׁבֶת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת חַרְדָּל בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁבָּהֶן מַמְתִּין לָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁבָּהֶן. רִבִי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לִיזָרַע עֲרוּגוֹת עֲרוּגוֹת. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאָל מַפְרִישׁ מִכָּל־קֶלַח וְקֶלַח. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מַפְרִישׁ מִכָּל־עֲרוּגָה וַעֲרוּגָה. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya26The tradents are R. Abba bar R. Ḥiyya bar Abba and his father. in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “Rebbi Meïr follows the argument of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba says that moist and dry are two different kinds, so Rebbi Meïr27Who in Mishnah 2:1 asserted that if somebody cuts part of his grain green for fodder and part of it dry for grain he has to give peah twice. says that moist and dry are two different kinds.” The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose: Why should he argue like Rebbi Aqiba? He could argue even like the Rabbis since we have stated there (Mishnah 3:3): “He who rips out28See the lexical explanation in the next Mishnah. moist onions for the market and keeps dry ones for storage29He has to give peah twice.!” Rebbi Yose answered: We understand that market and storage make two kinds, are moist and dry two kinds30Hence, R. Meïr agrees with R. Aqiba, not with the other Sages.?
שְׁנֵי מִינִין חֶצְיוֹ לַח וְחֶצְיוֹ יָבֵשׁ אוּף רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה מוֹדֶה. וְהָתַנֵּינָן מוֹדִין חֲכָמִים לְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה בְּזוֹרֵעַ שֶׁבֶת אוֹ חַרְדָּל בִּשְׁלֹשֶׁת מְקוֹמוֹת. כֵּינִי שֶׁבֶת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת חַרְדָּל בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁבָּהֶן מַמְתִּין לָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁבָּהֶן. רִבִי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לִיזָרַע עֲרוּגוֹת עֲרוּגוֹת. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאָל מַפְרִישׁ מִכָּל־קֶלַח וְקֶלַח. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מַפְרִישׁ מִכָּל־עֲרוּגָה וַעֲרוּגָה. Two kinds, half moist and half dry, even Rebbi Aqiba will agree31If a connected part of the field is already dry and ready for harvesting, even R. Aqiba will agree that then the harvest is the start of the harvest of the entire field and only one peah is due. This argument cannot apply to spot cutting.. But did we not state32Mishnah 3:2: “The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba that he who sows dill and mustard at three different places33He gives peah for each part separately. …” It is so34The Yerushalmi expression כיני is discussed at length in J. N. Epstein, Mavo lenosaḥ hammišnah, 2nd ed., Jerusalem 1964, pp. 441–508.: Either dill at three places or mustard at three places35Even though both the Mishnah and its quote in the Halakhah read “or”, it seems that the argument refers to the reading “dill and mustard” found in the Parma and one of the Genizah manuscripts of the Mishnah. It is explained that any one kind of spice triggers the special rule of peah for spice beds.. Samuel says, because the first one does not wait for the last one36Dill and mustard are special in that they cannot be harvested at one time. If they did not fall under the general category of legumes there would be no obligation of peah at all. Hence, Samuel restricts the meaning of the Mishnah to dill and mustard only; these kinds are mentioned for themselves and not as paradigms.. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because they usually are being sown bed by bed37Spices are grown in small quantities. Hence, each bed is a separate field. For R. Johanan, dill and mustard are given as paradigms; the rule of the Mishnah applies to all spices.. According to Samuel, he has to give from each stalk38This is almost impossible and implies a rejection of Samuel’s argument.; according to Rebbi Joḥanan he has to give from each bed.