Jerusalem Talmud Peah 3:4

משנה: הָאַחִים שֶׁחָֽלְקוּ נוֹתְנִין שְׁתֵּי פֵיאוֹת. חָֽזְרוּ וְנִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ נוֹתְנִין פֵּיאָה אַחַת. שְׁנַיִם שֶׁלָּֽקְחוּ אֶת הֵאִילָן נוֹתְנִין פֵּיאָה אַחַת. לָקַח זֶה צְפוֹנוֹ וְזֶה דְרוֹמוֹ זֶה נוֹתֵן פֵּיאָה לְעַצְמוֹ וְזֶה נוֹתֵן פֵּיאָה לְעַצְמוֹ. MISHNAH: Brothers who split⁷⁸The inheritance. [Since an unspecified plural has a minimum of 2 but no maximum, such a plural in legal texts always means “2”. The text should read: Two brothers who divided up an inheritance give two peot.] give two peot. When they later form a cooperative, they give one peah⁷⁹The Babylonian Talmud (Ḥulin135b) notes that Lev. 19:9 reads: “When you (plural) harvest the harvest of your (plural) land, do not finish to cut the corner of your (singular) field.” This is taken to mean that peah is due from the owner, individual or collective [but not, as pointed out by Sifra Qedošim 1(11), if not all shareholders in the collective are Jews.]. Two people who together bought a tree give one peah. If one bought the North side and the other the South side, each gives peah for himself⁸⁰Even though the care for the tree must necessarily be a common endeavor, only the property relationship matters..

הלכה: קָצַר חֲצִי שָׂדֶה בְשוּתְפוּת וְחָֽלְקוּ אֵינוֹ מַפְרִישׁ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ לֹא בִתְחִילָּה וְלֹא בְסוֹף. חָֽזְרוּ וְחָֽלְקוּ וְנִשְתַּתְּפוּ וְקָֽצְרוּ חֲצִי שָׂדֶה בְשׁוּתְפוּת וְחָֽלְקוּ מַפְרִישׁ שֶׁבְּסוֹף עַל חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁבְּסוֹף. אֲבָל לֹא מִשֶׁלּוֹ שֶׁבִּתְחִילָּה עַל חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁבִּתְחִילָּה. HALAKHAH: ⁸¹In the Venice print, this sentence belongs to the previous Halakhah. It is the consensus of all commentators that it belongs to Halakhah 5. If he harvested half a field in company [with his brother] and then they split up, he⁸²According to Maimonides (Mattenot Aniïm 2:16), the entire sentence speaks about a man who took the harvested grain as his part and left the standing grain to his brother. He does not have to give peah for his part since the obligation rests on the standing grain and, if his brother would have cut the rest of the field without leaving peah, he cannot be asked to contribute to the peah that now has to be given from cut grain since he had no ownership rights at the time the last grain was cut. does not give from his own part either for the initial harvest or for the final one. When they changed their minds and after splitting formed a company and harvested half a field, and then separated again, he can give from his part at the end for his partner’s part at the end⁸³Since his part is simply his part in the company proceeds, all he gives originally was company property., but not from his part at the start for his partner’s part at the start⁸⁴When each of them was a separate owner of half a field, since giving peah cannot cross ownership lines..

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן קָצַר חֲצִי שָׂדֶה וְקָצַר חֲצִי חֶצְייָהּ וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לִקְצוֹר אֶת הַשְּׁאָר עַד שֶׁקָּצַר כּוּלָּהּ מַפְרִישׁ מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן עַל הָאֶמצָעִייִן וּמִן הָאֶמצָעִייִן עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן. וְאֵינוֹ מַפְרִישׁ מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי הָֽיְתָה לוֹ שָׂדֶה אַחַת חֶצְייָהּ הֵבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ וְחֶצְייָהּ לֹא הֵבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ וְלא הִסְפִּיק לִקְצוֹר חֲצִי חֶצְייָהּ עַד שֶׁהֵבִיאָה כוּלָּהּ שְׁלִישׁ מַפְרִיש מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן עַל הָאֶמצָעִייִם וּמִן הָאֶמצָעִייִם עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן וְאֵינוֹ מַפְרִישׁ מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן. Rebbi Joḥanan said: If he wanted to cut half of his field and actually cut⁸⁵As explained in Halakhah 1:1, the obligation of peah starts with the first cut. But since at that point he intended only to cut half of his field, the second part has to be considered a separate field and, therefore, the obligation falls only on the first part of the field. half of this half, but when he came to cut the other half he finished off his entire field, then he may give from the first cut on the intermediate ones⁸⁶I. e., the remainder of the first part that was not harvested the first time. and from the intermediate ones on the first but not from the first⁸⁷The first cutting of the first part of the field. on the first⁸⁸The first cutting of the second part of the field, that now represents a new field.. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: If he had a field where half of it was one third ripe⁸⁹Grain that is less than one third ripe is not grain in any commercial sense. Once it is one-third ripe it may be used either for animal feed or for human consumption as Grünkern. If he now has the intention of harvesting his field when it is one-third ripe, it is as if the field were divided into two fields. The explanation of this sentence is then completely parallel to that of the preceding statement of R. Joḥanan., the other half was not yet one third ripe, and by the time he finished harvesting half of the first half, the entire field also was one third ripe, he gives from the first cut on the intermediate ones and from the intermediate ones on the first⁹⁰Maimonides (Mattenot Aniïm 2:17) reads: “And from the intermediate ones on the first and the last”. He seems to argue that the first split was by nature, not by the farmer’s design; a change in nature changes the status and at the time of the second harvest the field was counted as one again. But the first cut of the first part cannot be used to free those parts of the field that were not yet a crop at the time of cutting. Since R. Abraham ben David does not disagree, both must have read “and the last” in the text of the Yerushalmi. but not from the first on the first.