משנה: מִי שֶׁלִּיקֵּט פֵּיאָה וְאָמַר הֲרֵי זוּ לְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי עָנִי רִבִּי לִעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר זָכָה לוֹ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים יִתְּנֶנָּהּ לְעָנִי הַנִּמְצָא רִאשׁוֹן. הַלֶּקֶט וְהַשִּׁכְחָה וְהַפֵּיאָה שֶׁל נָכְרִי חַייָב בְּמַעֲשֵׂר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִבְקִיר. MISHNAH: He96The owner of the field. who collected peah and said: “This is for X, the poor man,” Rebbi Eliezer says, he made him acquire it; but the Sages say, he should give it to the first poor person he meets. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah of a Non-Jew97From the language of the Mishnah it is not clear whether this is from a field (in the Land of Israel) belonging to a Non-Jew, or whether these are gleanings from the field of a Jew collected by a Non-Jew and given to a poor Jew. The first possibility is preferred by the Yerushalmi, the second by the Gittin.47a">Babli (Giṭṭin 47a). Regularly collected peah, gleanings, and forgotten sheaves are exempt from heave and tithes. are obligated for tithes, except if the Non-Jew declared it to be abandoned property.
הלכה: רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אוֹמֵר בְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת עָשִׁיר נֶחְלְקוּ. אֲבָל בְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת עָנִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לִיטוֹל זָכָה. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joshua ben Levi says: They disagree about a rich owner98Since he may not take peah for himself, he may not take it for others. The Babli (Baba Meẓi‘a 9b) explains that R. Eliezer disagrees: since everybody can make himself poor by giving away all his property, he is a potential receiver of charity and may collect, but he may not keep it as long as he is not poor.. But a poor owner, since he has the right to take it99For himself; he may acquire it legally even according to the Sages. That the poor farmer may not keep his own peah is a rabbinic institution that does not influence the status of the peah taken by any poor person., the other person acquired it.
אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא רִבִי לָֽעְזָר לַחֲבֵירוֹ וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי שְׁלָשְׁתָּן אָֽמְרוּ דָבָר אֶחָד. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר דְּאָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אָדָם זָכָה לַחֲבֵירוֹ בִמְצִיאָה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּתַנֵּינָן תַּמָּן מְצִיאַת בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ הַקְּטַנִּים עַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הַכְּנַעֲנִים מְצִיאַת אִשְׁתּוֹ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ. מְצִיאַת בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ הַגְּדוֹלִים וְעַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הָעִבְרִים מְצִיאַת אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁגִּירְשָׁהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן לָהּ כְּתוּבָתָהּ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלָּהֶן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בִּשְׁאֵינָן טְפוּלִין. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ טְפוּלִין לַאֲבִיהֶן מְצִיאָתָן שֶׁלּוֹ. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי דְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר בְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת עָשִׁיר נֶחְלְקוּ. אֲבָל בְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת עָנִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לִיטוֹל זָכָה. Rebbi Zeïra said: Rebbi Eleazar100The Amora. (about one’s friend), Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said the same thing. Rebbi Eleazar, as Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: A man may acquire a find for his friend101If a man finds abandoned or lost property, he may pick it up to acquire it for another person. This essentially is giving a gift of something that is not his property while it was lying in the street, and he picked it up with the intention of not acquiring it himself. It is enough that he could have picked it up for himself to empower him to give it directly to the beneficiary. This is the exact parallel to the poor farmer collecting peah, not to give later to somebody else, but so that the other should be the immediate owner of every collected stalk. [Later in this Halakhah and in the Babli (Baba Meẓi‘a 10a), this appears as a statement of R. Joḥanan. Since a statement X in the name of Y usually means that X did not hear the statement directly from Y, it is to be assumed that R. Zeïra heard the statement of R. Eleazar in the yeshivah of R. Joḥanan.]. Rebbi Joḥanan, as we have stated there (Mishnah Baba Meẓiah 1:5): “The finds of his minor sons and daughters102They have no independent legal status but can act for their father. The same holds for slaves and their master., of his Gentile slaves and slave girls, and of his wife103It is a rabbinic ordinance that the wife’s finds and earnings belong to the husband, in exchange for his obligation to totally support his wife. If the wife is an earner, that clause may be abrogated by mutual consent., belong to him. The finds of his adult sons and daughters104Who are legal persons in their own right., of his Jewish slaves and slave girls105They are not really slaves but indentured servants for at most 6 years and do not lose their legal status. (The institution of Jewish slavery ended with the deportation of the first of the 10 tribes, since it was valid only as long as the distribution of land under Joshua was in force.), and of his divorced wife in case that he had not yet paid her ketubah106Cf. Peah 3:7:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.3.7.1">Chapter 3, Note 151. As long as the ketubah is not paid, the ex-husband has to support his ex-wife, but her earnings and finds are hers to keep., belong to them. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if they107The adult children. If they live in the father’s house and are supported by him, their earnings go to the father. Hence, if they find something, it is automatically assumed that they acquire the found property for their father. are not dependents. But if they are dependent on their father, their finds belong to him. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, as Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: They disagree about a rich owner. But if the owner is poor, since he has the right to take it, the other person acquired it.
תַּנִּי הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל לַעֲשׂוֹת עִמּוֹ בְּכָל־מְלָאכָה מְצִיאָה שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּעֵי רָצָה לַחְזוֹר חוֹזֵר בּוֹ. וְאַתְּ אָמַר מְצִיאָה שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא אָמַר רִבִּי יָסָא מַקְשֵׁי מַה צוּרְכָה לְהַהִיא דְאָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ וְלָא נָן שְׁמִיעַ דָּמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא אִיתְפַּלְּגוּן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר אָדָם זוֹכֶה לַחֲבֵירוֹ בִמְצִיאָה. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר אֵין אָדָם זוֹכֶה לַחֲבֵירוֹ בִמְצִיאָה. It was stated: If one hires a worker to do all kinds of work108The duties are not specified. If the worker is hired for a specific kind of work, e. g., for ploughing, the find belongs to the worker (Babli Baba Meẓi‘a 10a, 12b, 118a). for him, the worker’s findings belong to his employer. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked: If he wants to quit, he may quit109In the Yerushalmi, this is a statement of R. Joḥanan (Bava Metzia 6:2:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bava_Metzia.6.2.2">Baba Meẓi‘a6:2); there Rav is of the opinion that in a hiring contract both parties may dissolve the relationship without notice (but the party that changes the contract is liable for damages arising for the other party.) In the Babli (Baba Meẓi‘a10a), Rav states that a worker can quit without notice since it is written (Leviticus.25.42">Lev. 25:42): “(The Children of Israel) are My slaves,” and not slaves of slaves. Hence, any contract that restricts the ability of the worker to leave his place of work is invalid.; and you say that the find belongs to the employer110If the findings are worth more than the daily wages, the finder could simply quit his job before picking up the find and then the employer would have no rights.? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa111Since R. Jacob bar Aḥa quotes himself in our text, his name here seems to be a scribal error. said that Rebbi Yasa asked, why do we need that of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, did we not understand that Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree? Rebbi Joḥanan said, a man may acquire a find for his friend. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a man cannot acquire a find for his friend112R. Simeon ben Laqish has no need for his objection since, for him, the question does not arise at all. In the Babli (loc. cit.), the objection to R. Joḥanan’s rule is raised and answered, that as long as the journeyman does not quit, all he does that day is to the employer’s benefit..
רִבִּי רְדִיפָה אִיתְפַּלְּגוּן רִבִּי יוֹנָה וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. חַד אָמַר הָרָאוּי לִיטּוֹל זָכָה. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר הָרָאוּי לִיתֵּן זָכָה. מָן דָּמַר הָרָאוּי לִיטּוֹל כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן לִיתֵּן. מָאן דָּמַר הָרָאוּי לִיתֵּן הָא לִיטּוֹל לֹא. Rebbi Redifa113An Amora of the last generation of Galilean Amoraïm who collected sayings of the Sages of the preceding generation.: Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose disagree. One says, he who may take may acquire114He who may take for himself may acquire for another person without first taking possession himself.; the other says, he who may give may acquire115He who may distribute property may acquire for a third person directly since he could acquire and then give it away.. He who says “he who may take” certainly includes him who may give. He who says “he who may give,” excludes him who may take.
מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל מָאן דְּאָמַר הָרָאוּי לִיטּוֹל זָכָה דְּתַנֵּינָן תֵּן גֶּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי שֶׁכֵּן רָאוּי לְקַבֵּל גֶּט בִּתּוֹ. וּשְׁטָר שִׁיחְרוּר זֶה לְעַבְדִּי שֶׁכֵּן הוּא רָאוּי לְקַבֵּל שְׁטָר שִׁחְרוּרוֹ. וְתַנֵּינָן הִתְקַבֵּל גֶּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי אוֹ הוֹלֵךְ גֶּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי אִם רָצָה לְהַחֲזִיר לֹא יַחֲזִיר. וְהָעֶבֶד רָאוּי הוּא לְהוֹלִיךְ אֶת הִגֶּט. פָּתַר לָהּ לִצְדָדִין. A Mishnah disagrees with him who says that he who may take may acquire, since we have stated116Gittin 1:5:2-9" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.1.5.2-9">Giṭṭin 1:6. This paragraph is elliptic and almost incomprehensible. The Mishnah reads: “If someone says, give this divorce document to my wife or this document of manumission to my slave, and then wants to change his mind in either case, he may do so in the opinion of R. Meïr. But the Sages say, in the case of a wife, but not in the manumission of slaves since one may favor a person without his knowledge.” Since the divorce is considered bad for the wife, it can become valid only with her knowledge. R. Meïr thinks that manumission also may be bad for the slave who will have to accept all duties of a free Jew; the Sages consider manumission always to be good. With the wife’s knowledge, however, the emissary, a man, can acquire the divorce document for her. But as a man, he is not in a position ever to receive a divorce document.: “Give this divorce document to my wife …,” because he may receive the divorce document of his minor daughter117The minor daughter who was formally betrothed (קידושין) but not yet actually married, can become free to marry another man only by divorce. The bill of divorce must be accepted by her father, or by herself on the instruction of the father, since she becomes of age only by actual marriage. Hence, a man, while he cannot receive the document in question, is in theory able to receive some bills of divorce.. “And the document of manumission to my slave …,” since he may receive his own document of manumission118We have to assume that the emissary is a fellow slave who could receive his own manumission.. But did we not state119Gittin 6:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.6.1.1">Mishnah Giṭṭin 6:1: “If someone says: Receive this divorce document for my wife, or convey this divorce document to my wife, and wants to change his mind, he may do so. If the woman said: Receive the divorce document for me, if he {the husband} wants to change his mind {after handing over the document}, he may not do so {since the transaction was done with the wife’s knowledge.}” That is the case if the emissary of the wife is a free man; she is divorced the moment the document comes into her emissary’s hand. But since a slave has no “hand” in the legal sense, how can this Mishnah be reconciled with the one quoted first?: “Receive this divorce document for my wife or bring this divorce document to my wife; if he wants to change his mind … he may not do so.” Is a slave empowered to bring a divorce document? Explain it by different cases117The minor daughter who was formally betrothed (קידושין) but not yet actually married, can become free to marry another man only by divorce. The bill of divorce must be accepted by her father, or by herself on the instruction of the father, since she becomes of age only by actual marriage. Hence, a man, while he cannot receive the document in question, is in theory able to receive some bills of divorce..
הָא מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל מָאן דְּאָמַר הָרָאוּי לִיטּוֹל זָכָה דְּתַנֵּינָן תַּמָּן עִישּׂוּר אֶחָד שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לִמוֹד נָתוּן לַעֲקִיבָה בֶּן יוֹסֵף שֶׁיִּזְכֶּה בוֹ לָעֲנִייִם וּמְקוֹמוֹ מוּשְׂכָּר לוֹ. וְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה רָאוּי הוּא לִיטּוֹל. פָּתַר לָהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֶעֱשִׁיר. וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימָא מִשֶּׁהֶעֱשִׁיר תִּיפְתָּר בְּשֶׁהָיָה פַּרְנָס וְיַד הַפַּרְנָס כְּיַד הֶעָנִי. The following Mishnah disagrees with him who says that he who may take may acquire, since we have stated there122Maäser Šeni 5:9. The Mishnah discusses the case of a man who was away on a trip at the time (Passover Eve) when the tithes must be given. Rabban Gamliel, Rebbi Joshua, Rebbi Aqiba, and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah were travelling on a ship on that day (probably to or from Rome on official business) when Rabban Gamliel designated the first tithe to Rebbi Joshua, a Levite, and the tithe of the poor to Rebbi Aqiba. In order not to transgress the Biblical command of distributing the tithes, Rebbi Aqiba must have been able to let the poor acquire their tithe while on the ship.: “One tithe that I will measure in the future is given to Aqiba ben Joseph that he should let the poor acquire it, and its place is rented to him.” But is Rebbi Aqiba entitled to take? Explain it, before he got rich123When he was a student, his wife supported him because she wanted him to become a scholar. But because he was poor, his very rich father-in-law disowned them.. And even if you say, after he became rich124This is the more likely scenario because in this setting he already was one of the most prominent rabbis., when he was an administrator125Of the public charity funds. Cf. Greek πρόνοος, ον adj., “careful, prudent”; also late form προνοητής, οῦ, ὁ, “supervisor, administrator” (E. G.)., and the hand of the administrator is equal to the hand of the poor.
מִילְתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי הָרָאוּי לִיטּוֹל זָכָה. דְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר בְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת עָשִׁיר מַחְלוֹקֶת. אֲבָל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת עָנִי מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁרָאוּי לִיטוֹל זָכָה. The word of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi is that he who may take may acquire, since Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: They disagree about a rich owner. But in the case of a poor owner, since he has the right to take it, the other person acquired it.
רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר יֵשׁ קִנְייָן לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְפוֹטְרוֹ מִן הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת. בְּרַם כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר אֵין קִנְייָן לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְפוֹטְרוֹ מִן הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת אֲפִילוּ הִבְקִירוֹ חַייָב. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר אֵין קִנְייָן לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְפוֹטְרוֹ מִן הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת. בְּרַם כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר יֵשׁ קִנְייָן לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְפוֹטְרוֹ מִן הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת קַל הֵיקִילוּ חֲכָמִים בְּלִיקּוּטִין. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jeremiah, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan127Here starts the discussion of the last part of the Mishnah: Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah of a Gentile are obligated for tithes, except if the Gentile declared it to be abandoned property.: 128Add: “The Mishnah is only understandable …” According to him129The opinions of R. Jehudah and R. Simeon in Demaï 3:4, 5:9. The opposite opinion in Demaï 5:9 (fol. 24d), Kilaïm 7:4 (fol. 30d) and in the Gittin.47a">Babli, Giṭṭin 47a, is attributed to R. Meïr. The Yerushalmi clearly accepts the opinion of RR. Jedudah and Simeon. Cf. also Demay, Chapter 5, Note 102. who says that a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes130It is explained in Demaï(loc. cit.) and elsewhere that the Biblical duties of heave and tithes ceased with the Babylonian exile. The returnees from Babylonia took these duties upon themselves and future generations in a solemn covenant with God (Nehemiah.10.1">Neh. 10:1) in those regions (Judea, the Southern Plains, Galilee, and Golan Heights) settled by the returnees; hence the problem is not one of Biblical precepts but of the meaning of this covenant. According to the position taken here, the obligation of peah, gleanings, and forgotten sheaves is a later Rabbinic obligation on the land as far as Jews are concerned (Demaï 3:4, fol. 23d). Since the Gentile has no obligation to give to the poor, he cannot designate anything under these names. But since he is the owner, he may legally abandon the produce just as a Jew might abandon it.. But according to him who says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes, even if he declared it abandoned property it is obligated131According to R. Meīr, the obligation is on the Land, not on the owner. If the agricultural real estate is owned by a Gentile, the obligation obviously cannot be enforced since the Gentile has no obligation to abide by the covenant. However, if the produce is then bought by a Jew, it will be a deadly sin for him to consume anything from it before he has given the heave and, at least, the priest’s part of the tithe. The only exception is abandoned property (by Mishnah 6:1, this must be abandoned to any taker, not just the poor.) Now, peah, gleanings, and forgotten sheaves also are free of heave and tithes but these can be given only by persons obligated to give. Hence, peah, gleanings, and forgotten sheaves designated by Gentiles do not have the legal status of peah, gleanings, and forgotten sheaves, and are not exempt; neither does abandoning the property help since nothing the Gentile does can possibly influence the duties upon the produce.. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan132Note that “in the name of” always implies an indirect transmission of statements; it might be that R. Jeremiah deals only with the statement about abandoned property and R. Yose with that about peah, gleanings, and forgotten sheaves.: 128Add: “The Mishnah is only understandable …” According to him who says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes133The obligation of peah, gleanings, and forgotten sheaves is on the Land and is activated as soon as the produce comes into Jewish hands. R. Yose is of the opinion that the Gentile owner still may legally abandon the produce.. But according to him who says that a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes, the Sages decreed special leniency for gleanings134If the Gentile designated some produce as peah, or left gleanings on the field, he clearly abandoned this to the poor. The general rule is that abandoned property must be abandoned to rich and poor alike (Mishnah 6:1), but in the case before us the rabbis made an exception; it is the leniency mentioned here. This is part of Nehemiah’s covenant; such a leniency would be impossible for a Biblical obligation..
רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר שָׁאַל וְאֵין לוֹ קִנְייַן נְכָסִים. לָא עַל הָדָא אִיתְאֲמָרָת אֶלָּא עַל הָדָא. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר יֵשׁ קִנְייָן לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְפוֹטְרוֹ מִן הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת. בְּרַם כְּמָאן דָּמַר אֵין קִנְייָן לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְפוֹטְרוֹ מִן הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת עֲלֵיהּ רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר שְׁאִיל וְאֵין לוֹ קִנְייַן נְכָסִים. רִבִּי חֲנִינָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי פִינְחָס אַף קַדְמִייָתָא עַל דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי מַקְשִׁי דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר אֵין קִנְייָן לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְפוֹטְרוֹ מִן הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת. בְּרַם כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר יֵשׁ קִנְייָן לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְפוֹטְרוֹ מִן הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת עֲלֵיהּ רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר שְׁאַל וְאֵין לוֹ קִנְייַן נְכָסִים. Rebbi Eleazar135As student and colleague of R. Joḥanan, he certainly cannot quarrel with Rebbis Ḥizqiah and Ḥanina, but he must question R. Joḥanan directly. In the first version, one accepts only the statement of R. Ḥizqiah as authoritative; in the second version, one accepts both statements of R. Joḥanan as genuine but referring to different parts of the Mishnah, as explained above. asked, does he not acquire movables? Not on the last statement this was asked, but on the following: Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jeremiah, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: According to him who says that a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes. But according to him who says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes, on this Rebbi Eleazar asked, does he not acquire movables136It cannot be said that even abandoned property is subject to tithes since everybody agrees that the yield of the Land legally belongs to the Gentile owner and his declaration of abandoned property is unquestionably valid in Jewish law.? Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Phineas, also on the preceding one, on that of Rebbi Yose he asked: Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: According to him who says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes. But according to him who says that a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes, on this Rebbi Eleazar asked, does he not acquire movables137Since the produce belongs to the Gentile according to everybody (Demaï5:9), even for R. Meïr, and certainly for RR. Jehudah and Simeon, there cannot be an obligation for heave and tithes on any peah, against the statement in the Mishnah. Since the question is not answered, R. Eleazar’s position is accepted.?