לאחר נפילת ברקאי במבצע "צוק איתן" בחרנו, חבריו של ברקאי, להקים את בית המדרש החברתי. הפועל בסיוע של עמותת כל ישראל חברים (כי"ח).
בית המדרש מגלם את הערכים בהם האמין ברקאי ואשר לאורם פעל בדבקות – חיבור בין קבוצות שונות בחברה הישראלית, שיח מכבד במאור פנים ובאהבה, לימוד תורה ועשייה חברתית. ערכים אלו באו לידי ביטוי באופן משמעותי בכל בחירה ומעשה של ברקאי.
כל מפגש החל בלימוד משותף של דף מקורות ולאחריו שיעור. דף המקורות שלפניכם מוקדש ללימוד על רווחה, מדינה ומה שביניהם.

איזו מחאה- יוני רועה ואלי לוזון, מתוך השיר "איזו מדינה"
אנשים בוכים, מחירים עולים.
לשלם מיסים וגם קופת חולים.
אין כבר עבודה, הקופה ריקה,
אין ממה לחיות, סגרו את הלשכה.
בכנסת הם יושבים, עלינו הם עובדים,
לקחו החסכונות, הלכו הפיצויים.
לנו כבר נמאס, דפקו לנו עוד קנס.
גם על החלב הוסיפו את המס.
איזו מדינה, איזו מדינה
איזו מדינה מיוחדת במינה
ממשלה דורשת, כסף מבקשת.
איזו מדינה, איזו מדינה.
מתוך דו"ח הוועדה לשינוי כלכלי חברתי (ועדת טרכטנברג), עמ' 57
“העם דורש צדק חברתי"! זו הסיסמא שנשאה ע"י אלפים ורבבות בחוצות ערי ישראל, והפכה לסמל מחאת האוהלים (...) מימוש של צדק חברתי דורש מחויבות מפורשת, אסטרטגיה מושכלת ופעולה נמרצת של המדינה. אך מעבר לכך, שגשוגה של החברה בישראל תלוי בקיומו של מכנה משותף ערכי רחב בין כל חלקיה (...) גם במשק כה חשוף לכוחות שוק גלובליים, לממשלה השפעה עצומה על הנעשה בו (...) בבואנו לנתח את מקור המצוקות ולגבש לאורן המלצות לשינוי, המיקוד הנו מן הסתם על אחריות הממשלה, ועל מה שהיא יכולה לעשות על מנת לחולל את השינוי הרצוי – על היתר אנו לא שולטים.
שאלות העמקה
"ממשלה דורשת, כסף מבקשת" – האם הביקורת של השיר היא על כך שהממשלה לוקחת כסף מהאזרחים, או על זה שהיא לא משתמשת בו לטובתם?
מה כותב השיר מצפה שהמדינה תעשה עבורו?
ממי העם דורש "צדק חברתי"? מדוע הדרישה היא דווקא כלפיו?
(א) הַקּוֹצֵר אֶת שָׂדֵהוּ לֹא יִקְצֹר אֶת כָּל הַשָּׂדֶה כֻּלָּהּ אֶלָּא יַנִּיחַ מְעַט קָמָה לָעֲנִיִּים בְּסוֹף הַשָּׂדֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כג כב) "לֹא תְכַלֶּה פְּאַת שָׂדְךָ בְּקֻצְרֶךָ" אֶחָד הַקּוֹצֵר וְאֶחָד הַתּוֹלֵשׁ. וְזֶה שֶׁמַּנִּיחַ הוּא הַנִּקְרָא פֵּאָה:
(ב) וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁמַּנִּיחַ בַּשָּׂדֶה כָּךְ בָּאִילָנוֹת כְּשֶׁאוֹסֵף אֶת פֵּרוֹתֵיהֶן מַנִּיחַ מְעַט לָעֲנִיִּים. עָבַר וְקָצַר אֶת כָּל הַשָּׂדֶה אוֹ אָסַף כָּל פֵּרוֹת הָאִילָן לוֹקֵחַ מְעַט מִמַּה שֶּׁקָּצַר אוֹ מִמַּה שֶּׁאָסַף וְנוֹתְנוֹ לָעֲנִיִּים שֶׁנְּתִינָתוֹ מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כג כב) "לֶעָנִי וְלַגֵּר תַּעֲזֹב אֹתָם". וַאֲפִלּוּ טָחַן הַקָּמָה וְלָשׁוֹ וַאֲפָאוֹ פַּת הֲרֵי זֶה נוֹתֵן מִמֶּנּוּ פֵּאָה לָעֲנִיִּים:
(ג) אָבַד כָּל הַקָּצִיר שֶׁקָּצַר אוֹ נִשְׂרַף קֹדֶם שֶׁנָּתַן הַפֵּאָה הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֶה. שֶׁהֲרֵי עָבַר עַל מִצְוַת לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְקַיֵּם עֲשֵׂה שֶׁבָּהּ שֶׁנִּתָּק לוֹ:
(1) One who reaps his field should not reap the whole field entirely but rather he should leave a little bit of standing grain for the poor at the edge of the field, as it is written, (Lev. 23:22) You shall not reap all the way to the edges of the field. It is the same whether one is reaping [with a tool] or plucking [by hand], and that which is left is what Scripture refers to as péah [the "edge"].
(2) Just as one must leave [some standing crops] in the field, so too when one gathers the fruit of trees, one should leave a little for the poor. If he does transgress [the negative mitzvah against harvesting one's field completely] and reaps all the field or gathers all the trees' fruit, he should take a little from what he reaped or gathered and give it to the poor, for giving it is a positive mitzvah [divine commandment], as it is said, (Lev. 23:22) You shall leave them for the poor and the stranger. Even if the standing grain is ground, kneaded, and baked into bread, the one who gives from it is considered to have given péah to the poor.
(3) If all of his produce that he reaped was destroyed or burned before he gave péah, he deserves punishment [with lashes], for he has transgressed a negative mitzvah and cannot fulfill the positive one [to rectify the situation] for the opportunity has been taken from him.
(4) And so it is with leket [overlooked gleanings] as one reaps and binds, one may not gather the fallen stalks at the time of reaping, but rather one should leave them for the poor, as it is said, (Lev. 23:22) Or gather the gleanings of your harvest. If one transgresses [the negative mitzvah against reaping one's field completely] and reaped them and even kneaded and baked them, one should give them to the poor, as it is said, (Lev. 23:22) You shall leave them for the poor and the stranger. If it is destroyed or burned after one has gleaned but before one has given to the poor, one deserves punishment.
(5) And so it is with peret [separated fruit] that fell from the vine at the time of harvesting and with olélot [malformed grape clusters], as it is said, (Lev. 19:10) You shall not pick your vineyard bare [te'olél] or gather the fallen fruit [uferet] of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger. So also with one who stacks sheaves and has forgotten a sheaf in the field. This person may not recover it, as it is said, (Deut. 24:19) And overlook a sheaf in the field, do not turn back to get it. If one does transgress [the negative mitzvah against picking up a forgotten sheaf] and gleans and even grinds and bakes, this one still must give to the poor, as it is said, (Deut. 24:19) It shall go to the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow. This is a positive mitzvah. Thus you learn that all these mitzvot are negative which are transformed into positive mitzvot, and if one does not fulfill a positive mitzvah, one deserves punishment.
(6) Just as it is with forgotten sheaves [shikhecha, the "forgotten"], so it is with standing grain. If one has forgotten a portion of standing grain, one may not harvest it. It is for the poor. And just as with forgotten produce and their products, so also with forgotten fruit of trees altogether, as it is said, (Deut. 24:20) When you beat down the fruit of your olive trees, do not go over them again. So it applies to all other types of trees.
(7) Thus we have learned of four gifts to the poor concerning the vineyard: peret [the "separated fruit"], olélot [the "malformed grape clusters"], péah [the "edge"], and shikhecha [the "forgotten"]. [We learned] three gifts concerning produce: leket [the "overlooked gleanings"], shikhecha, and péah. And [we learned] two concerning trees: shikhecha and péah.
(8) With regard to all of these gifts to the poor, owners may not derive any benefit from them, but rather the poor come and take them regardless of the owner's wishes. Even if he [the farmer] is one of the poor of Israel, they take them from his possession.
(9) Any "stranger" that is mentioned [in Scripture] with regards to the gifts for the poor can only refer to a convert, for it states regarding ma'asér sheni [the second tithe], (Deut. 14:29) Then the Levite...and the stranger...shall come. Just as a Levite is a member of the covenant, so also the stranger is a member of the covenant. Nevertheless, we do not prevent the poor of the Gentiles from these gifts. Rather, they may come along with the poor of Israel and take them for the sake of peaceful relations.
(10) It is mentioned regarding gifts for the poor, (Lev. 19:10, 23:22) You shall leave them for the poor and the stranger, [that is to say] each time the poor have a claim on them [these gifts], when they have ceased to desire and return after them, the remainder is permitted to anyone, for it is not in and of itself sanctified like gift-offerings [which belong only to the Temple in Jerusalem]. Nor is one obligated to give their value's worth, for it does not say, "give them to the poor" but rather you shall leave them [for the poor]. It is not a mitzvah to leave them for wild animals and birds but rather for the poor, and these [animals] are not "the poor" [but rather they should be used by people]. "
(11) When can anyone take leket? When the [poor] gleaners come [into the field] a second time and gather after the first group of [poor] gleaners and then depart. When can anyone take peret and olélot? When the poor have come into the vineyard and gone, what remains after them is permitted to anyone. When can anyone take forgotten olives? In the Land of Israel, if one forgot it [the olive produce] from the top of the olive tree, this is permitted from the first of the month of Kislev, for it is the time of the second rainfall, late in the season. But olives that are left piled up, forgotten under a tree, are permitted [to anyone] as soon as the poor cease from going through them.
(12) Any time that the poor person can take forgotten olives that were left on the ground under the tree, he [the poor person] may take them [that is, it does not depend on the time of the season], even after the time when anyone is permitted to take what was forgotten at the top of the tree. Any time he [anyone] can take forgotten olives that were left on the top of the tree [that is, beginning in Kislev], he may take them, even though he still may not take the forgotten olives from beneath the tree that the poor have not yet ceased to go through].
(13) The gifts for the poor that are in the field of which the poor have not claimed belong to the owner, even if the poor have not ceased from going through their gifts.
(14) All of these gifts for the poor as they are in the Torah only apply to the Land of Israel, like gift offerings and tithes. Thus Scripture says, (Lev. 19:9, 23:22) When you reap the harvest of your land, [and] (Deut. 24:19) When you reap the harvest in your field. [But] it has already been explained in the Talmud that the category of péah applies outside of the Land of Israel from rabbinic law, and it appears to me that it makes sense for the remaining types of gifts for the poor to all apply to outside of the Land of Israel from rabbinic law as well.
(15) How much is the [minimum] measure of an "edge" portion? From the Torah there is no [minimum] measurement. Even if one left one stalk, one is free from one's obligation, but from rabbinic law it is not less than one-sixtieth whether in the Land of Israel or outside, and one increases over and above one-sixtieth according to the size of the field, the number of poor people, and the blessing of sowing. How so? If a field is exceedingly small and one leaves from it one-sixtieth, it does not benefit a poor person. Thus in this case the measure is increased. And so if there are a great deal of poor people one adds [to the measure], and if the sowing is very little and nevertheless one took in a great deal because one was [unusually] blessed, one increases what one gives according to the abundance of the blessing. Anyone who adds to the measure of the péah portion increases his reward [by God], and there is no [maximum] measure to this added benefit.
(1) Anything (1) that people eat, (2) that is raised from the soil, (3) that is supervised, (4) that is gleaned all together at once, and (5) that is put into storage is subject to the giving of the péah portion, as it is said, (Lev. 19:9, 23:22) When you reap the harvest of your land.
(2) Anything to be harvested that shares these five characteristics is liable for the giving of the péah portion, such as produce, legumes, carob, nuts, almonds, pomegranates, grapes, olives, dates whether dried or fresh, and such, but woad [a plant that is harvested for blue dye] and rubia [a plant that is harvested for red dye] and similar things are exempt because they are not edible. So also with morils and truffles [which are kinds of mushrooms] because they are not raised from the soil like other produce of the earth. So also is property that has been appropriated by the court ["ownerless property"] exempt, for there is no specific person to supervise it, for it was appropriated for all. So also are figs exempt because they are not picked all at once but rather there are some that are ready on one day and some a few days later. So also are herbs exempt, for they are not put into storage. Garlic and onions [however] are liable for giving of péah, for people dry them and put them into storage. So also are the shoots of onions liable for the giving of péah, for they are put in the ground in order to get their seeds, and so also with similar things.
(3) Cultivated land of any kind is liable for the giving of péah, even if it is owned in a partnership, as it is said, (Lev. 19:9, 23:22) When you reap the harvest of your land, even if it is land owned by many.
(4) A field that was harvested by Gentiles for themselves, or one that was harvested by bandits, or one that was chewed down by ants, or one that was laid low by the wind or cattle is exempt from the giving of péah, for the obligation of péah is on things still standing.
(5) One who harvested half [of his field] and then bandits harvested the other half that remained is exempt [from giving péah], for the obligation was to come from the half that the bandits harvested. But if the bandits harvested half and then the owner came back and harvested the remaining half, he gives péah according to the measure of what he harvested. If he harvested [the first] half and sold [the second] half, the one who took [what he sold] gives péah (for all). If he harvested [the first] half and dedicated [the second] half to the Temple, the redeemer, [who takes it] from the possession of the treasurer, gives péah for all. If he harvested [the first] half and redeemed it, he leaves péah from what remains as is appropriate for all of the crop.
(6) In the case of a grape-harvester who has a field from which he takes grapes to sell in the market and the remainder he intends to leave for the wine press, if the grape-harvester took the grapes to the market a bit from here and a bit from there, then the grape-harvester gives péah from what he left for the wine press according to the measure of what was left. But if the grape-harvester took the grapes to the market all from one side of his field, then he should give péah from the remaining grapes according to the measure of the entire vineyard because one who harvests grapes all from one side of his field is not like a grape-harvester who by chance takes a little bit from here and a little bit from there, who, in that case, is exempt. So also this applies to one who plucks parched ears of corn bit by bit and brings them into his house. Even if he plucks his entire field this way, he is exempt from leket, shikhecha, and péah.
(7) One who harvests his field before it has ripened, that is, it has not yet ripened one-third of the way, it [this field] is exempt, but if it was one-third of the way ripened, it [the field's produce] is subject to péah. So also with the fruit of trees that if it is one-third of the way ripened, it [the fruit] is subject to péah.
(8) One who sanctifies corn [and redeems it] while it is still standing [and not yet harvested] owes péah. If the treasurer harvested it and afterwards he [the owner] redeemed it, it is exempt, for at the time of the obligation of péah the crop was sanctified and [therefore] he does not owe péah.
(9) A Gentile who harvested his field and afterwards converted is exempt from péah, leket, and shikhecha, even though shikhecha can only be owed during the time of carrying the sheaves home [when he would have been considered a Jew].
(10) One should not hire Gentile workers for harvesting because they are not familiar with the laws of leket and péah, but if one hired them and they harvested everything, then the owner still owes péah.
(11) A landowner who harvested his field and did not leave péah should give péah from the harvested sheaves to the poor, and he does not need to tithe it. And if he gave them the majority of his harvest in the name of giving péah, he is exempt from tithes. So also this applies if he threshed his produce but still did not bundle it, he must give péah before he has tithed. But if he threshed and bundled with a winnowing shovel and a winnowing fan and thus finished all of his labor, he tithes and then gives [péah] to them from the tithed produce according to the measure of what is fitting for that field. So also does this apply to produce from trees.
(12) One should only leave péah from the end of one's field so that the poor know the place they are to go and so that it is known to the passers-by, so they will not suspect anything. This is so because there are liars who intend to harvest the whole field who could say to those who see him harvesting the end of the field, "I left my due from the beginning of the field." And moreover [this applies so] he will not wait until a time when no one is around and leaves [his due] to his poor relative. But, if he transgressed and left péah from the beginning of the field or from the middle, this still counts toward [the total amount of] the péah portion. However, he still needs to leave the rest [of his due] from the end of the field so as to fulfill the fitting measure of péah after he has separated the first part.
(13) A landowner who gave péah from one side to the poor, and they say to him, "Give to us from that side," and he gave to them from that other side, both portions count as péah. So also with a landowner who separates his portion for péah and said, "This is péah and so also is this," or he said, "This is péah and this;" both of them count toward the péah portion.
(14) It is forbidden for workers to harvest all of a field unless they leave at the end of the field the appropriate area for giving péah, and nothing is given to the poor at all until the landowner separates it for that purpose in full knowledge. Therefore, for a poor person who sees péah at the end of the field, it is forbidden for him to labor in it because it would be considered as theft until he knows for certain that this is the intention of the owner.
(15) The péah portion of grain, legumes, and similar plants that are harvested, and so also with the péah portions of the vineyard and the trees, [the produce of] which is directly connected to the ground which the poor must pull up with their hands, they [the poor] may not harvest them with scythes and may not uproot them with spades so that one does not strike another. If the poor people want to divide up the produce among them [rather than on a first-come, first-serve basis by pulling with their hands] then they may divide it up, but if ninety-nine [out of a hundred] say to divide it and one says to pull it up with their hands [on a first-come, first-serve basis], they heed the one, for he spoke according to the law.
(16) In the case of the péah portion that is given from suspended vines or from date palm trees [that are up high] that the poor cannot reach to pick without great risk, the landowner must bring the food down and divide it up evenly among the poor people. If they want to [go up and] pick it themselves, they may do so. But even if ninety-nine [out of a hundred] say to pick them and one says to divide them, they heed the one, for he spoke according to the law, and the landowner is obligated to bring the produce down and divide it among them.
(17) At three times of the day they divide up the péah portion in the field for the poor or leave it for them to pick: at dawn, at noon, and at mincha, and they do not leave anything for the poor person who does not come at these times so that there is a set time for the poor to gather together and take [what they need]. Why was there not only one set time during the day? Because there are nursing mothers who are poor who need to eat at the beginning of the day, there are poor children who do not stir during the morning and do not arrive to the field until noon, and there are old people who cannot arrive until mincha.
(18) If a poor person takes his portion of péah and throws something on the remainder, falls on it, or spreads out his garment on it [as an act of claiming it], they fine him and take him away and they even confiscate what he took from him and give it to another poor person. So also with leket and so with shikhecha.
(19) If someone took the péah portion and said, "This is for so-and-so, who is poor," if he [the taker] is poor, then he can take it on his own merit and thus have it for so-and-so, but if he [the taker] is a wealthy person, he may not have it, but rather he must give it to the next poor person who appears.
(20) When a landowner leaves péah for those poor people who stand [in a line] before him, and another poor person comes up behind him and takes from it [the pile of produce to be given out], he [the poor person] may keep it [even though he acquired it unfairly], for no one possesses leket or shikhecha or péah or even a coin that was found until it is in his hand [and without possession those standing in line have no legal claim to it as their property].
(1) One does not leave péah for one field from another field. How so? If a farmer had two fields, he may not harvest one entirely and leave péah of the second one in proportion for both of them, as it is said, (Lev. 23:22) You shall not reap all the way to the end of your field [singular]. He should leave péah of each and every field as is fitting for it. If he leaves [péah] for one field from another, this does not count as leaving péah.
(2) If one has a field that is sown all with one type of crop and a river flows through the field, even though it may not be flowing [that is, it is a stagnant body of water], or it is [merely] a channel of water so wide that one cannot harvest what is on both sides all together and the channel is continuous and permanent, then this is as if there are two fields and one gives péah from one for itself and the other for itself.
(3) So also a private road that is at least four cubits wide or a public road that is at least sixteen cubits wide form a partition [between the two parts of the field]. In the case of a private path which is less than four cubits or a public path that is less than sixteen cubits, if it is in regular use during both the dry and the rainy season, then it forms a partition, but if it is not in regular use during the rainy season, it does not count as a partition, and this is considered to be one field [all year round].
(4) In the case of a field that is divided by fallow land which is not sown or ploughed, or land that is broken up and ploughed but not sown, or land planted with different kinds of crops, such as wheat on either side and barley in the middle, or if one harvested the middle, even if it was before the crop became a third of the way ripe and he ploughed the area he harvested, then this area is divided into two fields. This is in the case of each field [on either side] being at least the width of three furrows of ploughed land, which is a little less than an amount of land required to plant one-fourth of a kav of seed. How does this apply? This pertains to a small field that is fifty cubits by two cubits or less [that one is dividing into even smaller fields], but if it is more, the fallow land or broken land does not form a partition dividing the field into two unless it [the divider] is the width of the amount of land required for one-fourth of a kav of seed. In the case, however, of a different kind of crop going down the middle, any quantity of land serves as a partition.
(5) If locusts consumed [the crop] or ants devoured it down the middle, if the farmer ploughs the land that they ate, then this forms a partition [and each side is considered a separate field].
(6) One who plants on a land with hills so that the entirety of it [the field] is uneven, so there are peaks and valleys, even though one is unable to plough it entirely and to sow it as one but harvests the peaks by themselves and the valleys by themselves, then this is [still] considered to be one field, and one leaves péah for the field at the end of the hilly region for all the hills.
(7) If the land forms steps and they are ten handsbreadths high, one leaves péah for each and every terrace, but if the beginnings of the rows are mixed together [and then the land separates into steps], one gives from one level for the entire area. If they are less then ten handsbreadths high, regardless of whether the beginnings of the roads are mixed together, one gives from one level for the entire area. If there is a rock that runs through the entire field, if one has to unhitch the plough [from behind the animal in order to get the plough] from one side of the rock over to the other side, then this forms a partition, but if it does not [jut out this way] then it does not form a partition.
(8) If one sows a field in which there are trees, even if there are plots of land between the trees but the crops are not mixed in between, one gives péah from one section for the entire field, for it is obvious that this is a single field but because of the location of the trees, the crop was divided.
(9) In what situation does this apply? When there are ten trees on an amount of land large enough for one séah of seed, but if among ten trees one can sow more than a séah of seed, then one gives péah for each and every plot, for the trees are spread out and it is not because of the trees that the crop is in different plots.
(10) So also with plots of onions, that between vegetables one gives péah for all the onions, even if the vegetables form divisions between them and one places them in different plots.
(11) In the case of a field that is sown entirely with one type of crop, when certain patches of it begin to dry [and ripen] and [the farmer] uproots and plucks what has dried from here and there leaving the fresh [unripe] crop in separate patches far from each other [so that they appear like separate fields], if this is the usual way for people to sow this kind of crop in separate beds, such as dill or mustard, then he should leave péah from each and every plot, for anyone who sees would say that they were sown in beds. But if this is the kind of crop that people sow in fields, such as grain or legumes, then he gives péah from one patch for the whole crop.
(12) In what situation does this apply? When there is dried [ripe] crop on either side and fresh [unripe] crop in between, but if the fresh [unripe] crop is here and there and the dry [ripe] crop is in between, one leaves [péah] from the dried [ripe] crop for itself and from the fresh [unripe] crop for itself seperately.
(13) In the case of a field sown with onions, beans, peas, or similar items, if one's intention was to sell part of it fresh in the market and leave part of it to dry for storage, one is obligated to leave péah for that which one sells fresh separately and for that which one harvests dry.
(14) If one who sows his field with one type of crop, even if he can make two store-chambers out of it, he leaves péah for it as one unit. If he sowed two types of crops, even if he can only make one store-chamber out of it, he gives péah for each type of crop separately.
(15) If one sowed two types of seed for one kind of crop, such as having sowed two types of wheat or two types of barley, if one makes one store-chamber out of it, then he should give péah for it as one unit. If he makes two store-chambers, then he should give two portions of péah [one from each]. This is the law of Moses at Sinai.
(16) Brothers [who are business partners, probably because of their inheritance] who separate [and dissolve their partnership] need to give two portions of péah [one apiece]. If they come back together as partners, they give one portion of péah. If partners harvest half of a field and then separate, the one who took the harvested portion does not set aside anything [for péah], and the one who took the standing grain sets aside [péah] for the half he took alone. If they came back and became partners again, and harvested the other half in their partnership, each of them sets aside [péah] from his portion of standing grain over against the portion of his partner's standing grain, but he does not [set aside péah] over the portion that was previously harvested.
(17) In the case of a field, half of which became one-third of the way ripe and half of which did not, so he [the farmer] began to harvest the half which had begun to ripen and completed harvesting only that half. Then after some time the whole remaining part of the field [that was not ripe at all] became one-third of the way ripe and then he completed harvesting the first part. He should then set aside péah from the first section on the intermediate section [that is, for the first section that he harvested, he sets aside péah for the whole first half of the field that had become one-third of the way ripe] and on the intermediate section from the first and the last [that is, on the second half that became one-third of the way ripe, he sets aside péah for the entire field].
(18) In the case of one who sells from different places [a bit from here and a bit from there] in his field to many people, if he [eventually] sold the entire field [this way], each one of the buyers must give péah for the lot that they took. But if the [original] owner of the field began to harvest it, having sold part and kept part, the owner of the field must give péah for the entire field, for when he began to harvest it he became liable for all of it. But if he sold part of it first, the one who takes must set aside [péah] from what he took and the owner of the field from what he kept.
(19) In a field of trees, the only thing that can form a partition is a fence tall enough to separate the trees, but if there is a fence separating the lower part of the trees and the branches and the crowns of the trees are entangled up above, touching one another over the fence, then this counts as one field, and one gives péah [in one portion] for it all.
(20) Two people who took [produce] from [different branches of] one tree give [together] one portion of péah. [But if one] took from the north [of the tree] and the other from the south, then each gives péah from his portion separately.
(21) In the case of carob trees [which grow very tall with a great deal of space in between them], all that someone standing on one side [of the field] with another standing on the other side [of the field] can see counts as one field and one gives one portion of péah for them all. If the two sides can see [trees] in between them but they cannot see each other [through the trees], one tithes by dividing the trees in between in proportion to each side, but he may not set aside [péah] from one side [of the field] all the way to the other [side, as if it is one large field].
(22) In the case of olive trees, all trees located on one side of the city, such as the west of the city or in its entirety, or to the east, count as one field, and one portion of péah [is given] for all.
(23) When one harvests grapes partially from different patches of his vineyard in order to lighten the vine so that the remaining space in between the clusters widens, it is called "thinning." We have already explained that one who harvests grapes all from one side is not thinning and therefore must give péah for the whole crop, regardless of whether he takes them to market [instead of saving them for wine]. But if he thinned out the vines in order to sell [those grapes] in the market, he does not need to give péah for that which he thinned out. But if the grapes that were taken in the thinning out were brought into his home, then he gives péah from the remainder that he left to be stamped [in the wine press] as due for the whole crop [including the ones he brought into his house].
שאלות לדיון
האם הציפייה שהמדינה תדאג לרווחתם הכלכלית של תושביה מוצדקת בעיניכם?
מדוע קופת הצדקה הציבורית כה חשובה? למה לא להתספק ביוזמות פרטיות שיידאגו לעניים?
האם האידיאל בעיניכם הוא שלא יהיה צורך בעמותות חסד ובצדקה פרטית?
ניכור מס- עזריאל קרליבך, הודו – יומן דרכים, עמ' 89-92
למה לכם להקים מושב-זקנים בכספי הכלל ולשכור עובדים שישרתו ישישים שהם זרים להם, ולמה לך להפקיד את אביך שם ביד אחות רחמנייה אשר לא ידעת, והוא לא ידעה – כאשר אחותך שלך ובתו שלו, היודעת היטב כל צרכיו ומחסוריו, יכולה לטפל בו בפינת ביתו שלו בכבוד? (...) אגיד לך, על שום מה אתם אינכם עושים כמונו: על שום שאתם שונאים זה את זה, על שום שאתם רוצים רק להיפטר זה מזה, ואף להשקיט מצפונכם בהפקירם דם מדמכם ובשר מבשרכם! (...) אתם אומרים: הציבור ידאג, המדינה תרחם! כתובת כללית וסתמית ומעורפלת, אשר אליה אפשר לשגר כל מי שעלול להטריד מנוחתכם (...) האדם אצלכם אינו אלא גורם בייצור, מכונה – רובוט; ועל כן אף יכולתם להעמיד מולו, כאומנת לו, רובוט אוכל ופולט נייר, מכונה נטולת נשמה, מנגנון מדינה...".
שאלות הבנה:
מה הביקורת של האדם ההודי על מדינת הרווחה? מהי הדרך הנכונה לטפל בבעיות רווחה לדעתו?
שאלות העמקה:
אילו יתרונות יש בסיוע המשפחתי על פני הסיוע של המדינה?
"אתם רוצים רק להיפטר זה מזה" – כיצד מבין האדם ההודי את המניע להעברת האחריות לידי המדינה? האם אתם מסכימים עם דבריו?
כיצד הקטע הבא מתמודד עם הבעיה שמציג האדם ההודי?
(ח) עני שיש לו קרובים עשירים שיכולים לפרנסו אין גבאי העיר חייבים לפרנסו אע"ג דקרוביו ג"כ נותנים בכיס:
(8) A poor man who has wealthy relatives does not have to be supported by the Gabbaïm, even though the relatives are contributors to the fund.
ג'ף יעקובי, קפיטליזם ומוסר באמריקה, "תכלת" חורף התשס"א / 2001, עמ' 172-174
כאשר מדינת הרווחה מתנפחת ומקבלת עליה תפקידים שנהוג היה להשאיר בידי האינדיבידואל והארגונים הפרטיים, הקהילות נחלשות. הדאגה לרווחת הזולת מתקהה. אחרי ככלות הכל, אם הממשלה עומדת לטפל ברעבים, למה לי להאכיל אותם? אם פוליטיקאים וביורוקרטים יטפלו בכל בעיה חברתית, למה לי להצטרף לקבוצה פעילה בקהילה או לשלוח כסף לארגון התנדבותי? גורם עיקרי בשכנוע הבריות לטפל אלה באלה הוא ההבנה שהטיפול אינו רק מעשה טוב אלא גם דבר נחוץ: שאם האחד לא יפעל, האחרים יסבלו. כשהממשלה מעבירה לידיה את האחריות לנצרכים, היא מרגילה את האזרח הממוצע לחשוב שמעשי הצדקה והסעד שלו שוב אינם נחוצים. כתוצאה מכך, האזרח מקדיש פחות זמן למחשבה על מצוקתם של אחרים.
שאלות הבנה:
איזו בעיה יוצרת מדינת הרווחה לפי ג'ף יעקובי? מדוע דווקא העברת האחריות למדינה היא זו שגורמת לכך?
שאלות העמקה:
מהי התועלת המוסרית שבקיומם של ארגוני התנדבות אזרחיים לפי יעקובי? מדוע התועלת הזו לא יכולה להתקיים כאשר האחריות עוברת לידי המדינה?
יותר ממה שבעל הבית עושה עם העני, העני עושה עם בעל הבית (ויקרא רבה בהר פרשה לד). כיצד המדרש מסייע לטענתו של יעקובי?
מה היחס בין אחריות המדינה לבין אחריות היחידים לפי הקטעים עד כה?
רווחה לכל
מתוך אתגר הרווחה במדינה הדמוקרטית (ספר לימוד), עורכות: שירה גודמן ומיכל ברק, עמ' 44
לפי גישה זאת (הגישה הסוציאל-דמוקרטית, המצדדת במדינת רווחה), המדינה אינה יכולה להתנער מאחריותה ולהסתמך על רצונה הטוב של הקהילה לדאוג לרווחת הפרט, וזאת בעיקר מהסיבות הבאות: אזרח המקבל סיוע מארגון התנדבות או מגוף עסקי הנרתם לפעילות קהילתית חש לעתים שהופקר על ידי מדינתו. לעומתו, אזרח המקבל מהמדינה את השירותים הבסיסיים שהוא זקוק להם, חש הזדהות וזיקה לחברה שהוא משתייך אליה ולרשות העומדת בראשה. ארגוני ההתנדבות פועלים על בסיס תרומות, ולכן פעילותם אינה קבועה ואינה מובטחת לאורך זמן. יתרה מזאת, ארגוני ההתנדבות מחליטים במי הם רוצים לתמוך וכיצד, ולכן פעילותם אינה שוויונית והיא יוצרת מצב שבו קבוצות אוכלוסייה מסוימות עשויות לזכות בתמיכה רחבה של ארגונים אלה, וקבוצות אחרות לא. בעלי ההשקפה הסוציאל-דמוקרטית סבורים כי רק טיפול כולל ומערכתי מטעם המדינה - ולא טיפול אקראי ונקודתי המתבצע בידי ארגוני התנדבות - יגשים את מטרתה של מדינת הרווחה: זכויות חברתיות לכלל האזרחים.
שאלות הבנה:
אילו בעיות קיימות באפשרות שהאזרחים ידאגו לרווחתם בצורה פרטית לפי הקטע?
שאלות העמקה:
אילו סוגי בעיות מעלה הקטע? האם הטענות בעד מדינת רווחה הן פרקטיות בלבד, או שיש בהן עניין מהותי?
מה היתרונות והחסרונות המוסריים של כל גישה לפי הקטעים עד כה?
הרש"ר הירש
כי יהיה בך אביון יכול להיאמר רק לציבור, שהרי אי אפשר לומר ליחיד: "כי יהיה בך אביון". כנגד זה לא תאמץ את לבבך - וכן המאמרים שלאחריו - אמורים בראש ובראשונה אל היחיד, ודבר זה מוכח מן הביטויים שנבחרו במאמרים אלה. נמצא שמצוה זו פונה אל הציבור ואל היחיד כאחד, וחובת הדאגה לעניין חלה על הציבור ועל היחיד כאחד והיא תלויה בשניהם. (...) המעשה הנדרש במצוה זאת איננו יכול להיעשות לא על ידי היחיד לבדו ולא על ידי הציבור לבדו, אלא שניהם חייבים להתחרות זה בזה ולפעול זה בצד זה, אם מבקשים להשיג את המטרה המוצבת במצוה זאת (...) התפקיד הנובע ממצות צדקה הוא כה גדול וכה אחראי עד שרק פעולת גומלין של שלושת הגורמים האלה - הקהילות, החברות והיחידים - יכולים להביא לידי קיומו.
שאלות הבנה:
מה לומד רש"ר הירש מההבדל בין "כי יהיה בך אביון" לבין "לא תאמץ את לבבך"?
שאלות העמקה:
מדוע "התפקיד הנובע ממצוות צדקה הוא כה גדול וכה אחראי"? כיצד שילוב של "שלושת הגורמים" יכול להתמודד עם גודל האתגר?
במה שונה האמירה של רש"ר הירש מכל הדעות עד כה? כיצד היא מתמודדת עם הטענות שעלו כלפי כל אחד מהצדדים?
מוזמנים לצפות בהרצאה מסכמת של אליעזר שוורצר