BET MIDRASH VIRTUALI of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel RABIN MISHNAH STUDY GROUP Mishnah study in the religious climate of Masorti (Conservative) Judaism by Rabbi Simchah Roth December 18th 2003 / Kislev 23rd 5764 [Pe'ah 067]

One se'ah of cut grain and one se'ah of uncut grain cannot combine to two se'ahs, but they belong to the poor. The same [applies to] trees, garlic and onions. Rabbi Yosé says that if 'poor law' produce intervenes they cannot combine, otherwise they can combine. EXPLANATIONS: 1: Two views are presented in our present mishnah: that of Tanna Kamma and that of Rabbi Yosé ben-Ĥalafta, whose opinion differs. (Tanna Kamma is a technical term which designates the unnamed sage with whom Rabbi Yosé disagrees.) 2: We have noted on several occasions now what was established in mishnah 6: "A sheaf which contains two se'ahs and was forgotten is not considered to be shikheĥah". If the produce - grain, vegetable, fruit - which was overlooked has a volume of less than two se'ahs it constitutes shikheĥah and belongs to the poor. (A reminder: the volume of two se'ahs works out to somewhat less than 25 litres.) 3: When farmers discovered that produce had remained in the field uncollected there must have been a very great (and natural) temptation to find ways and means of 'bending' the law in order to 'save' the produce from being shikheĥah. One such argument must have been that if the harvested produce is in physical contact with produce which has not yet been harvested and the two have a combined volume of at least two se'ahs, together they qualify as being 'saved' from the status of shikheĥah. Our mishnah clarifies that this is definitely not the case. 4: Rabbi Yosé would introduce a difference. He agrees with Tanna Kamma that if a certain kind of produce intervenes between the cut and the uncut produce they cannot combine; but he would have it that if the contact between the two types of produce is absolute and contiguous that rule does not apply and the farmer may combine them to prevent them becoming shikheĥah. The special kind of produce two which he refers is 'poor law' produce - produce which in any case belongs to the poor. If the harvested and the yet-to-be-harvested produce are separated by produce which is, say, 'pe'ah' or 'leket' then Rabbi Yosé agrees with Tanna Kamma that they may not combine; but otherwise he holds that they can. His reasoning presumably is that if something which definitely belongs to the poor intervenes between the two types of crop the farmer cannot claim that 'his' two types of crop are continguous. 5: As is to be expected, halakhah follows Tanna Kamma. This method of having the accepted halakhah proposed anonymously and only naming the sages whose view is rejected has been explained by us many times over the years. You may care to look up in the archives the discussion on Pesachim 1:4 where I respond to a query from Benjamin Fleischer. NOTICE: The festival of Ĥanukah begins tomorrow (Friday) night. You may care to read a shiur that I published a few years ago on this topic. You will find it in the archives. Shabbat Shalom and Ĥanukah Saméaĥ to everybody. Click here to access the Pe'ah archive catalogue.