Pe'ah 011

1:
This mishnah too may be quickly explained. It is really a continuation of the previous mishnah and in the Talmud of Eretz-Israel our present mishnah is, indeed, presented together with mishnah 4. Mishnah 4 stated a general rule by which one could determine from which fruits of the field the agriculturalist was required to leave Pe'ah for the poor and needy. But, as we saw in Pe'ah 007, the duty to leave Pe'ah for the poverty-stricken was not limited to produce of the field, but extended also to the orchard and the grove. Therefore, our present mishnah gives a list of those trees which are subject to Pe'ah.

2:
Fruit trees are not usually 'harvested' – in the sense that their fruit is removed and collected in an organized manner once in the season. It is more usual for their fruit to be picked in a haphazard manner throughout the season. One of the rules given in mishnah 4 would exempt many fruit trees from Pe'ah. I refer to the rule which states that for a plant or tree to be liable to Pe'ah it must be 'harvested'. (The original Hebrew may be rendered: 'picked at one time'.)

3:
Our present mishnah lists eight trees which are subject to Pe'ah according to this rule. Apart from the first, all these fruit-bearing trees are readily recognised by us today. The fruit of the sumac tree, it seems, was used in mishnaic times to extract a dye which was used commercially. Our mishnah rather laconically refers to the 'nut tree', which is a reference to what are usually called today walnuts. The vine, of course, refers to the grape vine.

4:
Certain discrepancies between our present mishnah and other sources suggest that the rule given in mishnah 4 was subject to local interpretation. The Gemara [Shabbat 68a] specifically excludes the date palm from those trees whose fruit is 'harvested'. It is possible that in some areas of Eretz-Israel dates were harvested in an organized fashion whereas in other parts they were not. Alternatively, perhaps we should understand the rule given in mishnah 4 as meaning that produce which met any one or more of the conditions was subject to Pe'ah, and it did not have to meet all the conditions. The conditions mentioned were that it –

Even though dates, for example, may not have been harvested everywhere, but just picked at random throughout the season, they do answer to all the other conditions.

However, to complicate matters, Rambam [Mishneh Torah, Matnot Aniyyim 2:2] seems to understand the rules given in mishnah 4 as being cumulative:

Here are some more of your comments and queries. Usually I try to present these in the order in which they reached me, but here is one that jumps the queue because of it is apposite and necessary.

In Pe'ah 009, for instance, I wrote: The Gemara [Pe'ah 16c] understands the proviso of Rabbi Shim'on… A rabbinical colleague, Martin Berman, justifiably reprimands me:

I think that it would be helpful if you noted that this is the Talmud Yerushalmi.

So, I clarify:

Throughout our study of this tractate wherever a reference is made to the Gemara of Tractate Pe'ah it refers to the Gemara [Talmud] of Eretz-Israel (popularly, but misleadingly, known as the Yerushalmi or Jerusalem Talmud). The Talmud of Eretz-Israel was produced in the rabbinical centres of Galilee – mainly in the town of Tiberias – and reached the format and scope in which it has come down to us around the middle of the 4th century CE. There is no Gemara to Tractate Pe'ah in the Talmud of Babylon (since the topic was of no practical consequence to the Jewish communities of the diaspora).

A general rule for guidance: with the exception of Tractate Pe'ah itself, all references to the Gemara in this study group refer to the Babylonian Talmud unless the Talmud of Eretz-Israel is specifically noted. I have excepted Tractate Pe'ah because it seems to me that it would be tedious to keep noting that the Gemara on Pe'ah is from the Yerushalmi. Rabbi Berman is right that I should have noted this before now.

More of your queries and comments next time.