Pe'ah 033

4:
The second situation dealt with in our mishnah is where two people jointly buy the same tree but by agreement divide it up between them rather than sharing it: one of the partners takes the northern side of the tree and the other takes the southern side. (Obviously, these terms are only used to describe the practical way in which the revenue from the tree would be shared by the partners.) So, once again, we see the principle at work: as long as there is only one tree or field Pe'ah is only given once; when that tree or field technically becomes two trees or two fields Pe'ah must be given separately by each owner.

5:
The last clause of our present mishnah – the one that deals with the sale of saplings – is treated in the Gemara as if it were a separate mishnah. I have translated 'saplings' though it is not entirely clear to what exactly the mishnah is referring. Indeed, the classical commentators here have a field day (if you will forgive the unintended pun).

6:
Rambam does not think that the term I have translated 'saplings' refers to trees but to non-arboreal plants. He understands our mishnah to be saying that when a farmer sells parts of the yield of his field at random, each part to a different buyer, Pe'ah must be given by each buyer separately – provided that the totality of the yield was sold. However, if the farmer leaves some of the plants for his own use it is he who must give Pe'ah for the whole field and not the buyers.

7:
However, all the other classical commentators take the term 'sapling' to refer to trees. Some explain the term 'sapling' as we understand it today: small, undeveloped trees, or tender branches from which, if replanted, a new tree can grow. The reasoning seems to be that the sale of the sapling, together with the earth in which it grows, is not considered 'harvesting' by the farmer, but sale of the land in which the plant grows, and therefore the Pe'ah eventually becomes due from the purchaser. But, if the farmer retained some of the crop the removal of the saplings that were sold must constitute part of his harvesting of the land and therefore he must give Pe'ah for the whole field.

8:
It now becomes apparent that Rabbi Yehudah is not in disagreement with Tanna Kamma but is only explaining what has already been said.

Mishnah 3 of chapter 3 referred to the difference between mature onions and those which are replanted. Judith May writes:

A word from the suburban gardener: You're right about the onions. The immature "moist," or green, onions thinned from the beds would be marketable as something resembling our scallions.

---

On the same topic Ed Frankel writes:

With regard to onions do we mean peah specifically or the other agricultural demands for tsedaka. I ask this because of the explanation given. If wet onions are those picked early, then what wet onions could the poor take, the assumption being that those left in the ground to mature are still to be used for dry onions. However, if we assume that peah here also included shich'cha, then the mishna makes more sense.

I respond:

Pe'ah and Shiĥekhah are two separate mitzvot and one does not affect the other. As Judith May has already explained, the mishnah is referring to scallions (also known as spring onions in some parts).

---

Karla Worrell writes concerning the discussion of Peah Chapter 2, Mishnah 7 [Peah 024 and 025]. This dealt with "a field which had been harvested by non-Jews" as being a field owned by a non-Jew. Karla says

:

When I first read the mishnah (before reading the explanation) the first thing that came to my mind was the story of Gideon threshing in the winepress because the Midianites, who had conquered Israel, would come and take the crop during the harvest (though I am not sure at what point in the harvest). It would seem, in this situation, that the fields were still owned by Jews but were harvested by gentiles. Although I know the Mishnah was written during a much later period it was still a time of oppressive foreign rule. Could this also be a consideration in understanding "a field which had been harvested by non-Jews"?

I respond:

Karla has misunderstood. What the Midianites did to Gideon's harvest [Judges chapter 6] is also dealt with by the mishnah: it is theft of the yield by non-Jews. The mishnah is referring to a field in Eretz-Israel which is owned by a non-Jew – and in mishnaic times there must have been many such.