דף הביתשיעוריםPe'ah

Pe'ah 038

נושא: Pe'ah



Pe'ah 038

BET MIDRASH VIRTUALI
of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel


RABIN MISHNAH STUDY GROUP

Bet Midrash Virtuali

TRACTATE PE'AH, CHAPTER FOUR, MISHNAHS ONE & TWO (recap):
Pe'ah is given [while the produce is still] in the ground. [However,] for vines and palm trees the owner collects [the produce from the tree] and distributes it to the poor; Rabbi Shim'on says [that this applies] also to nut trees. Even if ninety-nine say that he should distribute and one is for 'plunder' his is the request to be accepted since he is speaking according to halakhah.

This is not the case with regards to vines and palm trees: even if ninety-nine are for 'plunder' and one is for distribution his is the request to be accepted since he is speaking according to halakhah.

EXPLANATIONS (continued):

6:
So far we have seen that the poor must be permitted access to the farmer's fields in order to reap their own pe'ah, with the exception of the vine and the date palm, which must be distributed by the farmer in equal shares to the poor. However, we can imagine situations in which not all the indigent would find these arrangements accommodating. Our mishnah hints that another arrangement could possibly be permitted. The text of our mishnah is:

Pe'ah is given in the ground; for vines and palm trees the owner collects and distributes it to the poor… Even if ninety-nine say that he should distribute [what ideally they should reap themselves] and one is for 'plunder' his is the request to be accepted since he is speaking according to halakhah…

This text seems to be adamant that the arrangement described in mishnah 1 must be adhered to even if 99% of the assembled indigent would have it otherwise. This is not how the Gemara [Pe'ah 18a] understands our mishnah.

7:
If the assembled indigent consist, as is almost inevitable, of both young and old, male and female, firm and infirm, hale and physically challenged they may consider it to be fairer if the farmer distributes to them the produce of his field just as he distributes the produce of his vines and palms. This would ensure that each of the needy would get a fair and equal share of the produce. What could otherwise happen is illustrated by the opposition of two terms used in our mishnah: the alternative to 'distribution' is 'plunder', which is an obvious colloquialism for what I have already described: a mad rush in which the swiftest and the most hale and hearty would inevitably denude the field of its pe'ah before the truly needy would be able to get to it.

8:
The Gemara [Pe'ah 18a] understands our mishnah to be saying that if all the assembled indigent are in agreement that they would prefer the farmer to distribute the produce rather than have to harvest it themselves this is acceptable; however it only needs one of the assembled to demur for the strict letter of the law to be applied. Mishnah 2 applies the same rule, inverted, to the produce of the vine and date palm: if all the assembled indigent are in agreement that they would prefer to 'plunder' the trees themselves this is acceptable; however it only needs one of the assembled to object for the strict letter of the law to be applied and to require the farmer to distribute.

9:
Let me re-iterate here that if the farmer does not permit the poor immediate access to his fields so that they can reap their own pe'ah he is in duty bound to distribute pe'ah after it has been reaped. This applies regardless of whether the produce is still stacked in the field, or whether it has been removed to the barn, whether it has been processed, ground or even cooked.

DISCUSSION:

Orin Rotman writes:

Does the failure to leave a halachically required amount of pe'ah render the produce of the field un-kosher? I raise the question because I think I learned that failure to separate the t'rumah leaves the balance unfit. Along these lines, would the kashrut of any produce grown in Israel still be subject to pe'ah, with the field from which it derives still being required to be certified for pe'ah compliance?

I respond:

There is a difference here between pe'ah on the one hand and terumot and ma'aserot [tithes] on the other. It is quite correct that produce (grain, fruit, vegetables etc) grown in the soil of Eretz-Israel must have these tithes removed (even after processing and cooking). In the vast majority of cases the consumer need not concern himself or herself since all the large food-producing companies remove the tithes at source. (Actually, the tithe is redeemed for money, so it is only terumah that needs be removed at source.) However, it is the case that produce that has come directly from the soil of Eretz-Israel that has not been tithed (produce that comes from a private garden, for instance) must be tithed. This applies regardless of whether the produce is eaten in Eretz-Israel or in the diaspora. (For instructions as to what to do in such cases see the Siddur Va'ani Tefillati, page 549.)

The case of pe'ah is different. It is only the farmer himself who is at fault regarding pe'ah, since anyone else consuming his produce may be considered to be needy at that moment and entitled to the pe'ah. Therefore, if you did not grow the produce yourself you need not worry about pe'ah.




דילוג לתוכן