Pe'ah 048

1:
In bygone ages, when modern chemical warfare against agricultural 'pests' was unknown, ants could be found hoarding seeds (and even ears) of the crop in the holes that they had made in the ground. Even such seeds and ears would be of value to the indigent who often were so desperate that they would reject no produce that was rightfully theirs. It is possible that the owners too would lay claim to such produce, for, if the ant colony was large enough, the amount of seed thus purloined could have been considerable. (I recall learning very recently that scientists have discovered of late an ant colony which stretches from the Urals in Russia almost to Paris in France!)

2:
We have already established that leket that belongs to the poor is only produce which falls after the grass has been cut from the ground. (Usually, it fell from the hands of the reapers as they turned to deposit an armful into the container following behind them.) If the produce hoarded by the ants was found in the holes among the grass while it was still standing (i.e. before the reaper cut it) it perforce belongs to the owner of the field. If the holes and their produce are discovered only after the grass has been reaped there is a maĥloket [difference of opinion] between Tanna Kamma and Rabbi Me'ir as to who has proprietary rights over this produce – the indigent or the owner. (Neither seems to consider that it might belong to the ants!)

3:
According to Tanna Kamma grain found in ant-holes after the grass has been reaped should be divided into two sorts. The upper layers of the hoard, grain which is still white and fresh, belongs to the indigent. We must presume that since it still has signs of freshness that it was hoarded there by the ants after the grass had been reaped and therefore it rightly belongs to the poor. The lower layers of the hoard, which have already become discoloured, must be presumed to have been taken there by the ants before the crop was reaped and therefore must be deemed to rightfully belong to the owner. Rambam, in his commentary, even suggests that these lower layers may be grain from the previous year that the ants have stored!)

4:
Rabbi Me'ir disagrees with Tanna Kamma. He considers that allocating ownership of such produce by its colour is extremely uncertain. It is possible that produce that looks as if it has aged in fact is new and just discoloured. He further holds that in all cases of doubt the benefit of the doubt should be extended in the direction of the indigent. Therefore, he holds that all produce found in ant-holes discovered after the reaping must perforce be held to belong to the indigent.

5:
At this point I would like to comment about the enormous scholastic value of the contents of the Cairo Genizah (most of which is now in the library of Cambridge University in England). Among the material that was deposited in the 'lumber room' of the Ben-Ezra synagogue in Cairo during the middle ages were both the first and second drafts of Rambam's Mishnah Commentary in Maimonides' own handwriting. In the first draft he wrote that halakhah follows Tanna Kamma. This is following the usual assumption that any maĥloket between Tanna Kamma and another sage or sages is to be resolved according to the view of Tanna Kamma. However, in his second draft he changed his ruling and wrote that in this case "halakhah follows the view of Rabbi Me'ir". It is this latter view that he ultimately encoded in his halakhic compendium Mishneh Torah [Matnot Aniyyim 4:9]. That it is his latter view that is the more correct one is borne out by reference to the Gemara on our mishnah.

6:
I find this mishnah to be a most eloquent (if unintentional) description of the meaning of poverty in ancient times, where people would dispute to whom grain found in ant-holes rightfully belongs!

At the request of Judith May, in Peah 043 I gave a brief resume of the procedure of the removal of tithes from untithed produce. I quoted from the Siddur Va'ani Tefillati that one could use this formula of declaration:

I hereby remove all the 'taxes' that apply to these products, according to the text that is printed in the siddur "Va'ani Tefillati" on page 550.

Amit Gevaryahu has an objection:

Is the abbreviated formula you suggested in your siddur not only questionable, but also a form of condemning the longer version, in which the "mafrish" [person tithing – SR] performs the actual "hafrasha" [removal of tithes] him or herself into oblivion? Would it not be more advisable to retain the longer version, which is quite intelligible to any Hebrew speaker?

I respond:

I commend Amit's zeal, but his concern is misplaced. The siddur Va'ani Tefillati gives the whole of the text of the declaration, as indicated, on page 550. Thus anyone who wishes to use it may do so. This declaratory formula is by no means ancient. It was phrased about half a century ago by Rabbi Yeshayahu Karelitz, better known by his sobriquet Ĥazon Ish. The shortened version is also by the Ĥazon Ish, and was provided by him for the benefit of those who could not remember the quasi legal text that he had created or did not have it with them when needed.

Due to the incidence of the festival of Sukkot BMV is going on its traditional 'vacation' for Ĥol ha-Mo'ed, so the next shiur in RMSG will be on 20th October 2003. I take this opportunity to wish all subscribers to the Rabin Mishnah Study Group Ĥag Samé'aĥ.