Pe'ah 066
|
BET MIDRASH VIRTUALI
of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel
RABIN MISHNAH STUDY GROUP
|
|
TRACTATE PE'AH, CHAPTER SIX, MISHNAH EIGHT:
|
Standing crop saves [both] the sheaf and the standing crop; the sheaf saves neither the sheaf nor the standing crop. What standing crop saves the sheaf? – Any [standing crop] which is not shikheĥah, even [just] one stalk.
EXPLANATIONS:
1:
In order to understand the intention of the sages in our present mishnah we must first recall yet again the original text of the Torah [Deuteronomy 24:19] in this matter:
When you harvest [the produce that is] in your field and you forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not return to collect it:..
By the use of hermeneutics which involve contextual considerations, in the Talmud of Eretz-Israel [Peah 19c] the sages noted the phrase 'sheaf in the field' and concluded that what contributes to the sheaf being considered 'forgotten' is the fact that it is standing out, as it were, in a bald harvested area of the field. It would logically follow, according to this kind of reasoning, that if the overlooked sheaf were standing in or next to a portion of the field that had yet to be harvested it could not be called shikheĥah because it would not stand out.
2:
[There is] a stalk the top of which reaches the standing grain: if it is harvested together with the standing grain it belongs to the owner; otherwise it belongs to the poor.
We explained this mishnah as follows [Peah 050]:
…let us imagine a situation in which the farmer has harvested a section of his field. His workers have stacked the harvested stalks ready for binding into sheaves. This stacking involves the physical removal of stalks of grain from the area where they were reaped to another area of the field. Now that the area has been cleared it becomes apparent that there are some stalks which somehow escaped the workers' scythe and are still standing. All things being equal we would say that the workers may not retrieve these stalks because they come under the category of 'forgotten' produce, which rightly belongs to the poor. However, in our present case not all things are equal: some part of such a stalk is in physical contact with still standing grain that is yet to be reaped. The farmer will claim that such stalks are adjacent to unreaped grass and when his workers reap this next section of the field they will be able to reap this grain together with it because it is physically adjacent: for instance, the ear of a 'forgotten' stalk is drooping onto the ear of an as yet unreaped stalk. The indigent will wish to claim their rights: if the grain was left over after the harvesters cleared the section it is ours! The resolution of this conflict of interests is clear: if it is possible to reap the disputed stalk together with other stalks which have yet to be reaped the owner is entitled to do so. (Imagine a reaper coming along to harvest the new section: he can gather into his left arm a bundle of grass which includes that left over from the harvesting of the previous section; and the scythe which is in his right hand can cut all the stalks together… such stalks of grain belong to the owner of the field.) However, if it is not possible to reap these stalks together with the new section of the field they belong to the poor.
3:
It follows that the law of shikheĥah is applicable not only to produce that has already been reaped and stacked but even to produce which was not even reaped, whose harvesting was overlooked by the workers in the field. However, any unreaped crop which can be in physical contact with more unreaped crop is not to be considered shikheĥah even if it has truly been overlooked. What our present mishnah adds is that the same rule applies if the standing crop can be in physical contact with an overlooked sheaf – despite the hermeneutics indicated in explanation # 1 above. 4:
Standing cereal grass which has a volume of two se'ahs and was overlooked is not [considered to be] shikheĥah.
Thus, if the volume of the unreaped crop was less than two se'ahs it is to be considered shikheĥah and it belongs to the poor.
5:
Why do we not allocate to the poor a sheaf which is physically proximate to standing crop but not a sheaf which is physically proximate to another sheaf? What stands beneath a sheaf which is surrounded by other sheaves is 'field', but what stands beneath a sheaf which is surrounded by standing crop is straw.
6:
Perhaps it is not out of place to note here that our present mishnah, together with several of those that precede it, seems to be relating to the law from the point of view of the farmer, not the poor. Our present mishnah, for example, says that "Standing crop saves the sheaf" – 'saves' the crop for the farmer. |