Any olive tree which is named in a field (such as the olive of Netofah in its time) if overlooked is not [considered to be] shikheĥah. When is this so? – [when it is famed] for its name, its record or its location. Its name – "Oozer" or "Coy". Its record – it produces much. Its location – it stands next to a vat or a break. But [as for] all other olive trees – two are shikheĥah, three are not shikheĥah. Rabbi Yosé says that shikheĥah does not apply to olive trees [at all].
1:
Chapter 7 begins by allocating two
mishnayot to the special case of the olive tree. In Eretz-Israel cultivation of olives always was and still is a mainstay of the agricultural economy. We have already seen [
Peah 2:4, Pe'ah 020-021] that the olive tree was different from most other fruit-bearing trees and similar only to the carob tree. Our mishnah is concerned with defining the details of when and how it may be considered that a farmer has overlooked his olives and what remains belongs to the poor.
2:
Before we continue, let us remind ourselves of the biblical verses [Deuteronomy 24:19-21] upon which the law of shikheĥah is based:
When you reap the harvest in your field and overlook a sheaf in the field, do not turn back to get it; it shall go to the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow – in order that your God may bless you in all your undertakings. When you beat down the fruit of your olive trees, do not go over them again; that shall go to the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow. When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, do not pick it over again; that shall go to the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow.
The main theme of these verses is that produce of the field and orchard which is unintentionally overlooked by the harvesters belongs to the poor. The main burden of the
mishnayot that have dealt with this issue so far has been to define "unintentionally overlooked". Our present mishnah tackles the issue from a different angle: there are some things that can never match the requirement of "unintentional overlooking" – in particular olive trees (though other similar trees should be deemed to be included in the discussion).
3:
Our mishnah is not easy to translate and it is no easier to explain. This is not because the ideas are difficult – indeed, they are very simple and straightforward. It is because terms used are sufficiently obscure to permit varying interpretations. My translation, obviously, can only be based on one possible understanding of each term.
4:
The very first clause of our mishnah serves as a clear example. The Hebrew which I have translated as "an olive tree which is named in a field" can also be understood as "an olive tree which is remarkable in a field". But in this case the differing possibility of translation will not affect the intention of the mishnah. An olive tree in a certain field may be so remarkable for certain characteristics that it is given a name. The farmer loves his trees and when it becomes clear to him that certain trees behave in certain ways he relates to them in a very personal way. Whatever the precise meaning of the phrase the intention is clear: trees which have some clearly identifying characteristic can never be considered as 'unintentionally overlooked': sooner or later the farmer will get to his tree.
5:
How are we to understand the Hebrew term Netofah. One possibility – the one for which I have opted – is that it refers to a certain place, either Netofah in northern Judah [Ezra 2:22] or the Bet Netofah valley in Lower Galilee, near the Masorti Kibbutz Ĥannaton. Netofah must have been renowned for a certain tree which for generations produced luscious fruit; presumably the tree was known as 'the Netofah Olive', or some such name. Another possibility is that the term does not refer to a specific tree serving as an exemplar, but denotes the Hebrew verb to drip or to ooze: in such a case it would serve to indicate a tree – any tree – which is renowned for its luscious fruit.
6:
Our mishnah states that within the issue of shikheĥah trees can be defined as 'special' for any of the following characteristics: they might be named, they might be noted for their production record, or they might be noted because of their location. We are given two examples of a named tree. Rather quaintly, I have imagined that a farmer might call his tree "Old Oozer" because year after year it produces such luscious fruit; or he might call his tree "Old Coy" imagining it to be shy because every year its fruit ripens later than that of other trees. But other understandings are certainly possible. In his commentary on our mishnah, for example, Rambam says that these are place names. (Possibly the Hebrew which I translated "coy" can be understood as referring to the town of Bet She'an – Scythopolis – at the junction of the Jezreel Valley with the Jordan Basin.) It might equally be impossible for a farmer to overlook a tree that is right next to a permanent agricultural installation or right next to a break in the fence that delimits the field. At any rate, for all these possible reasons, our mishnah states that a farmer would never 'really' overlook such a tree. Of course, any tree that does not possess one of these three characteristics would be subject to the law of shikheĥah, and the rule of "two and three" which we have already encountered would apply [see Pe'ah 063.]
7:
The very last clause of our mishnah is remarkable. Rabbi Yosé ben-Ĥalafta says that no olive tree can ever be considered as shikheĥah! The Gemara [Pe'ah 20a], however, explains his opinion as relating to a specific time and place. Rabbi Yosé was active in Eretz-Israel in the extremely difficult years that followed the débacle of the Bar-Kokhba insurrection. The war quite literally devastated the country: it never regained its former lusciousness (not yet even in modern times). Olive trees became few and far between because either the insurgents or the Romans uprooted them. Thus, Rabbi Yosé must be understood as saying that in the decades following the Bar-Kokhba revolt the law of shikheĥah should be held in abeyance as far as olive trees were concerned, but he would agree with Tanna Kamma as regards any other time and place.
