Pe'ah 070

נושא: Pe'ah

Pe'ah 070

BET MIDRASH VIRTUALI

Click here to access the Pe'ah archive catalogue.

Any olive tree which is situated standing between three rows of two rectangular [beds] and was overlooked is not [considered to be] shikheĥah. Any olive tree which contains two se'ahs and was overlooked is not [considered to be] shikheĥah. When is this the case? – when [the farmer] has not [yet] started on it; but even if it is like the Netofah olive in its time, if he had [already] started on it it is [considered to be] shikheĥah. As long as it has below it [also] has above. Rabbi Me'ir says [that this is true only] from the time the beating-stick has gone.

1:
As is often the case, our mishnah seems to be very enigmatic. Indeed, although its basic intention is clear its details are by no means clear and the various commentators have a field day (if you will excuse the expression in this context). The basic intention is quite simply to say that if any olive tree is situated among other trees in such a way that it is not clearly visible because they are blocking the farmer's view of it, if he overlooks it initially when harvesting the olives it may not yet be considered to be shikheĥah, because he will get to it in the end.

2:
However, the first clause of our mishnah describes "an olive tree which is situated standing between three rows of two rectangular beds" – a description which is by no means clear. Some of the classical commentators understand our mishnah to be describing an olive tree which is partly hidden from view because it is surrounded by three rows of other trees and two vegetable beds. Other classical commentators seem to ignore the vegetable beds, but this does not seem to be the intention of our mishnah – even though it must be admitted that whether there are or are not vegetable beds involved in the situation does not seem to be essential to the basic intention of our mishnah.

3:
The idea that trees may be growing among beds used for growing vegetables or cereal crops is not new to us. When we studied 3:1 [Peah 027] I wrote:

In most cases the agricultural plot that a family possessed was not very large – though, of course, this was not the case with 'the landed gentry'. In mishnaic times the towns and villages were settlements that were usually enclosed by a protecting wall; outside the wall was a free area in which nothing could be built or planted [Tractate Bava Batra, chapter two]. The Gemara there [Bava Batra 24b] says that this was for aesthetic reasons, though in all probability there were also security considerations involved. This free area was surrounded by allotments, so that every inhabitant who wanted to could have a plot of land on which to grow produce – vegetable gardens, orchards and vineyards, olive groves, cereal crops and so forth. These plots were a part of the family's freehold inheritance and were passed down from generation to generation. Thus the inhabitants could use the produce that they grew for their own sustenance, for selling at a profit, or both. (Certain kinds of livestock were permitted within the towns and villages and other kinds were not permitted even in the allotments – for ecological and social reasons.) In the allotments just outside the towns, as we have mentioned, the amount of space was not very large, so most of the inhabitants would use their plot of land for more than one purpose. We have already seen that olive trees, which were very lucrative financially, took up a lot of space, so under these circumstances it is almost inevitable that someone who had olive trees in his allotment would also want to grow something else (probably wheat, barley or rye) on the site as well. It is to such a phenomenon that our present mishnah refers: someone who has beds of cereal crops growing between the trees.

4:
Rambam, in his commentary on our mishnah, sees the following situation (though he has a slightly different take in his Mishnah Torah): imagine three rows each of three trees; imagine between the first two rows a rectangular vegetable plot; imagine another such plot between the second and third rows; imagine an olive tree stuck 'somewhere' there. However the farmer (or his workers) may look at it, this tree initially might not be seen by the harvesters. If it is overlooked in this manner its fruit is not yet to be considered as belonging to the poor.

5:
It is not difficult to understand the intention of the second clause of our mishnah: as long as the harvester has not begun to harvest the fruit of this tree the legal presumption must be that it will eventually be harvested; but if work has already begun on harvesting the fruit of this tree and then the work on the tree was not completed (because it was not easily visible) that presumption is no longer a valid one and the rules of shikheĥah must be applied – even if it is a famous tree according to the criteria offered in the previous mishnah.

6:
One method habitually used for harvesting olives was as follows: the harvester would stand under the tree and throw a stick up among the branches. This would dislodge the fruit which would fall down and lie at the foot of the tree waiting to be collected. The third clause of our mishnah may now be more easily understood: as long as olives which have been dislodged from the tree are still waiting at its foot to be collected the presumption must be that the work on the rest of the tree will be continued and the olives still on the tree may not yet be considered to be shikheĥah, even if the worker seems to have left the tree.

7:
Rabbi Me'ir seems to see the 'beating-stick' as being wielded by someone checking that all the olives have been harvested from the tree. According to his view the olives were hand-picked by someone climbing the tree and dropping the olives below. When this worker had finished he, or someone else, would throw a stick up into the three to make sure that there were no more olives hidden from view by the leaves. Only when the person wielding this stick has left the tree does Rabbi Me'ir consider the work on the tree to be completed and any olives left on it unharvested to belong to the poor. However, halakhah does not follow the view of Rabbi Me'ir, but that of the rest of the sages as outlined in #6 above.

8:
Our mishnah interpolated a ruling: "any olive tree which contains two se'ahs and was overlooked is not shikheĥah". This need not detain us: all it is saying is that the rule already introduced for other crops applies to olives as well. [See on 6:7, Peah 065]

Click here to access the Pe'ah archive catalogue.