Pe'ah 018

1:
This second mishnah of chapter 2 continues the theme of the previous mishnah: it is concerned with the delineation of fields for the purposes of Pe'ah. While mishnah 1 did mention a natural water course as enough to separate a tract of land into two fields our present mishnah is concerned with an artificial water course. For the purposes of irrigation farmers would create channels through which water could flow from a nearby natural stream. (Such artificial streams were also used to bring water into residential areas.) I have left my translation of the first clause of our mishnah as it is, gauche as it may be, in order not to over-develop it into the explanation which is given in paragraph 3 below in any case.

2:
Although it is not immediately obvious, our present mishnah presents a difference of halakhic opinion between Rabbi Yehudah [ben-Ilai] and Tanna Kamma [the anonymous sage with whom he is in disagreement, who represents the views of all the other sages]. Since, in the previous mishnah, Tanna Kamma had included "a wadi" and "a pond" among the physical phenomena that delineate a tract of land it is only reasonable that he would hold the same to be true of any water course, even one man-made. Regarding an artificial water conduit running through a tract of land Rabbi Yehudah is more careful. In most cases these water conduits were not very wide; indeed, they were usually made narrow deliberately so that it would be easier to flood them so that their water would overflow and irrigate the fields.

3:
Tanna Kamma obviously holds that these water conduits separate fields under all circumstances, but Rabbi Yehudah does not. He holds that if the water conduit is very narrow indeed it can hardly be held to delineate the edge of one field and the start of another. The test in this regard, he holds, is whether a person standing on one side of the water conduit would be able to harvest the crop growing on the other side. If the channel is so narrow that it does not impede harvesting at all then it cannot be held to be a separator; only if it impedes such harvesting would he agree with Tanna Kamma that it does constitute a boundary. In his commentary on our present mishnah Rabbi Ovadyah of Bertinoro states that halakhah follows the view of Rabbi Yehudah. While this is eminently reasonable from the point of view of logic it is less understandable from the point of view of Mishnah methodology: nearly always – but not in all cases – halakhah follows the view of Tanna Kamma. It is true that Rambam decided in favour of Rabbi Yehudah, but it is not clear why, since the Gemara [Pe'ah 17a] seems to leave the maĥloket between Rabbi Yehudah and Tanna Kamma as a maĥloket.

To be continued.

In Pe'ah 014 I presented a query from Shel Schiffman concerning the Hebrew term ke-neged, used in the first mishnah of Chapter 1. Yiftah Shapir has a helpful comment to offer:

Just a comment on the translation of Ke-neged – I think the easiest way to understand the term is to imagine scales – there is something on one hand of the scale – and something else on the other hand. Pe'ah, Bikkurim etc. on one hand – and Talmud Torah on the other hand – and they weigh exactly the same.

---

My response to the query from Shel Schiffman about Torah lishmah brought many commendatory messages. I am very grateful for them. It is good to know that so many people found my comments helpful. However there is no need to present such messages here. One is an exception, because I think that it also includes a comment that explains why so many people received my response so favourably. Ze'ev Orzech writes:

Your discussion of Torah lishmah was much appreciated. It clarified all kinds of things for me. Thank you. Based on this explanation, it occurs to me that the question as to why certain mitzvot were commanded is not only unnecessary but, in fact, inappropriate. Yet, it seems to me that the Rambam himself suggested reasons (usually medicinal) for several of the mitzvot. Is this to induce us "to do right for the wrong reasons?"

I respond:

I think that Ze'ev is referring here to the very long section in Part Three of Moreh Nevukhim [The Guide for the Perplexed] in which Rambam offers a philosophic rationale for many of the mitzvot. Doubtless, as Ze'ev hints, he does this for the benefit of people like you and me, not because this rationale is needed. Basing myself on what Rambam himself wrote I wrote: He who comprehends that the best reason for observing the mitzvot of the Torah is the very fact that they are the mitzvot of the Torah has reached the level of saintliness and spiritual sophistication associated with the Patriarch Abraham who loved God for no ulterior motive. Rambam suggests that lesser mortals must be permitted to do right for the wrong reasons.