Pe'ah 019

5:
There were two main ways in which land could be prepared for seeding: either the ground could be broken up and furrowed by a plough drawn by cattle (most usually by an ox); or it could be treated in much the same way – though much more laboriously – by a human being wielding a hoe. Obviously, wherever possible farmers would prefer the former method.

6:
However, it could happen that the physical nature of a tract of land could be such that an ox, dragging its plough behind it, would not be able to pass. Contrary to what one might possibly have expected, our mishnah teaches that such a tract of land is to be seen as one field for the purposes of Pe'ah – no other phenomena indicating to the contrary – as long as a human being with his or her hoe would be able to pass and prepare the land for seeding in one go.

7:
The particular kind of physical obstacle that concerns our mishnah is a 'hill'. Now, under usual circumstances, the fact that a tract of land includes a steep incline would not prevent an animal from being able to pass. It seems to me that it is reasonable to assume that our mishnah is referring to what we would call today "terrace farming". To this day in hilly parts of Eretz-Israel one can see how the hillsides are cultivated by using terraces that have been cut into the hillside, either naturally or otherwise. One can see the hillside descending in these ridges, each of which is cultivated. Obviously it would have been very dangerous, if not impossible, for an animal to negotiate the descent from one level to the next and the farmer would have had to use manpower in order to prepare the land on each terrace for seeding.

8:
The Gemara [Pe'ah 17a] discusses which kind of terrace would constitute one 'field' as indicated by our mishnah, and which kind of terrace would still constitute two separate fields.

One thing I did not expect to learn much of in an English-language mishnah study group was, oddly enough, the English language. However, over the past few years I've been delighted to learn a variety of new English expressions I had not come across before (e.g. expatiate), as well as new meanings to words I already knew. And so in today's shiur, I assumed there was simply an alternate meaning to "protagonist" – if there is, though, I can't find it. Did you mean to call the Ravad the antagonist of the Rambam? or was this a euphemism?

I respond:

I thank Josh for his gentle correction. I have changed the archived copy accordingly.

Ze'ev Orzech writes

re: the discussion whether the poor must tithe or not: I seem to remember reading that the obligation of giving tzedakah falls on everybody, even — according to the Rambam — on those who themselves lived entirely on tzedakah. Are tithes not looked upon as tzedakah but rather as a sort of tax?

I respond:

Indeed, tithes are not tzedakah; they are dues which must be given only to certain specified kinds of people. Indigent priests and levites most certainly must be given tzedakah as well as their tithe. The poor were required to give tzedakah to others from what they had received as such, but Pe'ah was theirs by right and not as tzedakah.