Pe'ah 025

Ze'ev Orzech writes:

I'm having some trouble visualizing how a farmer would give pe'ah from his trees. If he owns 60 (or more) trees, he could designate one tree as pe'ah, which the poor could harvest. If he owns fewer than that, would he designate a number of branches or an area of the tree to constitute his pe'ah? (All this, of course, is based on the principle that the farmer can't harvest the fruit himself and then allocate a portion thereof to the poor, rather than have the poor do the work themselves.)

I respond:

My response to this question will also answer in part the questions of others. In Peah 012 I wrote:

I now add:

The farmer would probably leave the Pe'ah that he had harvested himself outside the entrance to his field or plot so that any poor person could take it. This was customary with other donatives as well (though not all). However, since the produce was not completely hefker [legally ownerless and therefore available to all] but belonged by right only to the poor, the farmer probably also stationed a guard over the produce to make sure that a just allocation was made – something that he was not permitted to do in other circumstances.)

---

David Morris (substantially supported by Adam Rosenthal) writes:

I am confused about why why it matters whether a particular plot of land is considered one field or two for Peah purposes, and why it would be ruinous for a farmer to consider each carob tree to be its own field, liable for its own Peah. If the farmer has to give a minimum of 1/60th for Peah (and has flexibility to consider the size of the field, the size of the yield, and the number of poor), why does it matter if he gives 1/60th from each tree separately or 1/60th from both trees together? The number of carobs he has to give to the poor is still the same. I can see it mattering to the poor person, although I'm not sure which he would prefer: in a larger field, the Peah would be more concentrated but the poor would all have to walk to the place where the Peah was. If the fields are smaller, there will be less walking to the Peah, but there will be less of it in each place. Compounding the problem for me is Rabbi Shimon's view that the Peah can be given from the middle of the field and from the edge of the field, as long as the total amount is proper. If that is so, then it really shouldn't matter to the farmer whether what he thinks of as two plots are considered one for Peah purposes: if the plot is considered a single field, he can give Peah from wherever he wants to, as if it were two fields. (The reverse seems not to be true, if the farmer has one field (say, 2 terraces) that the halacha considers two equal-sized Peah fields, he can't give 2/60ths from one and 0 from another – but why should the halacha care about this?)

I respond as briefly as possible to these questions (and I hope that I have identified them all):

The more fields into which a property was divided would give that much greater distribution of the crop to the poor and much greater "availability". There would be less squabbling, fighting and mayhem among the poor for the right of entry and harvesting. (We shall visit this issue in chapter 4.) It would also make it less easy for burly men to use force to the detriment of women and less burly men.

Which brings us to the second point raised by David. We have already seen that carob trees were not in one orchard, but grew haphazardly; this would have made it more difficult for the farmer to supervise the distribution of the Pe'ah, and it would have been possible for the unscrupulous poor to denude his tree. There was also another reason why it would have been more equitable for the farmer to harvest all his trees and then distribute the Pe'ah (as suggested in my response to Ze'ev Orzech above): people had to climb the trees in order to reap the fruit. They would then let the fruit drop to the ground where they would collect it afterwards. This, again, would leave the matter wide open to abuse by unscrupulous people who could rob the indigent person of his harvest while he was up the tree. There is a mishnah [Gittin 5:8] which describes this problem:

And now to the third question I have identified in David's message. The sages, including Rabbi Shim'on, are concerned with the implications of the biblical injunction. The Torah [Leviticus 19:9-10] defines those parts of the farmer's crop which must be made over to the poverty-stricken:

The sages were concerned with the exact implications of the designation you, wholly reap, corners, your field and poor. In the matter raised by David the consideration is what is meant by wholly reap the corners. Does this imply that a corner [edge, last part] must be left or can any part of the field be set aside as Pe'ah? Does it mean that Pe'ah can only be given from the last part of the field to be reaped or does it also mean that it can be given from anywhere in the field provided that it covers what is due from the entirety of the field? The view of Rabbi Shim'on covers both possibilities: the farmer may designate any part of his field as Pe'ah provided that he leaves a portion of his field unreaped at the end and provided that the unreaped portion is equal to at least one sixtieth of the yield. Only thus will he have fulfilled all the requirements of the biblical verse.

More of your comments and queries next time.