Pe'ah 029

2:
It seems that in mishnaic times some farmers would have an uneven distribution of fertilizer in their field. This would result in the better-fertilized areas of the field producing crops earlier than the other parts of the field; while some of the crop had not only sprouted by was also sufficiently dry for harvesting other parts of the crop in the same field were still too moist to be harvested. It can be imagined that when viewed from afar such a field would appear to be leopard-like in that it seemed to be spotted. When a farmer reaped the parts of the field that were dry enough to harvest leaving the more moist parts for later reaping in colloquial parlance he was said to be 'leoparding' his field. (The Gemara [Pe'ah 17c] attributes the colloquialism to the bare areas left in the field by the farmer after he had reaped the dry patches among the still growing crops which gave the appearance of the skin of a spotted leopard.)

3:
Rabbi Akiva holds that the 'leoparding' of the field means that it has been turned into two fields as it were: the second field was created by the second reaping of the crop that matured later. Therefore, he says, the poor are entitled to take Pe'ah twice, once from each harvesting of the field. The rest of the sages disagree, holding that it is just one field of which various areas happen to be harvested at different times. In his commentary on our mishnah Rambam states that, not surprisingly, halakhah follows the view of the sages and not that of Rabbi Akiva. It has occurred to me that Rabbi Akiva's view may have been coloured by his own personal history: he must have collected Pe'ah himself when he was so poor that his wife had to sell her hair in order to sustain them during his studies. Perhaps he now seeks every opportunity to give the poor greater access to agricultural produce.

4:
However, the sages do admit that in a slightly different situation Rabbi Akiva's ruling would be the correct one. If the farmer has created the 'leopard' effect by deliberately sowing his field with beds of different seeds, probably with an eye to economic considerations, then each different crop must be considered to be a separate field from which separate Pe'ah must be given. Our mishnah refers to a field which contains beds of both dill and mustard; each crop would probably be ready for harvesting at a different time and therefore Pe'ah should be made available for each crop at its own time. It seems to me that 'dill and mustard' are just examples of different crops that might be sown in separate beds in the same field. For economic reasons they were probably the more popular crops among the farmers who only had small plots.

Were there any restrictions placed on which of the poor were eligible to go to which fields/orchards being harvested? In other words, could a poor but well-informed person go and collect from multiple landowners' holdings in different areas, possibly at the expense of the poor people dwelling closer to those landholdings?

I respond:

To the best of my knowledge no restrictions were placed on poor people who wished to collect their Pe'ah. While, in theory, the indigent could go from field to field and from estate to estate in order to obtain Pe'ah from as many sources as they could – their success in doing so would seem rather unlikely, because by the time they were ready to move on to the next field they would find that all the Pe'ah had already been taken by others. However, on lands that supported several different kinds of crop that were harvested at different times of the year it is quite possible that the same person could visit the same fields even several times a year.

I have received communications concerning sumac from Jerome Kopelman and from Jim Feldman. Both sent links to sites that give information concerning the properties of this tree. With reluctance I refrain from bringing the information they have provided because I think that the discussion concerning the sumac tree has now produced more than sufficient information for the purposes of our study. My thanks to all.

To conclude the discussion of the properties of the various plants mentioned I bring the message sent by Joshua Peri:

With the book Taste of Life by Nissim Krispil in front of me, I come up with the following names for the herbs mentioned in the discussion:

Thyme – קורנית Kornit (Hebrew) – Zahif (Arabic) – Coridothymus capilatus

Sumac – אוג הבורסקאים Og ha-burskaïm (Hebrew) – Somec (Arabic) – Rhus coriaria

Syrian marjoram – no Hebrew name – zaatar (Arabic) – Marjorama syriaca

Sage – מרוה Marva (Hebrew) – marmaria (Arabic) – Salvia fruticosa

The seasoning zaatar is a combination of these, some people leave out the sumac, and sometimes contains sesame and salt in addition. Sumac is used in any number of other dishes as a seasoning.

I respond:

The Hebrew term given for sumac here is one particular strain: "tanner's sumac".

Our discussion on sumac is now closed.