Pe'ah 032

2:
Re'uven and Shim'on have inherited a field from their late father. They decide that it would be in their best interests (for whatever reason) to divide their father's land between them, each receiving his own share. The first clause of our present mishnah teaches that each tract of land that they have thus created constitutes a separate field. Thus each one of them is now a 'you' to whom the Torah is referring in connection with Pe'ah: when 'you' reap your field… Thus each one of them must give Pe'ah from his field (even though, in their father's time, he would only have given Pe'ah once from the same tract of land).

3:
Now, let us assume that Re'uven and Shim'on realize that they have made an error – probably an economic one: the land held by each is now too small to be viable. So, they decide to resume joint ownership of the land. As if by magic, their two fields have now reverted to being one field which has but one ownership – it is just that now that ownership is vested in two people. Our mishnah teaches that even though two human beings own the same field it is still only one field and therefore the dual owners only give Pe'ah once. We have clarified the definition needed for Pe'ah: each field must provide Pe'ah, not each person.

To be continued.

Jerry Anker writes:

You mention the problem presented when at the time of harvest the land is owned by a non-Jew who subsequently converts to Judaism, and add the parenthetical comment that "in mishnaic times this was by no means uncommon, especially among women." My question is, was ownership of land by women – either Jewish or non-Jewish – common at the time, or just conversion by women?

I respond:

My comment was meant to imply that conversion to Judaism was especially common among women. During the first century of the common era most thinking Romans and Greeks realized that their traditional religious beliefs (the Olympian deities) were unreal. These thinking people were seeking some religious teaching that would 'make sense' to them philosophically. Judaism was certainly one of those religions. However, there was a social barrier that prevented many people from converting to Judaism and that was the requirement that males undergo circumcision. (In Roman society circumcision was considered to be a custom observed only by uncivilized barbarians. The objection of the would-be converts was therefore social.) Thus was created a very large population of males who regularly visited the synagogues of Eretz-Israel, the Aegean islands and the Italian peninsular but were not full members of the House of Israel. It was to these people that Saul (Paul) of Tarsus addressed his message when he preached in the synagogues of the eastern Mediterranean. Paul's brand of Christianity was very appealing to these people because it seemed to offer the philosophic benefits of Judaism without the social drawback of circumcision. The problem of circumcision was never one which bothered female converts. The Roman poet (and antisemite) Juvenal jibes that 'nowadays every second woman in Rome is a Jewess'

Having said all this I must also clarify that my above remarks are not intended to suggest that women did not hold property in their own right. Women were able to own property – and they were even able to write into a marriage contract that the property they owned before the marriage was not to be considered the husband's property (though he could administer her property for her).

In Peah 030 we raised the question of Pe'ah in modern times. Steve Koppel writes:

Wouldn't Income Tax take the place of Pe'ah today?

I respond:

I have always held that for the religious Jew Income Tax is a good thing because it allows his or her income to do good things for needy people: poor relief, health care, education and so forth. However, income tax has several drawbacks compared with Pe'ah (for poor relief). In my original response I suggested that Pe'ah creates a direct link between the landowner and the needy: they are 'real' people coming to harvest 'my' land: whoever well the tax on my income is used it can never give this sense of immediacy. But there is another consideration too. Pe'ah is given 100% to the relief of poverty; the tax on my income is used for a multitude of purposes – and not all of them 'positive'. While it is true that a lot of 'good' things are done with my money I must bear in mind that it will also be used to kill people, incarcerate them and so forth. And a further consideration: Pe'ah is given 100% to the relief of poverty; the tax on my income is also used for purely administrative purposes. Pe'ah is total poor relief with almost no overheads.