1:
As I pointed out when we studied 4:10, we are now in a section of the tractate which deals with another of the agricultural rights of the poor: the right to collect gleanings from harvested fields. Then last mishnah of chapter 4 began a series of mishnayot, which continues in this new chapter, which discuss what is to be done when a situation arises when there is doubt as to whom the produce rightfully belongs – the farmer or the poor.
2:
Our present mishnah is concerned with a situation in which the poor cannot exercise their right to glean part of a field because the owner's work team has placed a stack of harvested grain on a spot where the poor have not yet had a chance to glean. The Gemara [Pe'ah 18c] asks why there is a difference in the ruling in the two parts of the mishnah: when the wind has scattered stacks onto ungleaned areas of the field an estimate is made as to how much gleaning those areas would have yielded to the poor; but in the event that the grain was stacked on top of ungleaned parts of the field the farmer loses the right to everything that is under the stacks. The answer given in the Gemara (by Rabbi Yoĥanan) is that this ruling was introduced because unscrupulous farmers would give their workers instruction so to stack the harvested grain that the poor would not have access to areas which they were entitled to glean. Thus we should look upon the first ruling of our mishnah as a kind of deterrant.
3:
However, it could happen, of course, that stacks of grain were set up in such an area quite by accident and with no bad faith on the part either of the owner of the field or on the part of his workers. The Gemara makes clear that whether this was done deliberately or only accidentally the rule applies: the farmer must shift all these stacks to another part of his field, a part which has already been gleaned by the poor; it is reasonable to assume that during this removal process the farmer will lose much of the grain, which will now fall to the ground on top of the as yet uncollected gleanings: all this is now added to the gleanings and is lost to the farmer. It is clear that this 'fine', as the Gemara calls it, is a mechanism introduced by the sages to prevent such malpractice which would deprive the poor of their rights.
4:
We can now turn to the seifa [last clause] of our mishnah. Here we have a situation, as I have already indicated in paragraph 2 above, where there is no question of bad faith on the part of the farmer. He had seen to it that his grain, waiting to be bound into sheaves, was stacked in parts of the field that had already been gleaned by the poor. However, as bad luck would have it, before the grain could be bound into sheaves the wind dispersed the stalks together with their ears onto parts of the field that were as yet ungleaned. Here there is an ethical dilemma: why should the farmer lose his produce? but also, why should the poor lose their right to glean?
5:
The answer to this dilemma is that the farmer is entitled to all the ears that have been dispersed; as far as the rights of the poor are concerned, an assessment must be made as to how much gleaning this area would have yielded for the poor and the farmer must give to the poor this amount as their fair share.
6:
Rabban Shim'on ben-Gamli'el does not disagree with Tanna Kamma, he is only clarifying what has been said. The estimation that is made is not a subjective one made either by the farmer or by the poor: it is a fixed calculation which is valid for all fields. This calculation he calls 'the usual fall'. The Gemara [Pe'ah 18d] defines this amount as being "four kavs of produce for each bet kur". This works out at somewhat less than 9 litres of grain for every 350 square metres. Halakhah follows the statement of Rabban Shim'on ben-Gamli'el.
Mark Lehrman writes concerning something I wrote in Peah 047:
I am a bit confused about the definition of "leket." The example you provide in Paragraph 6 (produce dropped when the reaper transfers already reaped produce to the collecting basket) seems to diverge from the more narrow definition set forth in Paragraph 7 (produce dropped by the reaper during the reaping process itself).
I respond:
The earlier comment was intended to make the concept clear generally; the latter comment is an accurate definition of 'leket' as understood by the sages. Though, as today's shiur indicates, there were other considerations taken into account sometimes. I apologise for what I now see, thanks to Mark, as causing confusion when clarity was what was intended.
