1:
Such a short mishnah – and so enigmatic!
2:
The irrigator which Rabbi Me'ir would outlaw is what we would call a water-wheel. Furthermore, of course, he would only prohibit the farmer the use of his water-wheel in the immediate post-harvest period, when the poor have access to his fields.
3:
The first enigma of our mishnah is the nature of the irrigator [tofe'aĥ in Hebrew].
The buckets which are in the source fill with water, and then, as the wheel is turned, the buckets are raised from the source. As they pass their optimal height and begin their downward swing they empty their contents into a channel which then directs the water to various parts of the field in order to irrigate it. (When a river is the water source for the wheel it is because the field to be irrigated lies higher than the water course itself.)
4:
It seems that Rabbi Me'ir is aiming to outlaw a practice which would have made it impossible (or extremely inconvenient) for the poor to exercise their right of gleaning, collecting Pe'ah etc. If the farmer irrigates his field by flooding it immediately after removing the harvested crop it will not be possible for the poor to wade through the muddy field in order to search for water-logged gleanings.
5:
The view of Rabbi Me'ir seems eminently fair. And yet it is rejected by the sages. Here we encounter both the second and the third of the enigmas which our mishnah presents: why do the sages permit a practice which ostensibly seems to be scurrilous and unfair? The answer given in our mishnah is in itself enigmatic since it is subject to different interpretations.
6:
The common explanation of the view of the sages is that if the farmer – presumably for agricultural reasons – sees a need to irrigate his field immediately after its produce having been harvested he need not necessarily thereby deprive the poor of their right to gleanings. He can have his teams glean the field on behalf of the poor before he commences the irrigation process and then distribute the gleanings in an equitable manner to the poor waiting outside the field. For example, here is the text of a baraita [Tosefta Pe'ah 2:21]:-
If someone irrigates his field before the poor can enter it, this is permitted if his [envisaged] loss would be greater than that of the poor. If the [envisaged] loss of the poor would be greater than his it is forbidden. Rabbi Yehudah says that in either case he should glean [for them], leave it on the fence and the poor man will come along and take what it his.
Another proffered solution [
Gemara Pe'ah 19a] is that even if his irrigation does deprive the poor of their rights he can always make amends by offering them cash.
7:
Now the enigma deepens. The Hebrew that was spoken in Eretz-Israel in Tannaïtic times was natural and slovenly. As is natural in a spoken language certain vowels and consonants could be pronounced in differing ways in differing regions or even elided altogether out of existence. Our mishnah says that the sages "permit because it is possible". This is rendering the original Hebrew as efshar. However, according to orthography handed down through the ages this word was pronounced ifshar in Eretz-Israel at that time. Furthermore, the discussion in the Gemara [Pe'ah 19a] makes it clear that what the sages hear in the mishnah is not ifshar but eefshar – the first vowel lengthened because it is lazy speech for ee-ifshar, 'it is impossible'! So the Gemara understands the sages to permit the use of the noria because it is impossible otherwise: in some cases the farmer needs to irrigate his field immediately after harvesting in order to get it ready for the next season.
8:
It is quite clear from the Tosefta (quoted above) and from the discussion in the Gemara [Pe'ah 19a] that our mishnah intends its subject to be the irrigation of fields. Therefore it is enigmatic in the extreme to find that two of our greatest classical commentators read our mishnah completely differently. Rambam says that the intention of our mishnah is to outlaw the harvesting of a certain kind of grain [tofe'aĥ] which is extremely harmful. He even supplies the name given to this strain of grain by "Arab doctors". According to this interpretation the sages permit the harvesting of such a grain because "it is possible" for the poor to separate it from the ears of grain which are not harmful. Rabbi Ovadya of Bertinoro follows in the path of Rambam. "Curiouser and curiouser", as Alice said.
9:
It is perhaps not surprising that Rambam completely ignored this ruling of the Mishnah and does not even mention it in his great code "Mishneh Torah".
Shabbat Shalom.
