When someone sells his field the seller may but the buyer may not. A person should not hire a worker in order that his son shall glean after him. Anyone who does not permit the poor to glean, or who permits one and not another, or who assists one of them – such a person is robbing the poor. Concerning this it says, "Do not poach on the successful man's territory.
1:
Our present mishnah too, like the previous one, consists of rulings on three different matters. The common thread which links them together is the question of propriety and honest dealing in the matter of gleaning.
2:
Let us start with the reisha of our mishnah. It concerns the sale of a field. In order for the mishnah to make sense we must assume that both the seller of the field and the person who buys it from him are poverty-stricken; in other words, that technically they are both entitled to glean (and the other rights of the poor). The reisha of our mishnah clarifies an anomalous situation: the vendor has the right to glean in the field he has just sold; he is indigent and the field no longer belongs to him. The buyer of the field, who previous to the sale would have had a similar right, may now not do so – even though he is indigent – because no one may exercise any right under the 'poor law' in his own property. Thus we must explain the enigmatic first clause of our mishnah as saying:
When one indigent person sells his field to another indigent person the seller may glean in his erstwhile field but the buyer may not glean in the field which now belongs to him.
3:
Now we come to the emtza'ita [middle clause] of our mishnah. This clause comes to prevent possible collusion between an owner and a worker. What our mishnah seeks to outlaw is the possibility that the owner of a field may hire someone who is poor to reap his field knowing that the latter may well permit his own son to glean after him. Such an arrangement might lead to double theft: the worker may conveniently leave more of the owner's yield than another worker would simply so that his son, gleaning after him, will find more to glean; this is theft of the owner's property. But it could also lead to theft of the property of the poor: if the worker's son is following immediately behind his father what opportunity would be left for the other poor people to glean?
4:
The seifa of our mishnah is concerned with a situation in which the owner of a field (or his agent) takes steps to deny the poor access to his field. Alternatively he may so arrange matters (by harassment or otherwise) that not all the poor people will have an equal chance to glean in his field. He would thus be showing favouritism to some and antagonism to others. This is not permitted. The field is not his: it belongs to God and it is God who has given these poor people the right to glean in 'His' field.
5:
Our mishnah, curiously, brings a proof-text. This is a scriptural verse which is quoted in order to bolster what has been said in the mishnah or in order to identify the biblical origins of what has been stated. Concerning the ruling of the seifa our mishnah seems to be quoting Proverbs 22:28. However, if we check up on the verse we find the following:
Don’t move an ancient boundary stone.
What has happened is that the Tanna of our mishnah has slightly modified one of the words. Where the biblical text reads the Hebrew word
olam the
Tanna of our mishnah has substituted
olim. In his commentary on our mishnah Rabbi Ovadya of Bertinoro offers two possible interpretations of this deliberate play on words; both accord the Hebrew word
olim its meaning of "those who go up" or "those who rise".
6:
His first interpretation (also offered by Rambam before him) is to make the term refer to our ancestors who 'went up' out of Egypt. This would mean that someone who prevents a poor person from exercising his or her right to glean in a field is contravening the law that was given by God to those who 'went up' from Egypt and received the Torah.
7:
His second interpretation is even more recondite. He suggests that the term 'those who go up' is a euphemism for the poor. In Hebrew (to this day) someone who has lost his source of income and has forfeited his property is called someone who 'has gone down from his property'. Thus, 'those who go up' and are deemed to be successful – 'on the rise' – would be a euphemistic substitute for those who are 'on the down' and have become indigent.
The terminology of the original verse of the Bible is used in later Hebrew – including modern Hebrew – to indicate encroaching on another person's property.
8:
Both of these interpretations have their origin in the Gemara [Pe'ah 19a]. But there a further verse is quoted [Isaiah 58:7] where the prophet urges us to offer hospitality and succour to the poverty-stricken. The prophet rhetorically asks what God really wants of us, and responds:
Isn’t it to deal your bread to the hungry and that you bring the poor who are cast out to your house? when you see the naked, that you cover him; and that you not hide yourself from your own flesh?
The 'poor who are cast out' are those in abject poverty. And now in the Gemara Rabbi Avin says:
If you act thus I count it as if you had brought Me your first fruits to the Bet Mikdash…
Is this not applicable today? – generosity to the poor is counted 'as if' you have given them all their agricultural rights.
