Pe'ah 060

14:
We continue our explanation of terms used in the present mishnah. Previously we have had several occasions on which to explain the term kav. The basic unit of cubic measurement in rabbinic times was 'an egg's bulk' [Betzah]. It is nowadays customary to compute this as the equivalent of about 80 cubic centimetres. Six 'eggs' bulk' made up one log, which was therefore somewhat less that half a litre. Since there were four logs in one kav it follows that a kav would yield a little less than 2 litres. (I must add here that there are today two main views concerning these equivalents. For various reasons, that need not detain us here, Rabbi Avraham Yeshayah Karelitz (1875-1953), whose sobriquet was 'the Ĥazon Ish', was of the opinion that 'their eggs were then bigger than ours today' and computed a maximalist table of amounts. Another view, of Rabbi Ĥayyim Na'eh, for equally cogent reasons, was minimalist. But for our purposes here it makes little matter: the maximalist computation yields an equivalent for the kav of just over 2 litres and the minimalist computation yields an equivalent of just under 2 litres. I mention these details because of their implications regarding other, smaller, minimal amounts, such as wine for Kiddush where the difference is considerable. I see no reason why Conservative Jews must assume that nature has changed radically over the past 2000 years and that eggs nowadays are smaller on the average than they were in rabbinic times, and we can surely accept the minimalist computations of Rabbi Ĥayyim Na'eh.)

15:
We can now turn to the details of the seifa [last clause] of our mishnah. The seifa reads: when all the sheaves in a field contain one 'kav' except one that contains four 'kavs' and it is this one that is forgotten, the school of Shammai says: it is not shikheĥah and the school of Hillel say that it is shikheĥah. Let us imagine that the farmer has reaped his field and his workers have made piles of the reaped crop, piles left all over the field. These piles are now to be transported to the threshing floor where they will eventually be processed into flour and so forth. I think that we can safely assume that the workers made an effort to see that all the piles of the reaped crop were of approximately the same size. However, I think that we can also assume that here and there there were piles which were larger than the others.

16:
When we reach mishnah 5 of this chapter we shall see that the school of Shammai held that when the number of overlooked sheaves reaches four or more the poor cannot claim that they are all shikheĥah and belong to them. In the case of our mishnah, the view of the school of Shammai is that the size of all the other piles – one kav each – proves that the larger one – of four kavs – must be seen as really being four separate piles. And, as we have seen, if there are four piles overlooked the piles belong to the farmer and may be transported away, and are not to be considered to be shikheĥah.

17:
I will not make do here with simply noting that halakhah follows the view of the school of Hillel, which holds that if it is the larger pile which was overlooked it belongs to the poor as shikheĥah. I think we should also note that this disagreement between the two schools admirably illustrates the economic considerations that prompted each school towards its views (as suggested by Rabbi Eli'ezer Finkelstein z"l). Bet Shammai, representing the 'landed gentry' would not be able to agree that a farmer should have to lose such a comparatively large amount produce; Bet Hillel, representing the peasantry and the proletarians, could not agree that such a large windfall should not belong to the poor and needy.

David Sieradzki writes:

You translated the Seifa of Chapter 5, Mishnah 5 as follows: When someone accepts a field to reap he is forbidden to take gleanings, forgotten sheaf, pe'ah and indigent's tithe. Rabbi Yehudah says: When is this? – when he accepted it for half, third or quarter, but if he said to him, "A third of what you reap will be yours" he is permitted [to take] gleanings, forgotten sheaf and pe'ah, but is forbidden [to take] the indigent's tithe.

In your comments on this passage, you wrote, The seifa of our mishnah is concerned with a situation in which a poor person is employed to reap a field. Instead of being paid in cash he is told that a certain percentage of the yield will be his recompense. Rabbi Yehudah explains that if the agreement is that the produce is given to the worker in advance, so that he can feel that in at least part of the field he is 'working his own', then he is not entitled to the poor man's dues. But, if the agreement was that when the work is done he would receive a certain percentage of the reaped crop then he is entitled to all the dues except the indigent's tithe since he had no proprietary rights over the produce while it was as yet unreaped.

I have to say I had a hard time following your comment – might you be able to "unpack" it a little? I don't understand Rabbi Yehudah's explanation, the significance of 1/2, 1/3,or 1/4, the two possible alternative forms of agreement that Rabbi Yehudah posits, or the halachic consequences with respect to the several different poor laws. Why is the rule different for the indigent's tithe than for peah and the other rules?

I respond:

I apologise that my attempt at brevity caused problems. Let me try again.

Let us assume that a farmer hires a poor man to reap his field for him. In an ages when money was sometimes of less usefulness than goods the farmer might suggest to the worker that instead of receiving a wage at the end of the job he might prefer to keep some of the yield for himself – a certain percentage of the yield, such as one quarter of all he reaps, or a third or a half and so forth. The view of Tanna Kamma is that such an arrangement means that the yield, at least in part, belongs to the worker, and in that case he is not entitled to take poor dues as well because he cannot take these dues from what he himself owns. Rabbi Yehudah does not disagree with Tanna Kamma, but seeks to limit the situation. If the agreement between the farmer and the worker was that the part of the yield which would be his was given to him "as of now" as it were, as a kind of incentive, then Tanna Kamma is correct. However, if it was agreed that he would only get his share (instead of payment) when the work was done then he is entitled to the poor dues, because as long as he has not actually been 'paid' no part of the yield belongs to him. Since the poor man's tithe could only be given from the crop after it had been reaped it follows that even when the worker is entitled to take the other dues he cannot take the poor man's tithe because after the crop has been reaped it belongs to him, as it were.

I am leaving for a week's vacation as from Sunday, so the next shiur will be on Monday December 8th. Shabbat Shalom.