Pe'ah 065

1:
The law of shikheĥah does not apply only to the reaped crop; according to the halakhic midrash Sifré [Tetzei 73] if, for any reason, part of the field was left unreaped by reason of oversight then also a crop of standing cereal would also come under the rubric of the law of shikheĥah. But then the same ruling would apply to the standing crop and to the reaped crop. As we saw in the previous mishnah:

Therefore, standing cereal which contains two se'ahs and was forgotten is not considered to be shikheĥah, as stated in our present mishnah. Only if the volume of the crop that was overlooked and not reaped with the rest of the field amounts to less than two se'ahs does it belong to the poor by law.

2:
However, as we can readily appreciate, the harvest in some years would be better than the harvest in others. In the absence of modern means of pest control and so forth the quality and quantity of the eventual harvested crop could vary enormously from year to year even though it was the same plant and the same soil that were being used. Again, here, our mishnah comes to the rescue of the poor farmer: if, in a good year, the amount of standing cereal that was inadvertently left unreaped would yield two se'ahs (and thus not be considered the perquisite of the poor), then even if this year is a bad year and that same amount of crop has produced less than two se'ahs, it is not considered to belong to the poor but to the owner.

3:
Our mishnah adds one further comment: even if the overlooked crop was so poor that its yield was more like that of the red pea than good and healthy wheat or barley, nevertheless the poor cannot claim it and it is to seen as the equivalent of a good crop of barley (or wheat, or rye etc).

4:
There is a curiosity in this mishnah in that it contains two terms which have already been used in this tractate with a different meaning. In Pe'ah 5:3 [Peah 052] the Hebrew term tofe'aĥ was used to denote a 'noria' – a water-wheel. In our present mishnah, however, it denotes the red pea. (The expert will identify it as Lathyrus Cicera L. The term cicera suggests that it resembles the chickpea or is of the same general family.)

5:
The other term which has been previously used in a different sense is to be found in the last phrase of our mishnah: 'completely sprouted'. The Hebrew term anava also appeared in Pe'ah 1:2, where we translated it as indicating 'poverty'. (See Peah 008, explanation #4.) Here it obviously has the meaning that we have ascribed to it – full, healthy growth.

In Peah 063 we noted the difference of opinion between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel concerning the number of piles of reaped crop that may be overlooked and yet still be deemed to belong to the owner and not forfeited to the poor. According to Bet Hillel two overlooked sheaves belong to the poor, but three or more belong to the owner; according to Bet Shammai three overlooked sheaves belong to the poor and only four or more belong to the owner.

Michael Lewyn writes:

Since Bet Shammai tends to be more pro-farmer (as opposed to pro-indigent) I would think that Bet Shammai would hold that if the farmer gets to keep three overlooked piles, while Bet Hillel would hold that if the farmer overlooks three piles it belongs to the poor. Is there something I am missing here?

Ze'ev Orzech noticed the same curiosity:

It seems to me that Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai have reversed their usual positions (based on the divergence of their "economic base") when it comes to the number of "piles" that constitute shikhehah. Shouldn't Bet Hillel be more lenient and allow three "forgotten" piles to go to the poor?

I respond:

I too noticed this. I have no obvious explanation. After thinking about this the only suggestion that I can offer is one that I hinted at in my comment in Peah 063 explanation 2. The followers of Bet Shammai were, as noted by Michael and Ze'ev, farmers and landowners. Instead of judging them harshly perhaps we may see them in a more genial light: as landowners they wished to be as generous towards the hapless as they could permit themselves to be. To the followers of Bet Hillel only two overlooked sheaves would be considered a godsend.

Maybe someone else has a better explanation?