The
[word of the] poor may be credited concerning
leket,
shikheĥah and
pe'ah at their time and concerning the Indigent's Tithe throughout its year. The
[word of a destitute] Levite may always to be credited. But they may be credited only in connection with something that is people's wont.
[Their word] may be credited concerning wheat but not concerning flour or bread. [Their word] may be credited concerning rice in thew husk but not when it is raw or cooked. [Their word] may be credited concerning beans but not concerning grits whether raw or cooked. [Their word] may be credited concerning oil and [also] that it is Indigent's Tithe, but [their word] is not to be credited if they say that it comes from "free" olives.
[Their word] may be credited concerning raw vegetables but not when they are cooked – unless he had [but] a small amount, for farmers are wont to give from their pot.
7:
Mishnahs 3 and 4 explain and elaborate on mishnah 2. Actually, they explain and elaborate on the very last clause of mishnah 2: "they may be credited only in connection with something that is people's wont".
8:
A poor man, who is also an Am ha-Aretz, offers for sale in the market some produce which he claims he received within the framework of the 'poor law'. Let's assume it is potatoes, even though this example would be completely anachronistic. (We recall that the reason why he would want to emphasize this latter point is because any prospective buyer would be attracted by the fact that he would be buying 100 per cent of the produce, since he would not have to remove ma'aser rishon and ma'aser sheni – see previous shiur.) The general rule given in mishnah 2 advises any ĥaver who is passing through the market place on the look out for cheap potatoes that he may purchase this person's produce and may assume that the vendor is telling the truth about the origin of the potatoes, about how they came into his possession. Only two caveats are given in mishnah 2 that circumscribe this general rule.
9:
The first caveat is that if it is claimed that the produce originated from a farmer during harvest time the claim is credible only during and immediately after harvest time: it is highly unlikely that our indigent vendor would have potatoes to sell that really came to him via the 'poor law' many weeks or months after the end of the potato harvest.
10:
The second caveat tells our ĥaver also that he may give credence to this claim only of the potatoes are being offered in a state that people usually receive 'poor law' produce: raw, straight from the ground. It is this last point that mishnahs 3 and 4 explain.
11:
The produce must be 'as is'. If it has been modified in some way a grave doubt should arise in the mind of the would-be buyer as to the veracity of the claim about the origin of the potatoes: if, for instance, they have been cooked – boiled, mashed or fried! – the claim is probably false because indigent people are not usually given produce in this manner by the farmers. In pe'ah 012 I wrote:
Ideally, the agriculturalist should designate part of his field, orchard or fruit grove as pe'ah before he completes the harvesting. This is the ideal because it will enable the poor to enter the field and do their own reaping. However it must have happened many a time and oft that a farmer did not leave part of his produce unharvested as he should have done – either by oversight or otherwise. Such produce is still subject to pe'ah even though it has been harvested, and the farmer must distribute at least one sixtieth of the produce to the poor. (Actually, he must do this at any stage – even after he has, for example, turned the produce into flour or bread etc: the Gemara … requires that the amount required as pe'ah be given to the poor.
Therefore it is possible that a farmer would already have cooked his potatoes when he suddenly realized that he must give some of them to a poor person; but it is so unlikely that such a claim in the mouth of an indigent vendor may not be credited.
12:
The examples given in mishnah 3 and 4 may now be readily appreciated: wheat in its natural state yes, baked into bread no – and so forth with the other examples. We need pause only to explain the expression "free olives". It seems that some farmers (or farm hands) did not always harvest all the olives on a tree: some, at the very top, which were difficult to access, were left as not being worth the time and energy to collect. Such olives are considered as hefker, since the farmer has obviously abandoned them. The poor can then come, throw sticks up at the top of the tree, and collect whatever olives fall: these are what our mishnah calls "free olives". While they did not come into the poor man's possession under the 'poor law' they were hefker and therefore technically not subject to tithing.
13:
When farmers had very small areas to cultivate it may not have been to the benefit of the indigent for them to leave a certain area for pe'ah (for instance). Such farmers would harvest all the crop and then distribute to the poor their share under the 'poor law'. Thus, if the vendor is offering for sale a very small amount of cooked vegetables his word may be credited because many farmers would give a small amount 'from the pot' in this manner.
