What are the implications of the word "u've'Kutzr'chem ... "?
Chulin, 135b: It Incorporates a field that is jointly owned. 1
Sifra: It implies that, if Nochrim or robbers gather the harvest, 2 if ants detatch the grains or if the wind or animals broke down the stalks, it is not subject to Leket and Pe'ah.
Seeing as the Pasuk is addressing the individual, why does the Pasuk begin with the words "u've'Kutzr'chem es K'tzir Artz'chem" (plural)?
Chulin, 138b: To include partners in the Dinim of Leket and Pe'ah.
What are the ramifications of "Lo Sechaleh Pe'as Sadcha ... "?
Rashi: It entails leaving a corner of one's field un-harvested. 1
Targum Yonasan: It entails leaving one row standing. 2
Sifra: It comes to render each and every field that one owns Chayav Pe'ah.
Nedarim, 6b: It teaches us that if one wishes to leave one's entire field Pe'ah, one may do so. 3
What are the implications of the words "K'tzir" and "Artz'chem"?
Sifra: It implies that, like the harvest, only something that a. is a regular food, b. guarded (but not Hefker); c. grows from the ground, d. is harvested at one and the same time and e. can be preserved is subject to Leket, Shikchah and Pe'ah. Whereas "Artz'chem" implies a. that 'Kol she'be'Artz'chem' - even legumes, which are not corn are included in the Din of Pe'ah, and b. that the harvest of Chutz la'Aretz is precluded. 1
Yerushalmi Pe'ah, 1:4: It implies that not only the five species of grain are subject to Leket and Pe'ah, but so are the various species of legumes. 2
Yeruhalmi Pe'ah, 2:5: "Artzchem" precludes Chutz la'Aretz from the Din of Leket and Pe'ah. 3
What are the implications of the word "Pe'as Sadcha"?
Chulin, 135b: It implies that a field belonging to a Nochri is not subject to Leket and Pe'ah (neither is a field that is shared with a Nochri - Chulin, 135b or one that is Hefker - Rashi, Bava Kama, 94a).
Yerushalmi Pe'ah, 1:4: It incorporates whatever grows in the field, even trees 1 - and any field, however small - Yerushalmi, Ibid. 3:6.
See Torah Temimah, note 34.
Having written "u've'Kutzr'chem es K'tzir Artz'chem", why does the Torah insert the words "li'Ktzor and "ve'Leket Ketzircha"?
Moshav Zekenim: The four times Katzir mentioned in the Pasuk (including "u've'Kutzr'chem" and "K'tzir") hint at the four exemptions: 1. Where bandits harvested it; 2. where ants cut the grain; 3. & 4. where the wind or an animal detached the fruit,
Yerushalmi Pe'ah 1:4: It inserts "Liktzor" to incorporate where the owner detatched the grains by hand and "ve'Leket Ketzircha", to incoporate where he pulled the stalks out of the ground in the Din of Leket and Pe'ah. 1
Yerushalmi Pe'ah 1:3: The Torah inserts "Liktzor" to permit leaving Pe'ah at the beginning of the field or in the middle - provided one also leaves Pe'ah at the end of the field. 2
Why does the Torah jump from Korbanos to Pe'ah and Leket?
Seforno: Having accepted Hashem as our G-d, it is befitting that we go in His ways 1 - to perform acts of kindness such as Leket, Shikchah 2 and Pe'ah and to carry out Mishpat. 3
Ramban and Moshav Zekenim #1: When you give the Eimurim from Shelamim, give from your harvest [to the poor] for Hashem's honor, and all the more so you may not steal from others!
Moshav Zekenim #2: Even though Hashem commanded us not to leave over from Shelamim, He commanded us to leave over Pe'ah from our harvest.
The Pasuk does not actually mention Shikchah here, only in Devarim 24:19.
Seforno: and the Pasuk ends "Ani Hashem Elokeichem", as if to say 'I am Hashem your G-d who performs Chesed and Emes, and it is befitting that you go in My ways'. Refer also to 19:11:1:1*.
Why does the Torah insert the (otherwise superfluous) word "Liktzor"?
Yerushalmi Pe'ah, 1:3 (according to R. Shimon): To teach us that even someone who has left Pe'ah in the middle of his field remains obligated to leave Pe'ah at the end of the field.
Yerushalmi Pe'ah, 1:4: To teach us that even corn that one picks by hand is subject to Pe'ah. 1
Yerushalmi (Ibid.): And from the word "Ketzircha" we learn that the same applies to corn that one plucked out by the roots. See Torah Temimah, note 25.
What does the Mitzvah of Leket entail?
Rashi: It entails not picking up one or two grains of corn that fall whilst harvesting. 1
Rashi: Picking up three grains of corn that fall is permitted.
Why does the Torah not include the Mitzvah of Shikchah together with Leket and Pe'ah?
Or ha'Chayim (23:22): The Torah is currently concerned with Mitzvos that are dependent exclusively on the field, whereas Shikchah depends on the owner forgetting the sheaf. 1
Because Shikchah is not a result of the harvesting. 2
What are the implications of "ve'Leket Ketzircha"?
Chulin, 137a: It implies that corn that one picked by hand is not subject to Leket.
Sifra: It implies that the Din of Leket only applies to grains that fall due to harvesting. 1
Torah Temimah: And not if they fell due to some other cause - if for example, the harvester was pricked by a thorn. And the same applies to Peret, in connection with grapes that fall not due to the harvesting. See Torah Temimah, on Pasuk 10, citing Pe'ah, 7:3 and note 45.
What are the implications of the Asei "le'Ani ve'la'Ger Ta'azov osam"?
Rashi (in Emor, 23:22): It implies that the owner must leave the grain or the grapes for the poor to take without any assistance.
Targum Yonasan: It teaches us that the owner must leave the grain or the grapes attached to the ground or the tree. 1
Presumably, with reference to Pe'ah and Olelos, respectively.
Why did the Torah command to leave Pe'ah specifically at the end of the harvest?
Why does the Torah say "Ketzirchem" (in the plural)?
Moshav Zekenim: We read this as 'K'tzir 'Chaf Mem' (sixty) - a hint that the minimum Shi'ur for Pe'ah is one sixtieth.
Moshav Zekenim: To excludes where Nochrim harvested for themselves. 1
Moshav Zekenim: But not if they harvested on behalf of the Yisrael. Likewise, if they kneaded a dough in a Yisrael's house for the Yisrael, it is obligated in Chalah.
We learn the beard from the sideburns, since both pertain to shaving and there is no reason to mention one more than the other. By the same tokken, why do we not learn a field from a person?
Moshav Zekenim (in Pasuk 27, citing Ri): Becusee a field is different, since the Torah writes "Lo Sechaleh," and if one leaves even one corner, he has not finished harvesting it. 1
Really, the Isur of the sideburns applies even to cutting them very short; one may do so to the beard, as long as he does not shave. And five corners of the beard are forbidden! (Moshav Zekenim (27) says that "es" includes under the bottom lip.) What was the Havah Amina to learn to a field? A Gezeirah Shavah was received "Pe'ah-Pe'ah" (Kidushin 35b, according to Noda bi'Yehudah 2 YD 81. One might have thought that that it is to teach about a field, for we can already learn the sideburns and beard from each other through a Hekesh; both are in Pasuk 27 below. (PF)
