PEAH ON TREES (Yerushalmi Peah Halachah 4 Daf 8a)

[ ( )] "


Some learn the obligation of giving Peah for trees from the pasuk (Devarim 24:21), "When you pick the grapes of your vineyard, ([Lo Se'olel Acharecha] - you shall not glean after you: it shall be [left] for the stranger, the orphan and the widow)." What is the understanding (of 'Lo Se'olel Acharecha')?


(R. Yona): Do not be particular (to take all of it), as the pasuk says (Eichah 1:22), "[Ve'olel Lamo] (and be exacting with them as You have been exacting with me for all my transgressions)"



How is the obligation of Peah in olives learned from the pasuk (Devarim 24:20), "When you beat your olive tree, ([Lo Sefarer Acharecha] you shall not remove the splendor behind you)"?


(R. Yona): Do not remove the splendor and Peah from it, as the pasuk states (Vayikra 19:27), "You shall not remove the splendor (lit. round off the corner) of your head"


(Learning from an olive tree and a vineyard) Just as they are special in that they are harvested together and they are collected into storage and they are obligated in Peah; so too anything that is harvested together and collected into storage.


Question: Perhaps say that just as an olive tree and a vineyard are special in that they are obligated in Bikurim (the first fruits that are taken to the Temple) and are obligated in Peah; so too only things that are obligated in Bikurim should be obligated in Peah?



Answer: The pasuk says (Devarim 24:19), "your harvest". This includes even harvested rice and harvested millet.


Question: Let the Torah say olive but not vineyard (and learn vineyard from olive)?


If the Torah would only say olive and not vineyard, one might think that an olive tree is exempt from the Mitzvah of Peret (leaving for the poor the grapes that fall during harvesting), but is obligated in Peah; but a vineyard, that is obligated in Peret should not be obligated in Peah (as one is already giving grapes to poor); therefore, the Torah needed to teach vineyard.


And if the Torah only said vineyard and not olive, I would say that a vineyard, that is obligated in Peret, should be obligated in Peah; but an olive tree that is not obligated in Peret should not be obligated in Peah; therefore, the Torah needed to teach olive in addition to vineyard.


And from olive, we learn the obligation of Peah about all trees.

[ ( )] ()[]


Question: Why doesn't the vineyard transfer to all other trees the obligation of Peret just as the olive tree did for Peah?


Answer (R. Avun): The obligation of Peah in trees is learned from both vineyard and olive tree together (through a 'Tzad HaShavah'); but one cannot learn it from only one of them.



Question: The 11th of R. Yishmael's 13 principles to expound the Torah, is, "Anything that was included in a general case, but was then singled out to be judged as a new case, cannot be returned to its general statement, unless the verse returns it explicitly to its general statement" - here also, vineyard was singled out from the general case of trees to obligate it in Peret; so perhaps it has been uprooted from the general case to exempt it from Peah and this is why it cannot be learned from olive.



Conclusion of question: But according to Rabbanan who say that even when a case was singled out, it is still part of the general statement; why must the obligation of Peah in vineyards be stated?

" [ ( )]


Answer (R. Avun): If the Torah would have only singled out vineyard, there would be a valid question; but since olives are also singled out; if it would only say it about olives and not vineyard, I would have said that olive which is exempt from Peret is obligated in Peah, but vineyard, which is obligated in Peret might be exempt from Peah. (The other way round - if it would say it about vineyard and not olives, is not discussed.)


Just as we say about harvest, that something that is harvested together and stored away is obligated in Peah; about the right for a laborer to eat while harvesting, the same should be said, that he can only eat from produce that is harvested together and stored away.

' ( ) '


Answer (R. Yona): A laborer is different, because the pasuk states (Devarim 23:26), "you may pick the ears with your hand" - implying, even something that is not stored away.



Baraisa (R. Yosi b'R. Yehuda): Fat dates are exempt from Peah, because the first one does not wait for the last one to ripen (so they are not harvested together).

" " "


Question: R. Yosi bei R. Yehuda is understandable, but what is the Rabbanan's reasoning?



Answer (R. Zeira): They get crevices at the same time.

' " ()[] () :


(R. Yitzchak ben Chakuli and R. Yehoshua ben Levi): Kulkus (a type of root) is considered a vegetable for the laws of Maaseros, Sheviis, Peah, Bikurim. However, it is questionable whether for Nedarim it is considered a vegetable.