meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Modern Works/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Zeraim/English Explanation of Mishnah Peah/English/merged.txt"}
text: English Explanation of Mishnah Peah
  ביאור אנגלי על משנה פאה
  merged
  
  This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
  -Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
  -
  
  English Explanation of Mishnah Peah
  
  Introduction
  
  Tractate Peah deals with agricultural gifts the Torah mandates be given to the poor.  There are three main passages in the Torah that deal with these gifts. Since they will be relevant throughout the tractate it is worth quoting them fully now.
  Leviticus 19:9-10 9 And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corner of your field, neither shall you gather the gleaning of your harvest. 10 And you shall not glean your vineyard, neither shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and for the stranger: I am the LORD your God.
  Leviticus 23:22  And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corner of your field, neither shall you gather the gleaning of your harvest; you shall leave them for the poor, and for the stranger: I am the LORD your God.
  Deuteronomy 24:19-22 19 When you reap your harvest in your field, and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to fetch it; it shall be for the stranger, for the orphans, and for the widow; that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. 20 When you beat your olive-tree, you shall not go over the boughs again; it shall be for the stranger, for the orphans, and for the widow. 21 When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, you shall not glean it after you; it shall be for the stranger, for the orphans, and for the widow. 22 And you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt; therefore I command you to do this thing.
  According to the rabbis there are five agricultural gifts given to the poor: 1) Corners of the field—peah. 2) The gleanings, that which falls to the ground during reaping. 3) Forgotten sheaves. 4) Grape gleanings. 5) Clusters of grapes that were unripe during the first harvesting.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  This is a famous mishnah because it is recited in the early part of the prayer service, after the blessing for learning Torah.  The reason it is here in the beginning of tractate Peah is that it teaches that there is no maximum measure to the amount of peah (corners of one’s field I will generally use the Hebrew term) that one can leave to the poor.
  The following mishnah will teach that there is a minimum amount.
  These are the things that have no definite quantity: The corners [of the field]. First-fruits; [The offerings brought] on appearing [at the Temple on the three pilgrimage festivals]. The performance of righteous deeds; And the study of the torah.  There is no maximum amount for all of the things listed in this section.  A person can give or do as much of them as he wants. A.  Peah this is one of the main topics of our tractate. B.  First fruits brought to the Temple and given to the priests (Deuteronomy 26:1).  If a field owner should so desire he may bring his entire crop as first fruits. C.  These are sacrifices brought to the Temple on the three festivals, Pesah, Shavuot and Sukkot (Deuteronomy 16:16-17).  A person can bring as many of these sacrifices as he wants. D and E. The last two things listed in this section (both are also listed below) are two of the most important activities in which a person can engage, according to rabbinic thought.  Righteous deeds are also termed “deeds of loving kindness (gemilut hasadim).” This would include giving money to the needy but go far beyond that to include visiting the sick, burying the dead, finding a spouse for someone and other acts of kindness that help improve the lives of others.
  The following are the things for which a man enjoys the fruits in this world while the principal remains for him in the world to come: Honoring one’s father and mother; The performance of righteous deeds; And the making of peace between a person and his friend; And the study of the torah is equal to them all.  The second section lists mitzvoth for which a person sees an immediate reward, meaning he “enjoys the fruits in this world” and he also receives a reward for performing a mitzvah, a reward delayed until the world to come.  In other words, these are mitzvoth which are beneficial in and of themselves, regardless of any “external reward” such as the reward one might hope to get in the world to come.  The four are self-explanatory.  One can easily see that these four mitzvoth immediately benefit both the one who performs them and the one for whom she is doing the mitzvah.  It is interesting that the sages were so perceptive as to notice that the primary beneficiary of these mitzvoth is not the person for whom the mitzvah is being performed, but the one who performs the mitzvah.  We probably have all experienced the amazing feeling of helping out another person and know that when we do so, we not only help others but we help ourselves as well.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah teaches that although there is no measure for peah, as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah, there is a minimum measure.  The mishnah also provides a general means for determining how generous a person should be.
  They should not leave peah of less than one-sixtieth [of the field].  One shouldn’t leave less than one-sixtieth of his field as peah, meaning the four corners added up together should equal at least 1/60 of the field.
  But even though they said, “there is no measure for peah,” everything depends upon the size of the field, the number of poor people, and the extent of the yield.  When one is trying to determine how generous to be with leaving peah he should take three things into account. The first is the size of the field. If he has a big field then he should be able to afford to leave more of it as peah.  The second is the number of poor people in his town. The more poor people the more peah. Finally he should take into account how much crops his field yielded, the better the yield the more he should give.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  Usually one leaves the corners of one’s field for peah at the corners of the fields.  However, one can leave parts in the middle or even at the beginning of the field. This is the topic of our mishnah.
  They may give peah at either at the beginning of the [reaping of the] field or at the middle of it.  As stated in the introduction, he can give peah anywhere in the field he wants.
  Rabbi Shimon says: as long as he gives at the end according to the set amount.  Rabbi Shimon says that he must fulfill the mitzvah of peah by giving the minimum measure at the corners of the field.  He may be as generous as he wants in the beginning and middle of his reaping but he must also leave the corners of the field as peah. There might be two ways of understanding this. First of all, the Torah specifies the corner and hence he cannot just leave other parts of the field. Second, this might encourage cheating.  A person might lie and say that he left something in the middle of reaping and that the poor had already come and collected.
  Rabbi Judah says: if he leave, one stalk, he can rely on this as [fulfilling the law of] peah; and if he did not, then he only gives as ownerless property.  Rabbi Judah says that as long as he leaves one stalk for himself in the beginning of his harvest, he can give the part of the field near this stalk or even the rest of the field as peah.  The stalk becomes “his field” and the rest of the field becomes peah.  However, if at the beginning of the harvest he didn’t leave even a stalk then the rest of the field cannot be considered peah. If he wants to give the beginning of the field to the poor, he is not giving it as peah rather he is renouncing ownership so that the poor can come and collect.  The result of the field being ownerless is the same as the result of it being peah both ownerless property and peah are exempt from tithes.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah teaches a general principle used to determine when the laws of peah are applicable.
  They said a general principle concerning peah: whatever is food, and is looked after, and grows from the land, and is harvested all at the same time, and is brought in for storage, is subject to the law of pe'ah.  There are five rules for determining which plants are liable for peah. 1.  It has to be food, meaning something that people eat. Animal food does not count. 2.  It has to be looked after, meaning that it has an owner.  One who reaps an ownerless field does not have to leave peah. 3. It has to grow from the ground.  This, according to the rabbis, excludes mushrooms, which don’t have any roots (again, according to the rabbis). 4.  There has to be one harvest season.  This excludes many fruits of trees which do not have one harvest season, such as figs. 5.  It has to be something that can be stored. This excludes vegetables which cannot be stored because they go bad.
  Grain and beans are in this category.  The mishnah lists two types of plants that definitely fit these categories.  The first is grain, which includes five types of grain (wheat, barley, spelt, rye and oats) and the second is beans.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Among trees: the sumac, the carob, the nut, the almond, the grapevine, the pomegranate, the olive and the palm are subject to peah.This mishnah teaches which trees are subject to the laws of peah.  The fruit of all of these trees is harvested in one harvest and is not harvested more gradually over a longer period of time.  Other trees such as figs are exempt from peah.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  One is obligated to separate tithes from one’s produce.  However, one is not obligated to separate tithes from peah, ownerless produce, animal food or seed.  Our mishnah deals with the question of when the obligation to separate tithes goes into effect.
  He may always give peah and be exempt from giving tithes until he makes a stack.  This section refers to a field owner who didn’t leave his peah in the field but rather harvested it and began to process it. The mishnah teaches that he can still declare it to be peah and thereby exempt it from tithes up until the point where he smoothes it out to make it into a stack. As we shall see throughout this whole mishnah, making something into a stack is the point at which the status of the item is set. So if he calls it peah before he makes it into a stack then it is peah. But if he does so after he makes it into a stack it does not have the halakhic status of peah.
  One who gives [to the poor] as ownerless [produce] and be exempt from giving tithes until he makes a stack.  This section refers to someone who left peah in the field and wants to give some of his already-harvested produce to the poor without having to take out tithes. As before, he can declare his produce ownerless in order to give it to the poor and thereby exempt it from tithes up until the point where he has made it into a stack.  If he declares it ownerless after it has already been made into a stack then he must take out tithes.
  He may feed cattle, wild animals and birds and be exempt from giving tithes until he makes a stack.  If the crops harvested are normally eaten by people, he may give it to animals without taking out tithes until he has made a stack. Once he made a stack he must take out tithes even if he is going to use it for animal food.
  He may take from the threshing floor and use it as seed and be exempt from giving tithes until he makes a stack, the words of Rabbi Akiva.  He can use seeds from the produce without taking tithes until he has made a stack.
  A priest or Levite who purchase [grain of] a threshing floor, the tithes are theirs unless [the owner] has already made a stack.  A priest and a Levite who purchase crops from an Israelite before the crops have been made into a stack may keep the tithes for themselves.  However, once the Israelite makes a stack with the crops, the crops now become liable for tithes and the priest or Levite who buys them is allowed to keep the tithes for themselves.
  One who dedicated [his crop] and redeems it [afterwards] is obligated to give tithes until the Temple treasurer has made a stack.  Produce that belongs to the Temple is exempt from tithes. If he dedicates his crops to the Temple and then redeems them before the Temple treasurer (or his agents) made the crops into a stack he must separate tithes because at the point that the crops became liable to tithes they already didn’t belong to the Temple.  If the Temple treasurer makes the stack before he redeems them then they are exempt from tithes. Redeeming dedicating property means giving money in place of the dedicated object.  Often a person would dedicate an object such as a house, a field, an animal or even another person to the Temple. Under most circumstances, the person could then redeem the object and give the value of the object instead of the object itself.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with how one determines if a plot of land is considered one plot or two in terms of peah. If the plot is considered to be two then he must leave peah from both fields for he cannot give peah from one field in order to exempt the other.
  The following divide a field for peah:  a stream, a pool, a private road, a public road, a public path, a private path in constant use in summer and the rainy season, fallow land, a plowed field and a different seed.  If one of these things is found in a given field then the field is considered to be two and he must leave peah in both. Most of these are self-explanatory. The private path must be in constant use for it to be considered significant enough to divide the field.  A plowed field refers to one that was not planted, unlike a fallow field to which no work has been done.  Planting different seeds is another way of dividing one field from another.
  One who harvested for animal fodder, [the plot] serves divides, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: it does not stop for peah unless it is plowed.  One doesn’t have to leave peah from a field that has been harvested for the crops to be animal food.  Our mishnah deals with a case where one harvests a field early so that the unripe grain can be used as animal fodder. According to Rabbi Meir this harvest now divides the field into two. In other words we don’t look at this harvest as being part of the harvest of the remainder of the field and therefore the section that has been harvested is considered to be fallow. The other rabbis consider the harvest of the crops for animal food to be part of the larger harvest and hence this harvest in and of itself does not divide the field.  Only if before he harvests the rest of the field he goes and plows it does it serve to divide the field into two.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah continues to discuss what divides a field.
  A water channel that makes harvesting [on one side] impossible [while standing on the other side], Rabbi Judah says: it divides.  This mishnah teaches that a water channel divides a field only if the channel is wide enough that one cannot stand on one side and harvest the other side.
  But all of the hills that can be tilled with a hoe, even though cattle cannot pass over it in with their equipment, [is regarded as part of the field] he gives one peah from it all.  We should note that the first words of this mishnah are a quote of Isaiah 7:25.  I am not sure why the mishnah here uses biblical language. In any case, the mishnah refers to hills that lie in the middle of a field that are tilled with a hoe.  One is obligated to give peah from this type of field even though oxen cannot plow their field because it is too hilly. Furthermore, the hills do not serve to divide the field since they are plowed by a person and planted.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah teaches that there is a difference in what divides a field between a field planted with seeds from which crops grow (mostly grain and beans) and a field of trees.
  All of these divide in the case of a field [planted] with seeds, but in the case of trees nothing divides except a fence.  All of the things in the above two mishnayot divide fields that are planted with seeds, but they do not divide fields with trees.  The only thing that divides a field of trees is a fence. The reason for this seems to be that fields with trees customarily have large spaces between trees. There is always some fallow land.  In contrast, crops such as wheat and barley are grown closely together and hence a fallow patch or a stream would serve to divide the field.
  Should the branches intertwine [on top of the fence], then it does not divide and he gives one peah for the whole field.  Even a fence doesn’t divide a field of trees if the branches of the field are intertwined on top of the fence.  Since the trees are intertwined with one another, we consider it to be one field.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with peah for carob and olive trees.
  As for carob trees, [they are not divided] as long as they see one another.  For a field of carob trees to be considered one field all the trees have to do is “see one another.”  This means that someone standing next to one tree can see the other tree.  If he can then the owner gives one peah from both trees.
  Rabban Gamaliel said: we had this custom in the house of my father.  We would give separate peah from the olive trees in each direction and [one peah] for all the carob trees that saw one another.  Rabban Gamaliel relates the custom that he had in his father’s house with regard to giving peah from carob and olive trees.  He would give one peah from the olive trees that he had on all the different sides of the town.  All of the olive trees are considered as if they were all part of one field.  However, when it came to the carob trees he gave one peah for all of carob trees that were in sight of each other.
  Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok said in his name:  also for the carob trees they had in the whole city [they only gave one peah].  Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok relates a different tradition in the name of Rabban Gamaliel.  According to this tradition, they also gave only one peah for all of the carob trees, just like they did for the olive trees.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah continues to deal with the question of when one gives one peah and when one gives two peahs.  As we shall see what determines how many peahs he gives is usually not how many times he brings his grain to the threshing floor to separate the chaff from the wheat. Rather what determines is mostly how many types of species of grain that he planted.
  He who plants his field with one kind of seed, even though he makes up of it two threshing-floors, he gives only one peah [for the lot].  If he planted his field with one kind of seed, for instance wheat, and he harvested it on two separate occasions and brought it two separate times to the threshing floor, he is only obligated to give one peah.  Thus if he gave peah for the produce the first time he brought it, he need not bring peah again.
  If he plants it of two kinds, even though he makes up of it one threshing-floor, he must give two peahs.  In contrast, if he planted two different kinds of seeds he must give two different peahs, even if he threshed both types of grains together at the threshing floor.  What this means is that if he gave peah from the first kind of seed he must still give peah from the other one.
  One who plants his field with two species of wheat: If he makes up of it one threshing-floor, he gives only one peah; But if two threshing-floors, he gives two peahs.  This is an in-between case.  He plants the same type of seed but they are two different species of wheat.  Same family, different species.  In this case it makes a different how many times he brings the harvest to the threshing floor.  If he brings it once, then he must give only one peah.  But if he brings it twice he must give two peahs.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday’s mishnah.  Its halakhic content is exactly the same as that halakhah in clause three of yesterday’s mishnah.  It does not add any new halakhic information.  What it does add is something about the authority and antiquity of that tradition.
  It happened that Rabbi Shimon of Mitzpah planted his field [with two different kinds] and came before Rabban Gamaliel. They both went up to the Chamber of Hewn Stone and asked [about the law]. Nahum the scribe said: I have a tradition from Rabbi Meyasha, who received it from Abba,   who received it from the pairs [of sage], who received it from the prophets, a halakhah of Moses from Sinai, that one who plants his field with two species of wheat, if he makes up of it one threshing-floor, he gives only one peah, but if two threshing-floors, he gives two peahs. According to this mishnah, the halakhah at the end of yesterday’s mishnah was unknown to some sages who lived when the Second Temple still stood.  Since they didn’t know what to do in this situation, whether to give two peahs or one peah, they went to the Temple and asked the scribe, who sat in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, the place in the Temple where the Sanhedrin sat and answered questions.  Nahum the Scribe told them that this law had been passed down from generation to generation and goes all the way back to Moses at Sinai.  What this means is that the law is of great antiquity and significant authority. This is one of the occasions in the Mishnah upon which the rabbis emphasize the antiquity of the oral law.  On a few occasions they say that a law that seems to be of a minor detail within a veritable sea of halakhah, is so old that it goes all the way back to Moses.  It is as if they are trying to say that just as this law of minor detail is of great antiquity all the more so the larger aspects of the system go all the way back to the giving of the Torah. The “pairs” refers to the pairs of sages who led the Sanhedrin and Israel in the late Second Temple period.  They are listed in the beginning of Tractate Avot and in Hagigah 2:2.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  A person is obligated to give peah from his field only if he harvested it. Our mishnah brings examples where the owner didn’t harvest the field and hence is exempt from giving peah.
  A field harvested by gentiles, or harvested by robbers, or which ants have bitten [the stalks at the roots], or which wind and cattle have broken down, is exempt from peah.  If he didn’t harvest the field because it was harvested by others who are not obligated by the laws of peah, for instance, gentiles or robbers, he is not obligated to give peah.  Even if the gentiles or robbers leave the stalks in the field for the owner to collect, he is still not obligated to give peah. Furthermore, if the field’s produce is “reaped” by animals, for instance ants that nibble away at the stalks at their roots thereby “reaping” the grain, or by wind or cattle which break the stalks, he need not leave peah.  This rule is based on a midrash on verses such as Leviticus 19:9, which state, “When you harvest your field” you have to harvest to be liable for peah.
  If [the owner] harvested half of it and robbers harvested half, it is exempt from peah, for the obligation of peah is in the standing grain.  If he harvested the first half and then robbers came and harvested the second half he is exempt from giving peah.  This is because the obligation of giving peah is “set” at the time that the last standing stalk is harvested.  Since this was done by the robbers, the owner is exempt from peah.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday’s mishnah, concerning a field that was harvested half by its owners and half by others.
  If robbers harvested half and the owner the other half, he gives peah from what he has harvested.  Since robbers harvested the first half, he is exempt from giving peah for that section of the field.  He need only give peah from the second half which he himself harvested.
  If he harvested half and sold the other half, then the purchaser must give peah for the whole.  In this case he harvested half of the field, thereby becoming obligated to give peah for that half. Then he sold the entire field, including his obligation to give peah for the half of the field that he had already harvested.  In other words had the original owner kept the field, he would have had to have given peah from the second half of the field, from the stalks that he had already harvested. When he sold these stalks to someone else the obligation to give peah still exists.  Therefore, the purchaser must give peah for the whole field, both the half that the previous owner harvested and the half that he himself harvests.
  If he harvested half and dedicated the other half, then he who redeems it from the Temple treasurer must give peah for the whole.  This situation is analogous to that in the previous section.  The owner harvests half the field and then instead of selling the remaining half, he dedicates it to the Temple.  Normally, peah is not given from fields that belong to the Temple. However, in this case because he began to harvest the field himself and he left the peah to be given from the second half of the field, the one who redeems the field from the Temple’s treasurer must still give peah from the second half of the field for the whole field. [To recall, redeeming means he gives the value of the field to the Temple and the field becomes non-sacred and belongs to him.  Even the original owner can be the one who can redeem it, and probably would often be the one to do this. Donating the field became a way then of indirectly donating money.]
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with small plots of grain that are planted in between olive trees and with the question of whether he has to give peah from each plot as if it were a separate field or whether he can give one peah from all the plots together.
  Plots of grain between olive trees: Bet Shammai say: peah from each and every plot. But Bet Hillel says: one peah for them all.  According to Bet Shammai since the rows of olive trees break up the plots of grain, he must give peah separately for each and every plot.  According to Bet Hillel we still look at the grain as if it was all one field and he can give one peah for all of the plots together.
  And they agree that if the ends of the rows enter one into the other, he gives one peah for them all.  Bet Shammai agrees with Bet Hillel that if the plots run into each other, in other words instead of rectangular plots surrounded by olive trees, there are rows where the end of one plot runs into the beginning of the other, then he can give peah for all of the plots together.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah is similar to yesterday’s mishnah in that it deals with a field that is not planted evenly. However, whereas in yesterday’s mishnah the field was a mix of olive trees and grain, the first half of today’s mishnah deals with a field planted solely with grain.
  One who gives his field a striped appearance and leaves behind moist stalks: Rabbi Akiva says: he gives peah from each and every stripe. But the sages say: from one stripe for the whole field.  This section describes a person who made his field looked striped by fertilizing some places in the field such that the grain in those places grew faster than others, and then harvesting those places when the grain is dry and ready to be harvested, leaving the still-moist stalks behind.  According to Rabbi Akiva, he must give a separate peah from each and every stripe.  The stripes don’t join up into one field because in between them is unripe grain which serves to divide the field into many fields. The other sages disagree and say that he can give peah from one stripe for the whole field.  They look at the harvesting of the ripe stalks as the beginning of the harvesting of the entire field and therefore he can treat the field as one integrated field, leaving one peah for it all.
  The sages agree with Rabbi Akiba that one who sows dill or mustard in three places must give peah from each place.  It is customary to sow dill and mustard in several different places and therefore the sages agree that if he has one large field with dill or mustard planted in several different areas of the field, he must give peah separately from each patch.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah continues to deal with a person who harvests part of his field and with the question of whether he can give one peah for the entire field or peah separately for each part that he has harvested.
  One who clears [his field] of fresh onions for the market and leaves the dry ones [in the ground] for the [time of the] threshing floor, must give peah from these on their own and these on their own.  This section describes someone who has a field of onions.  He harvests some of them in order to bring them fresh to the market and the rest he leaves in the ground in order to harvest them later when they are dry.  Since some are sold fresh and some are sold dry they are considered to be two different types of onions and he must give peah separately for each type.
  The same applies to beans and to a vineyard.  The same thing is true for beans and for grapes grown in the vineyard.  If he harvests fresh beans to sell in the market and leaves dry beans in the field, he must give peah for each on its own.  So too if he harvests grapes to sell in the market and leaves the rest in the field to be used to make wine or raisins, he gives peah for each on its own.
  If he, however, he only thins it out, then he gives [peah] from the remainder according to the quantity of that which he left.  If he thins out some clusters of grapes to make room for more to grow, then this is not considered to be harvesting.  He does not have to give peah at all from clusters that he thins out, because he didn’t harvest them for their own sake, only for the sake of those that he left in the vineyard.  He will only give peah from the grapes that he left hanging on the vine.
  But if he clears [three from one place] at one time, he gives from the remainder according to the entire quantity.  In this case he clears out three clusters of grapes at one time from one place.  Since he cut down a significant quantity from one place at one time, these grapes count towards the amount from which he will have to give peah.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with some more questions that arise concerning giving peah from onions.
  Onions grown for their seed are liable for peah. But Rabbi Yose exempts them.  According to the first opinion, although these onions are harvested not to be food but for their seed to be used to grow more onions, they are still liable for peah. Rabbi Yose disagrees and holds that since when they are harvested they can’t be used for food they are not exempt from peah.
  Plots of onions [growing] between vegetables: Rabbi Yose says: peah must be given from each [plot]. But the sages say: from one [plot] for all.  This is similar to the rules found in mishnah one of our chapter.  Plots of onions are planted between rows of vegetables.  According to Rabbi Yose the vegetables serve to break up the field, making him liable to give peah separately from each plot of onions. According to the other sages, since the vegetables are not liable for peah (since they cannot be stored) and the onions are liable for peah, the vegetables do not serve to break up the field of onions.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with giving peah in fields or parts thereof that are owned by two owners.
  [Two] brothers who divided [an inheritance] must give [two] peahs.  Once two brothers have divided an inherited field, each section is considered a separate field and peah must be given separately for each field.
  If they afterwards again become partners they give one peah.  If they become partners in the field, then the field is under joint ownership and peah is given for the entire field together.  As we shall see, this is the general rule for all jointly owned fields.
  Two who purchase a tree, they give one peah.  Again, joint ownership over something means that only one peah is given.
  If one buys the northern section [of the tree] and the other the southern section, each must give peah separately.  In this scenario, the partners each own a defined section of the tree, one the northern side and the other the southern side.  Since they have divided the tree, they give a separate peah for each part of tree.  According to the Mishnah, dividing a tree is the same, in essence, as dividing a field.
  One who sells young saplings in his field, [the one who purchases] must give peah from each sapling. Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? When the owner of the field left nothing [for himself].  But if he did leave something [for himself], he gives one peah for the whole.  In this scenario, a person has sold the young trees in his field but not his field.  The idea is that eventually the purchaser will uproot the trees and plant them in his own field.  Since the purchaser doesn’t own the ground, the ground can’t join the trees into one entity for the laws of peah. He will have to give peah separately for each tree. Rabbi Judah mentions one caveat.  If the person bought all of the saplings in the field and the owner left none for himself, then the saplings can be considered as one entity for the sake of peah.  It seems that if the owner left saplings for himself, then they block the purchaser’s saplings from being considered one single entity.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with the minimum size that land needs to be for one to be liable to give peah from it.
  Rabbi Eliezer says: a piece of ground [large enough to plant] one fourth of a kav is liable for peah.  This is estimated to be about 10.5 cubits by 10.5 cubits, or about 35 square meters.
  Rabbi Joshua says: it must [be large enough] to grow two seahs.  Rabbi Joshua sets the minimum amount not based on how much seed can be planted but based on how much produce can be grown.  A seah is 6 kav, and a kav is about 2 liters, so the amount of grain has to be about 12 liters.
  Rabbi Tarfon says:  it must be six by six handbreadths.  This is a very small piece of land, about one square meter.
  R. Judah ben Batera says: [it must be large enough] for a sickle to cut at least two handfuls and the halakhah is according to his words.  According to Rabbi Judah ben Batera the field need only be large enough for a person harvesting to have to grasp two handfuls of stalks while he chops them down with his sickle. The mishnah notes that this is the accepted halakhic position.  It is rare for the Mishnah to state this.
  R. Judah ben Batera says: [it must be large enough] for a sickle to cut at least two handfuls and the halakhah is according to his words.  To Rabbi Akiva, it doesn’t matter how big the plot is, he is always liable for peah. Rabbi Akiva goes on to say that the same is true for a few other halakhot.  We shall go through them one at a time. First fruits, or bikkurim, are referred to in Deuteronomy 26. A prozbul is a document written in order to prevent the remittance of debts in the sabbatical year.  In order for the creditor to write this document the borrower must have land.  We shall learn about the prozbul more fully when we study tractate Sheviit, which deals with all of the laws of the Sabbatical year. The last law refers to something we learned in Kiddushin 1:5.  According to halakhah movable property, i.e. things, can only be bought by taking physical possession of them.  In contrast, land can be purchased by money, by deed, or by a claim based on undisturbed possession (I shall explain this in a moment).  A person may purchase things without taking physical possession of them if he also acquires land at the same time.  In other words, I can give you money for your land and at the same time I can buy from you cows and sheep without taking possession of them. “Undisturbed possession” is a concept which we learned about in Bava Batra 3.  It means that if Reuven lives on a piece of land for three years and then Shimon comes to him with a deed to the land and says get off my land, and Reuven responds that Shimon sold him the land and that he had lost the sale document, Reuven can stay on the land. Had Shimon thought that the land was his he should have protested within three years.  “Undisturbed possession” is one of the three ways through which one can acquire land.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah has nothing to do with the laws of peah, but rather continues to discuss cases in which a certain halakhah is effective with even the smallest piece of land.
  One who is about to die who assigns his property in writing [to another]: If he retains any land [for himself] however small, he renders his gift valid. But if he retains no land whatsoever, his gift is not valid.  There is a special halakhah concerning a person who is about to die who wants to give away his property before it gets divided according to the lines of inheritance.  He may write a document giving all of his property to another person and if he gets well the present is annulled.  In such a case we understand that the reason he was giving his money away was that he thought he was about to die.  He did not intend to give his money away and then remain alive. However, if he retains even a small amount of land for himself, then his gift is valid even if he becomes healthy again.  Had he been trying to give away his property before he died, he wouldn’t have left some land for himself. Therefore, we assume that his intention was simply to give away his property and he cannot retract his gift.  Only if he retains no land whatsoever is his gift invalid, should he become healthy again.
  One who assigns in writing his property to his children, and he assigns to his wife in writing any plot of land, however small, she lost her ketubah. Rabbi Yose says: if she accepted [such an assignment] even though he did not assign it to her in writing she lost her ketubah.  When a woman is married, she receives a ketubah, which is in essence a type of debt document which puts a lien on all of her husband’s property.  What this means is that whenever he sells property she must agree to the sale.  If she does not then the buyer must know that should her husband die or divorce her, she might end up taking the field away from the buyer, if she doesn’t have anything else to collect as her ketubah. In the scenario in our mishnah, a man gives away all of his property to his children and he assigns a small piece of land to his wife. If she agrees to this and then he dies, she will not be able to collect her ketubah (except from the tiny piece of land which she already received) because she agreed to his giving all of his property to his children.  She has forgiven the lien that she had on all his property. If she doesn’t receive any land then we can’t assume that she would agree to the arrangement and when he dies she can still collect her ketubah. According to Rabbi Yose, she doesn’t even have to receive the land. All she has to do is agree to this arrangement and then should he die, she will not receive her ketubah.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  The final mishnah of chapter three continues to discuss a person who assigns his property in writing (using a document) to someone else, in this case a slave.
  One who assigns in writing his possessions to his slave, [the slave] thereby goes free. If he reserved for himself any land, however small, he does not become free.  If a master writes a document giving all of his property to his slave, then he has given the slave possession of himself, for the slave is part of his property, and his slave goes free.  However, if he retains even a small amount of land for himself, but does not specify what piece of land he is retaining, the slave does not go free.  This is because we assume that the land that he retained for himself refers to the slave and therefore he has not set the slave free. Slaves are compared to land in Leviticus 25:45-46.  Furthermore, since the slave has not acquired his freedom, he cannot acquire property, for everything that a slave acquires goes over to his master. Therefore the entire deal is off and the master retains ownership over all of his property.
  Rabbi Shimon says: he always becomes free, unless [the master] says: “Behold, all my goods are given to so-and-so my slave, with the exception of one ten-thousandth part of them.”  Rabbi Shimon disagrees and holds that even if he retains a small amount of land for himself, the slave still goes free.  The slave only stays a slave if the master specifically states that he is retaining even a small amount of property for himself. In such a case we say that the property that he retained for himself was the slave.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with the question of whether it is preferable for the owner to simply leave the peah in the field or for him to harvest it and distribute it to the poor.
  Peah is given from [the crop] while it is still connected with the soil.  It is preferable for peah to be left in the field and for the poor to come and harvest it themselves.  This is a more direct fulfillment of the biblical verses that discusses not harvesting the corners of the field.
  But in the case of hanging vine-branches and the date-palm, the owner brings down [the fruit] and distributes it among the poor. Rabbi Shimon says: the same applies to smooth nut trees.  However, if it would be dangerous for several poor people to come and try to get the peah at the same time, such as in the case of vine-branches that have been hung over a frame of reeds, or a date-palm, then the owner himself should harvest the grapes and dates and distribute them to the poor. According to Rabbi Shimon, the same is true for a smooth nut tree which would be dangerous for the poor people to climb.  Note that we are worried that in their desperation to get food the poor will injure themselves, and therefore we make the owner do the work for them.
  Even if ninety-nine [of the poor] say [to the owner] to distribute it and one says to leave it in the field, this latter is listened to, since he spoke in accordance with the halakhah.  What if the poor people want the owner to harvest the crops and distribute them, thereby saving the poor from having to perform the labor themselves?  This may also be in the owner’s interests, for perhaps he is not entirely keen on having a bunch of poor people traipsing around in his field.  It seems that if all of the poor agree, they can ask the owner to do this.  However, if even one poor person says that he would prefer the crops to be left in the field, then the owner must listen to him because that poor person has asked for the law to be followed.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday’s mishnah, which dealt with a case where most of the poor ask him to harvest the field and distribute the peah and one says to leave the peah in the field.
  With hanging vine-branches and date-palm trees it is not so; even if ninety-nine [of the poor] say [to the owner] to leave it in the field and one says to distribute it, this latter is listened to, since he spoke in accordance with the halakhah. We learned in yesterday’s mishnah two principles relevant to today’s mishnah.  The first is that when it comes to vine-branches and date-palm trees, the owner should harvest the peah and distribute it to the poor. The second is that if most of the poor ask the owner to act against the accepted halakhah and one asks him to act according to the halakhah, he should follow the minority because he asks in accordance with the halakhah. Hence, if most of the poor ask him to leave the grapes and dates and one asks him to harvest them and distribute, he must harvest the peah and distribute it, the view which is in accordance with the halakhah.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with how the poor actually collect the peah, meaning what constitutes taking possession of the peah such that it belongs to the specific poor person who took possession of it.
  If [a poor man] took some of the peah [already collected] and threw it onto the remainder [not yet collected], he gets none of it.  Generally, one can “acquire” something by throwing one’s possessions on top of it.  By throwing some peah on top of other peah the poor person is trying to take possession of it and at the same time hide it from other poor people.  Therefore we penalize him and he doesn’t get to own any of the peah.
  If he fell down upon it, or spread his cloak over it, they take the peah away from him.  Again, the poor person is attempting to acquire more of the peah than he seems to be able to hold in his hands. Since he is being greedy and taking peah away from other poor people, we penalize him and he loses all of his peah, even the stuff that he already collected.
  The same applies to gleanings and the forgotten sheaf.  The same laws apply to gleanings, the sheaves that fall when the owner is harvesting, or forgotten sheaves. A poor person cannot acquire them by throwing himself or his possessions on them and if he does, we penalize him.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah again reflects the fierce competition among the poor which the rabbis anticipated from them when they came to collect peah.
  [The poor] may not harvest peah with scythes or tear it out [of the ground] with spades, so that they might not strike one another [with these implements]. Poor people cannot use metal instruments when they come to harvest the peah from the fields lest when doing so they kill one another with these instruments.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction This mishnah deals with how many times a day the field owner must or should let the poor into his field to harvest the peah.
  There are three times a day [the poor] make a search [in the field for peah]: morning, noon, and sunset.  According to the standard position outlined here, the owner of a field must make his field available to the poor three times a day.  This seems to be a way to make sure that if they are working somewhere else, or perhaps trying to find work, their collection of peah won’t be endangered.
  Rabban Gamaliel says: these [times] were only set lest they reduce them.  Rabban Gamaliel says that the rabbis set a number of times at which a field owner must open his field so that field owners won’t reduce the number, thereby making it more difficult for the poor to come and collect.
  Rabbi Akiva says: these were set lest they add to them.  On the contrary, says Rabbi Akiva to Rabban Gamaliel. According to Rabbi Akiva, the reason that the fields have to be open three times a day is so that owners won’t open the field more frequently, thereby making the poor check the fields almost constantly. Having the fields open too much might also lead to owners opening them up at odd times and only letting selective poor people know when they come and collect.  This might corrupt the entire system, especially if poor people end up having to bribe the field owners to tell them when to come and collect.  With set times, this is less of a problem.  However, Rabbi Akiva does hold that if the owner wants to open the field only once or twice a day, he may.
  [The men] of Bet Namer used to have the poor harvest [the peah] with the aid of a rope,   and they left peah at the end of each furrow.  This section describes a special way that the people of Bet Namer, either the name of a family or the name of a place, gave peah.  They would use a rope to mark off the ends of rows and beyond the rope the poor could collect their peah.  Some commentators explain that the Mishnah praises this because the poor would know exactly where the peah was coming from and they wouldn’t have the mental anguish of waiting in anticipation.  It seems in general that this is one of the problems with peah it is somewhat subjective, often leaving the poor unsure of their future and also open to potential abuse among field owners.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with a non-Jew who harvests his field and then converts. Non-Jews are not liable for the laws of peah, but Jews are, so the question is does he have to give the peah after he has already harvested the whole field.
  A non-Jew who harvested his field and then converted, he is exempt from [leaving] gleanings, the forgotten sheaf and peah.  The new convert is exempt from giving all of these agricultural offerings for a field that he harvested before he converted because according to the opinion in this section, the obligation to give these offerings is set at the time of the harvest. Since he was not obligated when he harvested them, because he was not Jewish, he does not become obligated after he converts.
  Rabbi Judah makes him liable to leave the forgotten sheaf, since he becomes liable for the forgotten sheaf at the time of their binding.  Rabbi Judah says that the obligation to give forgotten sheaves is only set at the time at which the sheaves are bound together. Therefore, if he converts before he binds the sheaves, he is obligated to give the ones that are forgotten. We shall learn more about these laws later in this tractate.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with a person who dedicates his grain to the Temple and then redeems it.  One does not have to give peah or the other agricultural gifts from fields that have been dedicated to the Temple, so the question is, does he have to give them from a field that has been dedicated and then redeemed.
  One who dedicated standing grain [to the Temple] and then redeemed it while it was still standing grain, he is liable [to give the agricultural gifts to the poor].  In this case he dedicated and redeemed the stalks of grain while they were still standing in the field. Since at the time of harvesting they had already lost their sanctity by being redeemed, he must give all of the agricultural offerings.
  [If he dedicated] sheaves and redeemed them while they were still sheaves, he is liable.  If he dedicated the grain after he had harvested it and bundled it into sheaves, and then redeemed the sheaves, he is liable because at the time of harvest he had not yet dedicated them, and they were his.
  [If he dedicated] standing grain and redeemed it [when it was already in] sheaves, he is exempt, since at the time when it became liable it was exempt.  In this case he dedicated the grain while it was still in standing in the field, then he harvested it into sheaves and then he redeemed it.  Since the grain was exempt from the agricultural gifts at the time of harvesting, he is exempt from giving them even after he has redeemed the grain.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah teaches a very similar ruling to the mishnah that we learned yesterday, regarding one who dedicates his agricultural produce and then redeems it. Today’s topic is tithes, whereas yesterday we learned about the gifts that go to the poor.
  Similarly one who dedicates his produce prior to the stage when they are subject to tithes   and then redeemed them, they are liable [to be tithed].  Produce becomes liable to be tithed once it has been harvested, processed and made into a pile.  Before this point he may eat of it without tithing.  In the scenario in this section, he dedicates it before it becomes liable to be tithed and then he redeems it before it comes liable to be tithed.  He is then liable to tithe the produce when it becomes liable for tithes.
  If [he dedicated them] when they had already become subject to tithes and then redeemed them, they are liable [to be tithed].  In this case he dedicated it and redeemed it after he became liable for tithing, so again, he is liable to tithe the produce before he goes ahead and uses it.
  If he dedicated them before they had ripened, and they became ripe while in the possession of the [Temple] treasurer, and he then redeemed them, they are exempt, since at the time when they would have been liable, they were exempt.  In this case, he dedicates it before it is even a third ripe and then the produce ripens, is harvested and the Temple treasurer makes the grain into a pile.  Since the grain was in the legal possession of the Temple when it became liable for tithes, he is not liable for tithes when he redeems it.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  Introduction
  The first section of our mishnah deals with the owner of a field who transfers title over the peah to a poor person without the poor person being present.  The second half of the mishnah deals with the fields of non-Jews.
  One who collected peah and said, “This is for so-and-so a poor man:” Rabbi Eliezer says: he has thus acquired it for him. The sages say: he must give it to the first poor man he finds.  According to Rabbi Eliezer, a field owner can harvest his own peah and by mere declaration transfer ownership to a poor person of his choosing.  This would seem to follow the general rule that a person can benefit another person even though that person is not in his presence.  However, the other rabbis disagree and say that the peah remains peah and can still be taken by the first person who comes across it.  This would seem to prevent owners from selecting one poor person over another, and potentially corrupting the system of “first come, first serve.”
  Gleanings, the forgotten sheaf and the peah of non-Jews are subject to tithes, unless he [the non-Jew] had declared them ownerless.  Gleanings, forgotten sheaves and peah that are taken from a field of a Jew are not liable to be tithed, meaning the poor person can eat them without tithing them. However, if they are taken from the field of a non-Jew then they are liable for tithes because the non-Jew was not liable to give the gifts to the poor in the first place.  In other words, these are not technically considered gleanings, forgotten sheaves or peah, but rather just ordinary produce. The only way that they can be exempt from tithes is if the owner declared them ownerless and gave them to the poor as ownerless property.  Ownerless property is always exempt from tithes, as we shall learn when we learn tractate Maasrot.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  Introduction
  Having finished discussing peah, the mishnah proceeds to discuss “gleanings” or “leket,” one of the other agricultural gifts given to the poor. Gleanings are mentioned in Leviticus 19:9-10, and 23:22.
  What are gleanings?  That which falls down at the time of harvesting.  “Gleanings” are produce that falls during the time of harvesting.  The owner is not allowed to go back and claim that which falls, but rather he must give it to the poor.
  If while he was harvesting, he harvested a handful, or plucked a fistful, and then a thorn pricked him, and what he had in his hand fell to the ground, it still belongs to the owner.  The mishnah now goes on to define what it means to “fall down.”  There are going to be several limiting definitions in this mishnah. First of all, if he harvests the grain and grabs it in his hand and then a thorn causes him to drop that which he had just harvested, then that which is dropped does not belong to the poor.  The reason is that this didn’t fall during the harvest but after the harvest had already been completed. Once it is securely his hand he has harvested it and if he subsequently drops it, it does not belong to the poor.
  [That which drops from] inside the hand or the sickle [belongs] to the poor, but [that which falls from] the back of the hand or the sickle [belongs] to the owner.  If he was harvesting by hand and as he plucked the stalk, it fell from his hand, or if he was harvesting with a sickle and the stalks of grain fell from the sickle before he got them into his hand, the stalks belong to the poor because they fell while being harvested.  If, however, while harvesting, a stalk hits the back of his hand or the back of the sickle and falls to the ground, it still belongs to the owner because this stalk did not fall while he was intending to harvest and neither did it fall during harvesting.
  [That which falls from] the top of the hand or sickle: Rabbi Ishmael says: to the poor; But Rabbi Akiva says: to the owner.  Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Akiva debate whether a stalk that falls because it struck the top of the hand or the top of the sickle is like one that falls from inside the hand or the front of the sickle, in which case it belongs to the poor, or from the back of the hand or sickle, in which case it still belongs to the owner.  Rabbi Ishmael says it belongs to the poor and Rabbi Akiva says it belongs to the owner.
  
  Mishnah 11
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with grain that is found in ant holes in a field. The question is whether they count as gleanings, which as we saw in yesterday’s mishnah, is grain that falls during the time of the harvest.
  [Grain found in] ant holes where the stalks are still standing, behold it still belongs to the owner.  If the stalks are still standing that means that the field has not yet been plowed.  In such a case, the grain that has fallen into the ant holes in the ground still belongs to the owner.
  After the harvesters [had passed over them], those found in the top parts [of the ant holes belong] to the poor, but [those found] on the bottom parts [belong] to the owner. Rabbi Meir says: it all belongs to the poor, for gleanings about which there is any doubt are regarded as gleanings.  If the field has already been harvested then we can assume the top layer of grain in the holes fell out during the harvest and therefore it belongs to the poor. The bottom layer of grain, however, may have fallen out before the harvest and therefore it still belongs to the owner. Rabbi Meir says that when we have a doubt as to whether grain is considered to be gleanings or not, then we regard it as gleanings and it goes to the poor.  Generally there is a rule that the burden of proof is upon the claimant. In this case the poor person is the claimant, for he is coming to take the grain from its original owner.  This seems to be the rule invoked by the opinion in the previous section. Nevertheless, according to Rabbi Meir, in this case, perhaps because the claimant is poor, this general is not applied.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with gleanings that are, for various reasons, hard or impossible for the poor person to find.
  If a pile of grain was stacked [on part of a field] from which gleanings had not yet been collected, whatever touches the ground belongs to the poor.  If the field owner makes a stack of grain on a part of the field from which the poor have not yet collected their gleanings, then we penalize him and he loses the bottom part of the stack, that which touches the ground.  The poor person can, in a sense, say to the field owner, that any part of the stack that touched the ground might actually be gleanings and hence belongs to him.
  If the wind scattered the sheaves, they estimate the amount of gleanings the field would have yielded and they give that to the poor. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: he must give to the poor the amount that would fall.  If the wind scattered all the sheaves, mixing the sheaves that belonged to the field owner with the sheaves that should belong to the poor, then we estimate how much gleanings the field would produce and we give that amount to the poor person.
  Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that we estimate how many gleanings would fall from a field of this size.  Kehati explains that the debate between Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel and the opinion in the previous section is that Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that we determine the gleanings based on a typical field of this size, whereas the previous opinion says we estimate that specific field.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with cases where we have a doubt as to whether the gleanings belong to the owner of the field or to the poor.  However, the first half of the mishnah seems to deal with the laws of forgotten sheaves and not with the laws of gleanings.  It is probably brought here due to some language which is similar to the second half of the mishnah.
  The top of a single ear of grain [that remained] after the harvesting and its top touches the standing stalk: If it can be cut with the stalk, it belongs to the owner; But if not, it belongs to the poor.  After having harvested the stalks, one stalk remains that has a single ear of grain on it.  The question is, is this ear of grain considered to be “forgotten,” in which case it belongs to the poor? The rule is that if it still touches a standing stalk that has not yet been harvested and it can be cut in one swipe with that stalk then it is not forgotten.  If it cannot be cut together with the stalk, then it is considered to be forgotten and it still belongs to the poor.
  If an ear of grain of gleanings that became mixed up with a stack of grain, [the owner] must tithe one ear of grain and give it to him [the poor].  In this case an ear of grain of gleanings that should belong to the poor gets mixed up with a stack of grain that belongs to the field owner.  The problem here is that the gleanings are exempt from tithes whereas the stack is liable to be tithed. Therefore, he owner can’t just give the ear to the poor person, because he would be forcing the poor person to tithe it.  So according to the Rambam what he does is he takes two ears of grain from the stack.  He picks up the first one and says, “If this is the gleaning then let it belong to the poor person. But if it is not gleanings, then let the tithes that I give from the other ear be taken for this ear.”  He then makes the same statement on the second ear of grain.  Then he gives one to the poor person.
  Rabbi Eliezer says: how can this poor man give in exchange something that had not yet become his?  Rather, [the owner] must transfer to the poor man the ownership of the whole stack and then tithe one ear of grain and give it to him.  According to Rabbi Eliezer, the problem with this is that the poor person has not yet taken the gleanings such that he can exchange them for another ear.  In other words, according to the sages, the poor person relinquishes ownership over the original gleanings when he accepts the ear of corn in exchange despite the fact that he has not even taken possession of the gleanings.  To avoid this problem what the field owner should do is give the whole stack to the poor person as a retractable gift (which according to halakhah counts as a gift), and then take it back and then perform the tithing procedure as described above.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah deals with the potential problem of watering a field with a water wheel.
  They should not [irrigate a field] with a water wheel, the words of Rabbi Meir.  Rabbi Meir prohibits watering a field with a water wheel before the poor come and collect their gleanings because the water will cause the gleanings to be ruined.
  The sages permit it, because it is still possible [for the poor to get their gleanings].  The other sages permit this because he can just pick up the gleanings and put them on the side and the poor can come and collect them from there. Furthermore, if he does end up ruining some of their gleanings, he can always compensate them for their losses.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with a person who is not truly poor, but while traveling has no money to buy food and takes one of the agricultural gifts that goes to the poor.  The question is must he make restitution.  One of the interesting things about this mishnah is that it contains a definition of what it means to be poor.
  A property owner who was passing from place to place and need to take gleanings, the forgotten sheaf, peah or the poor man’s tithe, he may take them, and when he returns home, he must pay [for the amount gathere], the words of Rabbi Eliezer.  Rabbi Eliezer holds that the person who is temporarily poor can take the agricultural gifts that belong to the poor.  However, since he has land, he is not truly poor. When he returns to his home, he has to make restitution to the poor for that which he took.
  The sages say: he was a poor man at that time [and so he need not make restitution].  The other sages look at his current status and not his overall status. Since he was poor and had no money to buy food while he was out traveling, he need not make restitution when he returns. We could explain this mishnah as a debate about the definition of poverty. To Rabbi Eliezer, a poor person is one who doesn’t have any property.  Since this person has property, he must make restitution for that which he took.  In contrast the other rabbis hold that a person is poor if he doesn’t have any money to buy food.  After all, all the property in the world won’t help him if he doesn’t have cash to buy food.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  One who exchanges with the poor, [what they give in exchange] for his is exempt [from tithes] but what [he gives in exchange] for that of the poor is subject [to tithes].  The agricultural presents received by the poor are not obligated in tithes, whereas normal produce is.  So if a field owner gives the poor some of his produce and in return they give him back the peah, forgotten sheaf, or gleanings that he gives to them, then that which he gives to them must be tithed and that which they give to him is exempt from tithes.  In other words, the fact that they now have possession over some produce does not change the fact that it was not originally exempt from tithes, and the same holds true for the opposite scenario.  All of the produce retains its original status even after it was swapped.
  Two who received a field as sharecroppers, this one may give to the other his share of the poor man’s tithe and this one may give to the other his share of the poor man’s tithe.  In this scenario two people receive a field from its owner in return for giving the owner a percentage of the crop.  In general, a field owner cannot take the agricultural gifts from his field for himself, even if he is poor. This is probably meant to prevent corruption.  However, these two sharecroppers do not own the field, and hence each can give the other the agricultural gifts of peah, forgotten sheaves, gleanings and the poor man’s tithe.  They cannot take the agricultural gifts from the part of the field that they are actually harvesting because that part of the field is considered as belonging to them.
  One who receives a field in order to harvest it, he is forbidden to take gleanings, the forgotten sheaf, peah or the poor man’s tithe.  In contrast, a single person who receives a field in order to harvest it and to take a share of the harvest as payment, cannot take the agricultural gifts for himself.  The difference between this case and that in the previous section is that here there is only one person. Since he harvests the whole field, he cannot take any of its agricultural offerings.
  Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? When he receives it [in order to pay the owner] a half, third or quarter [of the crop].  But [if the owner] had said to him: “A third of that which you harvest belongs to you,” then he may take gleanings, the forgotten sheaf and peah, but not the poor man’s tithe.  Rabbi Judah says that the previous ruling holds true only if the contract with the sharecropper implied that the sharecropper owns his percentage of the crop while it is still attached to the ground.  In such a scenario he is considered to have sufficient ownership of the crop that he cannot take the agricultural offerings. However, if the contract implies that the crop becomes his only after it has already been harvested, then he may take gleanings, forgotten sheaf and peah, because it is as if he is being paid to harvest with produce that has been detached from the ground.  He is not the owner of the field and therefore he can take the agricultural gifts.  However, he still cannot take the poor man’s tithe because poor man’s tithe is always given with harvested produce and not with the crop while still attached to the land. And once he harvests the crop some of it belongs to him and he cannot take the poor man’s tithe from his own produce.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  This is the final mishnah which deals with the topic of gleanings.
  One who sells, the seller is permitted [to take the agricultural gifts] and the purchaser is forbidden.  Someone who sells a field may subsequently take the agricultural gifts (provided he is poor) from that field because once he has sold it, he is no longer the owner.  The opposite also holds true--the one who bought the field may not take the agricultural gifts even if he is poor because he is now the owner.
  One may not hire a worker on the condition that the son [of the worker] should gather the gleanings after him.  The remainder of our mishnah teaches that it is forbidden to create a system whereby one poor person will have an advantage over others in collecting the gleanings.  A field owner is not allowed to hire a worker who stipulates that his son would collect the gleanings after him.  Such a scenario could entirely corrupt the system.  First, the worker’s son gains an unfair advantage. Second, one can easily imagine the field owner telling the worker that he is going to pay him less because he is giving him preferential ability to collect the gleanings.  The owner might try to in essence sell the gleanings.  In other words, forbidding this contract protects the rights of other poor people as well as this worker himself.
  One who does not allow the poor to gather, or one who allows one but not another, or one who helps one of them [to gather] behold he is a robber of the poor.   Concerning him it is said: “Do not remove the landmark of those that come up (” (Proverbs 22:28).  The mishnah concludes with some general exhortations against these types of arrangements.  One should not do anything to give preferential treatment to some poor people over others. The final midrash on Proverbs 22:28 is based on a variant reading of the text of Proverbs.  The Masoretic (traditional Jewish) text reads, “Do not remove the ancient (olam) landmark stone.”  Our text reads the word “olam” as if it was written “olim.”  “Olim” usually means “those who go up” and therefore it may be being used euphemistically here for the poor who could be called “those who are going down,” meaning they have lost their money.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah begins to deal with the topic of forgotten sheaves. Deuteronomy 24:19 states,  “When you reap the harvest in your field and overlook a sheaf in the field, do not turn back to get it; it shall go to the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow in order that the Lord you God may bless you in all your undertakings.”
  Today’s mishnah teaches what it means for a sheaf to be considered “forgotten.”
  A sheaf which the workers forgot but not the land owner, or which the land owner forgot but not the workers; or [a sheaf] which the poor stood in front of [and blocked its view], or they covered it up with stubble, it is not considered a forgotten sheaf. In order for the sheaf to be considered “forgotten” and therefore belong to the poor, both the one who actually owns the land and the worker who is harvesting the crop must forget it.  If only one of them “forgets” it there in the field, then it is still not considered forgotten. Similarly, if the poor stand in front of the sheaf so that the owner or field worker can’t see it and thereby forget it, or if they to cover it up with stubble so that it won’t be noticed, then they don’t get to keep it as a “forgotten sheaf” because they themselves caused it to be forgotten.  Note that while in yesterday’s mishnah we were concerned with the field owners cheating the poor out of what belongs to them, today we are concerned that the poor might cheat the field owner.  The rabbis’ concern for cheating is not protection for one side over the other. It is balanced protection in order to ensure that the system operates justly to both sides.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  One who binds sheaves into stack covers, stack bases, round stacks or regular stacks, he is not subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf [while binding].[When bringing them afterwards] to the threshing-floor, he is subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf.One who piles up the sheaves to make a stack, he is subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf.[When bringing them afterwards] to the threshing-floor, he is not subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf.This is the general rule: whoever makes the sheaves at the place which is the end of the work is subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf, [and afterwards when he takes] them to the threshing-floor, he is not subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf.However, [one who piles up the sheaves] at a place which is not the end of the work, is not subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf; [and afterwards when he takes] them to the threshing-floor, he is subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf.The status of a sheaf as “forgotten” is determined at the time when the processing of the sheaf is completed and it is ready to be threshed.  Our mishnah comes to teach that the laws of the forgotten sheaf do not apply when he makes small piles of sheaves in order to later make them into a bigger stack or to bring them to the threshing floor. They only apply either when he makes the smaller bundles of sheaves into a large stack, or when he brings them to the threshing floor.Section one: In this case, the worker makes the grain into small temporary sheaves while harvesting.  If he forgets a sheaf at this point, it does not officially count as “forgotten” and it does not belong to the poor.Section two:  If he then proceeds to gather these small bundles of sheaves in order to bring them to the threshing floor and while doing so forgets one of them, it is considered to be “forgotten” and it belongs to the poor.  This situation, and the previous one, will be illustrated in section six.  When he makes the small bundles it is not yet “the end of the work” and therefore they are not yet subject to the laws of the forgotten sheaf. When he then takes them to the threshing floor, this is considered the end of the stacking/bundling work and they now are liable for the laws of the forgotten sheaf.Section three:  This is the opposite scenario.  He makes a big stack of sheaves out in the field.  There is no more work of stacking to be done, and hence if there is something forgotten at this point, it counts as a forgotten sheaf.Section four:  Henceforth, when he brings this stack to the threshing floor, it is no longer liable for the laws of the forgotten sheaf.  This is illustrated in section five.The general rule of the entire mishnah might be summed up thusly:  the laws of the forgotten sheaf apply at the completion of the stacking/bundling process. Before and after this time if a sheaf is forgotten it does not count as a forgotten sheaf.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  In this mishnah there are two debates between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel. Only the second one has to do with the laws of the forgotten sheaf.
  Bet Shammai says: [That which is] made ownerless only in regard to the poor is indeed ownerless. But Bet Hillel says: it is not ownerless unless ownership is renounced even for the rich, as in the case of the sabbatical year.  If something is pronounced ownerless, in other words the owner renounces title over it, it is not liable for tithes.  According to Bet Shammai if a land owner renounces ownership over part of his field or crop but only so that the poor can take it and not the rich, then it counts as renouncing ownership, and when the poor come and take it, they need not give tithes from it. In contrast according to Bet Hillel, this does not work.  One who makes his field or crops ownerless just for the poor, has not exempted the crops from tithes. Something is not considered ownerless unless the owner completely renounces all ownership over it. He has to allow anyone, including the rich come and take it. Bet Hillel compares this to crops that grow on their own in the field during the Sabbatical year. Such crops are ownerless and anyone, including the rich, may come and take them.
  [If] all of the sheaves in a field are a kav each, and one is four kavs and that one is forgotten: Bet Shammai says: it is not considered forgotten. But Bet Hillel says: it is considered forgotten.  A sheaf that is a kav (about two liters) that is forgotten in a field is considered to be forgotten and belongs to the poor.  However, there is a debate concerning a sheaf that is four times the size of the other sheaves.  According to Bet Shammai, we look at this sheaf as if it is really four separate forgotten sheaves lying side by side and when four sheaves are left together, they are not considered to have been forgotten (we shall learn more about this in mishnah five).  In other words, even though this is really one sheaf, we treat it as if it were four. According to Bet Hillel, we don’t consider this one sheaf as if it were really four sheaves, but rather it is simply one forgotten sheaf. Therefore, it belongs to the poor.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah deals with a sheaf that was left lying near something specific. The question is, might the field owner have left it there intentionally so that he would know where to find it later?  If he did, then the rules of the forgotten sheaf do not apply and the sheaf does not belong to the poor.  This would mean that only a sheaf left lying in the middle of the field, or at least not near anything specific, would be considered to be forgotten.
  A sheaf left near a stone fence, or near a stack [of grain] or near oxen, or near equipment: Bet Shammai says: it is not considered “forgotten”; Bet Hillel says: it is considered “forgotten.” According to Bet Shammai we suspect that he may have left the sheaf there on purpose in which case it is not considered to be forgotten. In contrast, Bet Hillel says that it is considered forgotten.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah continues to define when something is considered to be a forgotten sheaf.
  [With regard to sheaves forgotten] at the end of the row, the sheaf lying across from it proves [that the first sheaf has not been forgotten.]  This section deals with a sheaf that was forgotten at the beginning of a row. Tomorrow’s mishnah will define what exactly “the beginning of a row” means.  The mishnah teaches that if there is another sheaf lying in the row across from it, it proves that the sheaf has not been forgotten.  To illustrate this, let’s say that someone has ten rows of ten sheaves of wheat.  He begins to go from north to south to gather the sheaves to bundle them up and make a pile.  If he gets to the end of the row and leaves a sheaf there, it is not forgotten if the sheaf to its side is still there, because we can assume that his intention was to gather that sheaf when walking from east to west.  The only way that something can be considered forgotten at the end of a row is if he left it lying and there is no other sheaf to the east or west.
  [As for] a sheaf that [the owner] took to bring it to the city and forgot it, all agree that it is not considered a “forgotten sheaf.”  A sheaf that has already begun to make its way to the city can no longer be considered forgotten.  In this case, and in the case in section one above, even Bet Hillel, who held in yesterday’s mishnah that a sheaf left near a fence or other identifiable place is considered forgotten, in the two cases in our mishnah Bet Hillel agrees that it is not considered forgotten because there is something that “proves” that he intended to leave it there.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah, which said that something that was left at the end of a row was not considered “forgotten.”
  These are to be considered ends of the rows:If two men begin [to gather] from the middle of the row, one facing north and the other south and they forget [some sheaves] in front of them and behind them, those left in front of them are “forgotten,” but those left behind them are not “forgotten.”  The mishnah will now explain two rules concerning when something is considered not to be forgotten because it was left at the end of a row.  The first refers to a situation where two men begin in the middle of a row, one gathering sheaves while walking north and one gathering sheaves while walking south.  In such a case any sheaves they leave in front of them are considered forgotten. Although these sheaves are at ends of rows, they are considered forgotten because when two people gather the sheaves in this way, they should complete their half of the field. There is no reason for the person walking north to leave a sheaf at the end of his row, and hence, if he does, it is considered forgotten.  But if he leaves a sheaf behind him, then it is not forgotten because he may be assuming that the other person will collect it.  For instance, let’s say that one person began at the seventh sheaf in a row and went south, and the other began at the fifth sheaf and went north.  The sixth sheaf is not forgotten because each assumes that the other person will gather it.
  If an individual begins from the end of the row and he forgets [some sheaves] in front of him and behind him, those in front of him are not “forgotten”, whereas those behind him are “forgotten,” for this comes under the category of “you shall not go back [to retrieve it].”  The opposite rule applies if one person is gathering.  Here the rule is simpler.  That which he leaves in front of him is not forgotten.  It is not covered by the prohibition of “do not go back to retrieve it” (Deuteronomy 24:19) because he hasn’t passed over it yet.  However, that which he leaves behind is forgotten because to get to it, he would have to go back.  It turns out that for an individual the beginning of a row that is not considered to be forgotten is really at the end of the row, whereas for two people it is the middle of the row that is not considered forgotten.
  This is the general rule: anything that can be said to fall under the law “you shall not go back” is considered “forgotten,” but that to which the principle of “you shall not go back” cannot be applied is not considered “forgotten.”  The mishnah now provides a general rule:  if one has to go back to retrieve the sheaf then it is considered forgotten, provided we don’t assume that he may have left it there intentionally.  If he doesn’t have to go back to retrieve it because he has not yet passed it, it is not forgotten and he may still collect it.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Two sheaves [left lying together] are “forgotten,” but three are not “forgotten.”Two bundles of olives or carobs are “forgotten” but three are not “forgotten.”Two flax-stalks are “forgotten”, but three are not “forgotten”.Two grapes are considered “grape gleanings,” but three are not “grape gleanings.”Two ears of grain are deemed “gleanings,” but three are not gleanings.”All these [rulings] are according to Bet Hillel.  And concerning them all Bet Shammai says that three [that are left] belong to the poor, and four belong to the owner.The general rule of this mishnah is if that two things left lying together are considered to have been forgotten but three things left lying together are assumed to have been left there intentionally so that the owner could come back and collect them later.  Hence they are not considered forgotten. This rule applies to two different types of gifts to the poor:  “forgotten” and “gleanings.”  The category of gleanings can be divided into two different types, each with its own Hebrew term: grain (leket) and grapes (peret).In the sixth section of the mishnah we learn that the opinions found in the first five all belong to Bet Hillel. In contrast, Bet Shammai holds that if three things are left together in the field they are considered forgotten or gleanings. Only if four things are left together do they still belong to the owner.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah talks about the how big a sheaf can be and still be considered “forgotten.”
  A sheaf that has two seahs and he forgot it  it is not considered “forgotten.”  A sheaf that is so large that it is two seahs (about 24 liters) is not considered to be forgotten because, as we shall see below, at this size it is like a stack. Deuteronomy 22:19 says, “And you forget a sheaf” to the rabbis this implies that a sheaf was forgotten, and not a stack.
  Two sheaves that together comprise two seahs: Rabban Gamaliel says: they belong to the owner; But the sages say: they belong to the poor.  If two sheaves are left in the field and they have a total volume of two seahs between them, then there is a debate over whether they are to be considered forgotten. Rabban Gamaliel says they are not forgotten and that the owner still retains possession over them, whereas the other sages say that they are forgotten and they belong to the poor.
  Rabban Gamaliel said: “Are the rights of the owner strengthened or weakened according to the greater number of the sheaves?” They replied, “His rights are strengthened.” He said to them: “If in a case of one sheaf of two seahs it is not deemed “forgotten,” then how much more should be the case of two sheaves that together contain two seahs?” They replied: “No. If you argue in the case of one sheaf it is because it is large enough to be considered a stack. Are you going to argue likewise in the case of two sheaves which are like bundles?”  The two sides now debate this issue. Rabban Gamaliel explains that when there are more sheaves left together, the owner’s rights to them are stronger. This was implied in yesterday’s mishnah, where we learned that if three sheaves are left together they are not considered forgotten.  Therefore, he argues, in our case if one sheaf of two seahs is not considered forgotten, all the more so two sheaves of two seahs are not forgotten. The other rabbis respond that the reason that one sheaf of two seahs is not considered forgotten is that it is no longer a sheaf, but rather a stack.  In contrast, two sheaves which add up together to two seahs are still considered to be sheaves, or small bundles, and hence the normal rules of forgotten sheaves applies to each of them individually and they are considered forgotten.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  In today’s mishnah we see that the rabbis extended the laws of forgotten sheaves to standing stalks of grain as well. The question then is, when is a stalk considered to have been forgotten?
  A standing stalk of grain that contains two seahs and he forgot it, it is not considered “forgotten.”  Truth be told, I’m not really sure that one stalk of grain can actually produce two seahs of grain, but if it could, it would not be considered forgotten, just as a sheaf with two seahs is not considered forgotten.
  If it does not contain two seahs now, but is fit to yield two seahs, even if it was of an inferior kind of barley, it is regarded as full barley [grains].  If the stalk will yield two seahs, then we treat it as if it has two seahs and it is not considered forgotten.  Indeed, this makes a lot of sense because if this stalk was going to produce a whole two seahs of grain, he probably left it in the field so that he could harvest it when it ripened.  The mishnah adds that even if the barley was low quality barley such that it would not actually yield two seahs, we evaluate it as if each grain was of full barley and if the amount that this type of barley will yield equals two seahs, then it is not forgotten.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  A standing stalk of grain can save a sheaf and another standing stalk [from being regarded as “forgotten”].  A standing stalk of grain that has not been forgotten prevents an adjacent sheaf or an adjacent standing stalk of grain from being considered forgotten.  Commentators explain that is based on a midrash. Deuteronomy 24:19 says, “When you harvest…and you forget a sheaf.”  From here the rabbis derive that a sheaf that is forgotten is one that is next to other harvested sheaves, and not one that is next to a standing stalk.
  A sheaf cannot save either another sheaf or a standing stalk.  However, a sheaf that has not been forgotten does not save another adjacent sheaf or standing stalk from being considered forgotten.  This is because there is no midrash according to which forgotten sheaves must be next to other forgotten sheaves.
  What is the standing stalk of grain that can save at sheaf?   Anything which has not been forgotten, even though it is a single stalk.  This section explains that even a single stalk of grain saves that which is next to it from being considered forgotten.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  Introduction
  Above in mishnah seven we learned that if a stalk of grain has two seahs it is not considered forgotten.  Our mishnah asks what happens if he forgets a stalk that has one seah and doesn’t forget some already harvested grain that is also one seah?  Do the two add up causing the two-seah rule to still apply?
  A seah of plucked grain and a seah of unplucked grain, and also trees; and garlic and to onions do not combine to count as two seahs, but rather they must be left to the poor.  If the unforgotten plucked grain and the forgotten unplucked grain add up to two seahs, they do not combine, and they still must be left for the poor.  The same holds true for a seah of unharvested fruit and a seah of harvested fruit if both are forgotten they do not combine together and both belong to the poor. In addition the mishnah notes that forgotten garlic and onions do not combine together to count as two seahs, even if both are harvested or both are unharvested. This is because garlic and onions are different species, even though they go together very well in many delicious dishes (yum I love garlic and onion).
  Rabbi Yose says: if anything that belongs to the poor comes in between them, the two are not combined together; otherwise, they do combine.  Rabbi Yose says that if there is between one seah and the other something that belongs to the poor, such as gleanings, then the two seahs do not join together.  However, if they are lying right next to each other with nothing that belongs to the poor interrupting them, then they do join together to add up to two seahs and they do not belong to the poor.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah continues to define what things the “laws of forgotten” apply to.
  Grain used for fodder or [stalks] used for binding sheaves, and also garlic-stalks used for tying other bunches, or tied bunches of garlic and onions they [all are not subject to the laws of] forgotten.  The laws of forgotten do not apply to grain used as animal food, nor to stalks or garlic-stalks that will be used for binding other sheaves or other bunches of garlic.  While mentioning the rules of garlic, the mishnah mentions another rule.  If a person ties small bunches of garlic or onions with the intent of coming back and putting them together into larger bunches, the small bunches are not subject to the laws of forgotten, because his intention is to go back and collect them.
  Anything stored in the ground like arum, garlic and onions: Rabbi Judah says: they do not subject to the laws of “forgotten”; But the sages say: they are subject to the laws of “forgotten.”  According to Rabbi Judah, the rules of forgotten do not apply to things that are stored in the ground after they are harvested.  This seems to be derived from the verse, “And you forget a sheaf in the field” (Deuteronomy 24:19) the word “field” means that the “forgotten” stuff has to be above the field, and not buried in the field.  This excludes arum (a type of onion), garlic and onions.  The rabbis interpret “the field” to include things stored in the ground of the field, such that they too are subject to the laws of forgotten.
  
  Mishnah 11
  
  One who harvests by night and binds sheaves [by night] or one who is blind [that which he leaves] is subject to the law of the “forgotten.”  The laws of “forgotten” still apply to one who can’t see, either because he was harvesting or binding sheaves at night, or because he is blind.  We don’t say that because he couldn’t see what he was doing he can’t forget anything.
  If he intends to remove large leaves first, then the law of “forgotten” does not apply.  If a person intends to remove the large sheaves first, and then leaves some of them in the field mixed in with the smaller sheaves, none of the sheaves, neither the small ones nor the large ones, are deemed “forgotten.”  The smaller sheaves are not forgotten because he was not intending to collect them. The larger sheaves are also not forgotten because we assume that since he left the smaller sheaves, his intention was to go back to the field and collect the larger ones later.
  If he said: “Behold, I am reaping on the condition that I take afterwards that which I have forgotten,” the law of “forgotten” still applies.  A person cannot make a blanket statement before he starts harvesting that anything that he leaves in the field he will come back and collect. This does not prevent that which he actually forgets from being considered “forgotten.”  Such a person would be trying to make a stipulation to get around the Torah’s laws and such stipulations are usually invalid.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with the laws of forgotten as they apply to olive trees.
  An olive tree that has a name in the field, such as the olive tree of Netofah in its time, and he forgot it, it is not deemed “forgotten.”  The laws of “forgotten” do not apply to special olive trees, ones that are famous for something or other.  The mishnah even mentions one of these special olive trees, the “olive tree of Netofah,” a city in the Lower Galilee.  In its time, this olive tree was a real winner!
  To what does this apply? [Only to a tree distinguished] by its name, produce, or position. “By its name:” if it were a shifkhoni  or beshani. “By its produce:” if it yields large quantities. “By its position:” if it stands at the side of the winepress or near the gap in the fence.  The previous law applies only if the tree was distinguished by name, by its produce or by its place in the field.  Thus if it had a special name like “shifkhoni” (because it spills, shofekh, a lot of oil) or “beshani” (some say this refers to the fact that it is from Bet Shean, whereas others say this is because it embarrasses, biyesh, the other olive trees with it copious amounts of oil) then the laws of forgotten do not apply.  The laws of “forgotten” also do not apply to a tree that is well-known for the great amount of oil that it produces or for where it stands in the field. The assumption is that a person who leaves the olives on these trees unharvested has not actually forgotten them.
  Other kinds of olive trees:  two are deemed “forgotten”, but three are not deemed “forgotten.”  Two trees left unharvested are considered to be forgotten, but as usual, three are not.  (See above 6:5).
  Rabbi Yose says: there is no law of “forgotten” for olive trees.  According to Rabbi Yose olive trees are so important that we make a blanket assumption that no one would forget them in the field and therefore the laws of forgotten do not apply.  The Yerushalmi explains that olive trees were scarce because Hadrian destroyed so many of them during the Hadrianic persecutions which took place during the first third of the second century. As an aside, there is still much modern contention over olive trees between Palestinians and Jews living in Israel.  Without getting into politics, in the Middle East destroying someone else’s olive trees is perhaps one of the most injurious acts a person can do to another, short of personal injury and murder.  Olives are far and away the most important agricultural product in the Mediterranean region. The oil is used to make numerous things:  food, lighting, soap, perfume, etc.  The trees can live for centuries and cutting down an olive tree is truly a tragedy.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  An olive tree found standing between three rows [of olive trees] which have two plots separating them, and he forgot it, it is deemed, “forgotten.”  This section describes a field that has three rows of olive trees, and in between the rows there are two plots sewn with grain, one plot between the first and second row and one plot between the second and third row. If there is an olive tree standing between these rows then it is distinguished by its position between the two plots and between the three rows and the rules of forgotten do not apply.
  An olive tree containing two seahs and he forgot it, it is not deemed forgotten.  Another case in which the rules of forgotten don’t apply is when the tree has two seahs of olives see above 7:5.
  To what does this apply? Only when he [the owner] had not yet begun [to harvest the tree], but if he had begun, even if it were like the olive tree of Netofah in its time, and he forgot it, it is deemed forgotten.  The mishnah now limits the rules that appeared in the preceding clauses, cases where the laws of forgotten did not apply. These laws applied only when the person had not yet begun to harvest the tree.  However, if he began to harvest the tree and left some of the olives still in the tree, then the rules of forgotten do apply, even if the tree was as special as that amazing olive tree in Netofah.
  As long as the owner has some of the olives belonging to him at the foot of the tree, he has [possession] of those on top of the tree. Rabbi Meir says: [forgotten applies only] after [those with] the beating-rod have gone.  The mishnah now brings a debate about when a person is considered to have forgotten the olives still in the tree such that they belong to the poor.  Olives are harvested by beating the tree and letting the olives fall on a sack spread out underneath the tree.  According to the first opinion, as long as there are still olives in the sack underneath the tree, then he hasn’t finished harvesting the tree and the laws of forgotten do not apply.  Rabbi Meir says that the harvesting is considered completed only when the workers with their sticks for beating the tree have gone away.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah defines peret, a word found in Leviticus 19:10, “The peret of your vineyard you shall not gather, for the poor and the stranger you shall leave them.”
  What is peret? [Grapes] which fall down during the harvesting.  Peret is a grape or a few grapes that fall to the ground when being harvested. Once the grapes hit the ground they belong to the poor.
  If while he was harvesting [the grapes], he cut off an entire cluster by its stalk, and it got tangled up in the [grape] leaves, and then it fell from his hand to the ground and the single berries were separated, it belongs to the owner.  In this case an entire cluster is cut off by its stalk and then it gets tangled up in the leaves, falls to the ground and the grapes split off from the cluster. These grapes are not considered peret because they didn’t separate from the cluster and fall to the ground as a direct result of their being harvested, but rather as a result of their contact with the grape leaves.  In order for grapes to be peret it must be the harvesting that causes them to separate from the cluster and fall to the ground.
  One who places a basket under the vine when he is harvesting [the grapes], behold he is a robber of the poor.   Concerning him it is said: “Do not remove the landmark of those that come up (” (Proverbs 22:28).  By putting the basket under the vine when harvesting, he is preventing anything from becoming peret. The mishnah calls one who does such a thing a “robber of the poor.” This is the same words with which mishnah 5:6 ended.  I will copy here what I wrote there: The final midrash on Proverbs 22:28 is based on a variant reading of the text of Proverbs.  The Masoretic (traditional Jewish) text reads, “Do not remove the ancient (olam) landmark stone.”  Our text reads the word “olam” as if it was written “olim.”  “Olim” usually means “those who go up” and therefore it may be being used euphemistically here for the poor who could be called “those who are going down,” meaning they have lost their money.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah introduces the rules of the “defective cluster,” called in Hebrew the “olelet.”  Leviticus 19:10 states, “You shall not pick your vineyard bare,” the word for bare is “teolel” from which the rabbis derive the word olelet.  They interpret the halakhah to mean don’t pick defective clusters of grapes, rather leave them for the poor.
  What constitutes a defective cluster ( of grapes? Any [cluster] which has neither a shoulder [a wide upper part] nor a pendant [a cone-shaped lower part].  A defective cluster is defined as one that does not have a broad part on the top and a part that tapers down toward the bottom.  A grape cluster normally has a spine that travels its entire length. The top part has small branches off the spine; the grapes grow on these small branches. This part of the cluster is called the shoulder.  On the bottom part the grapes grow directly from the spine. This part is called the pendant.
  If it has a shoulder or a pendant, it belongs to the owner. If there is a doubt, it belongs to the poor.  If it has only one of these, i.e. it has a shoulder but not a pendant or a pendant but not a shoulder, then it is not an olelet, a defective cluster, and it still belongs to the owner.  However, if there is a doubt over whether it missing both the shoulder and the pendant, then it belongs to the poor. Alternatively, if there is a doubt whether there is a spine, or whether it is really just a few grapes growing directly from the vine, then it belongs to the poor.
  A defective cluster on the joint of a vine [where a normal cluster hangs from the vine], if it can be cut off with the cluster, it belongs to the owner; but if it can not, it belongs to the poor.  If there is a defective cluster growing from the vine at the same point as a normal cluster, then if the defective one can be harvested with as the normal one, it belongs to the owner. If, however, it needs to be cut separately, then it belongs to the poor.
  A single grape: Rabbi Judah says: It is deemed a whole cluster, But the sages say: It is deemed a defective cluster.  According to Rabbi Judah a single grape growing from a vine is not considered a defective cluster. Albeck explains that this is because the Bible never uses the singular for olelet, rather it always uses olelot, defective clusters. Hence, he holds that there really is no such thing as a single grape defective cluster. The other rabbis disagree and rule that a single grape is considered a defective cluster and it belongs to the poor.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with whether when one thins out the grapes from a grapevine so that the other grapes will have more room to grow one can also thin away the defective clusters that are supposed to go to the poor.
  One who is thinning out vines, just as he may thin out in that which belongs to him, so too he may thin out in that which belongs to the poor, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: in that which belongs to him, he is permitted, but he is not permitted in that which belongs to the poor. To make room for the grapes to grow, a grape farmer might thin out the vines and get rid of the some of the clusters. The problem is that this might cause a loss to the poor, especially if he gets rid of many of the defective clusters. Rabbi Judah says that nevertheless when thinning out vines one may thin out the defective clusters that belong to the poor. Rabbi Meir says that he may not, because the defective clusters don’t belong to him, rather they belong to the poor.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  For the first three years’ of a vine’s growth, its grapes are “orlah” and cannot be eaten.  In the fourth year of its growth, they are like second tithe and must either be eaten in Jerusalem or redeemed and brought to Jerusalem where the proceeds are to be used to buy food.  Our mishnah deals with these laws and in the second half of the mishnah it deals with the impact that these laws have on some of the agricultural gifts.
  [The grapes of] a vineyard in its fourth year:Bet Shammai says: the laws of the added fifth and removal do not apply to them; But Bet Hillel says: they do.  According to Bet Shammai when one redeems the grapes of a fourth year vineyard, that is one takes money and transfers the holiness of the grapes onto the money and brings the money to Jerusalem, one does not need to add a fifth of the value, as one does for second tithe.  With regard to second tithe Leviticus 27:31 states, “If anyone wishes to redeem any of his tithes, he must add one-fifth to them.”  This, according to Bet Shammai, was stated only with regard to tithes and not with regard to the fourth-year vineyard.  Bet Shammai also holds that another rule concerning tithes does not apply.  Deuteronomy 14:28 states, “At the end of three years you shall bring out the full tithe of your yield of that year.” This means that at the end of three years one must get rid of all of the tithes within one’s household and give them to whomever they rightfully belong.  According to Bet Shammai one does not have to get rid of the wine made of fourth year grapes.  In short, Bet Shammai says that while there is some similarity between fourth year grapes and second tithe, they are not similar in all aspects. Bet Hillel says that all of the laws of second tithe apply to fourth year grapes.  Therefore, when one redeems them he must add a fifth and they must be removed at the end of three years.
  Bet Shammai says: the laws of peret and the defective clusters apply to them, and the poor can redeem the grapes for themselves. But Bet Hillel says: all [of them] go to the wine-press.  The laws of peret (fallen grapes) and defective clusters (olelot) do not apply to tithes.  Since Bet Shammai does not hold that the laws of tithes apply to the fourth year grapes, they therefore hold that the laws of peret and defective clusters do apply.  The poor people would take their peret and olelot, redeem them, and bring the money to Jerusalem, just as the owner does with his own grapes/wine. Bet Hillel, on the other hand, holds that the poor do not receive the peret and the olelot because the agricultural gifts of the poor do not apply to tithes. Rather the owners take all of the grapes and bring them to the winepress, make wine and then either bring the wine to Jerusalem or redeem the wine and bring the money to Jerusalem.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  In today’s mishnah Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva argue over a vineyard where all of the clusters of grapes are defective (olelot).
  A vineyard which consists entirely of defective clusters: Rabbi Eliezer says: it belongs to the owner. Rabbi Akiva says: to the poor.  According to Rabbi Eliezer, if the entire vineyard consists of defective clusters, then they belong to the owner and not to the poor. Rabbi Akiva disagrees and holds that the defective clusters go to the poor, just as they normally do.
  Rabbi Eliezer: “When you harvest the grapes of your vineyard, do not take the defective clusters” (Deuteronomy 24:21).   If there is no grape harvesting, how can there be “defective clusters”?  Each side in this debate will now present a midrash that supports his point of view.  Rabbi Eliezer’s midrash is on Deuteronomy 24:21 which he reads as implying that there must be a harvesting of the grapes in order for the defective clusters to go to the poor.  For the some of the grapes to go to the poor, some must also go to the owner.  In other words, if we can’t fulfill the first half of the verse, “when you harvest the grapes of your vineyard” then we do not fulfill the second half of the verse “do not take the defective clusters.”
  Rabbi Akiva said to him: “And from your vineyard do not take the defective clusters” (Leviticus 19:10) even if it consists entirely of defective clusters. If that is so, why is it said: “When you harvest the grapes of your vineyard, do not take the defective clusters”? [This teaches that] the poor have no right to claim the defective clusters before the harvest.  Rabbi Akiva’s midrash is based on Leviticus 19:10, where the verse concerning defective clusters does not begin with the words, “Whey you harvest…”  Rather the verse simply says not to take the defective clusters, regardless of whether the entire vineyard consists of defective clusters.  From this verse Rabbi Akiva learns that the defective clusters always go to the poor. Rabbi Akiva also offers an alternative midrash to the verse that Rabbi Eliezer had used. Deuteronomy 24:21 teaches that the poor cannot come and collect the defective clusters until the owner has begun to harvest his vineyard.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  The first part of our mishnah deals with one who dedicates his vineyard to the Temple. The second half deals with what constitutes a forgotten cluster of grapes.
  One who dedicates his entire vineyard [to the Temple] before the “defective clusters” were recognizable, the “defective clusters” do not belong to the poor. After the defective clusters were recognizable, then they do belong to the poor.  When one dedicates his vineyard to the Temple, we need to know whether or not the defective clusters still go to the poor. After all, these defective clusters are not really his to dedicate because they belong to the poor. The mishnah rules that if he dedicated the vineyard before the defective clusters were recognizable, then the whole vineyard belongs to the Temple, even the defective clusters that eventually grow there.  This is because the agricultural gifts are not given from Temple property. However, if the defective clusters were already recognizable, then they were not his to dedicate in the first place.  Hence they belong to the poor.
  Rabbi Yose says: [the poor] must give the value of their improved growth to the Temple.  Rabbi Yose adds in that in the case where the defective clusters belong to the poor, it turns out that the poor were benefiting by having their defective clusters grow from land that belonged to the Temple. Therefore the poor have to reimburse the Temple for the value of the improved growth from the time of the dedication until the time of the harvest.  In this way they restore to the Temple the value of that which they benefited from Temple property.
  What is deemed “forgotten” in the case of a trellis [a lattice for supporting plants]? Anything that one can no longer stretch his hand and take it.  The mishnah now completes its discussion of vineyards by delineating when something is deemed forgotten. When it comes to grapes growing on a trellis, they are deemed forgotten when the harvester has passed by them and cannot reach back and take them.  Note that these grapes do not become forgotten automatically when the person passes by them.
  And in the case of ground-trained vines? From the time [the gatherers] pass by it.  In the case of vines that are trained on the ground, they do become forgotten once the person harvesting the vineyard has passed by them.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  After the poor have collected their agricultural gifts, that which they have not taken becomes ownerless (hefker), and anyone can take it.  Our mishnah delineates how we determine when the poor have finished collecting these various gifts such that they are completely up for grabs.
  From when are all people permitted to take gleanings, [forgotten sheaves and peah]? After the old ones of the poor have gone.  After the old poor people have gone through the field and collected any of the gleanings, forgotten sheaves or peah that was left by the younger poor who were the first to pick through the field, anyone else can come and collect it.
  And in the case of peret and defective clusters? After the poor have gone into the vineyard and come back again.  This section deals with the agricultural gifts taken from a vineyard, namely peret (dropped grapes) and defective clusters. These belong to anyone once the poor have gone through the vineyard twice. This seems to be a reflection of their greater value. When it comes to grain, the poor will only go through the field once and therefore, after they are done, it belongs to anyone.  In contrast, when it comes to grapes, it is worth it for the poor to go through the field twice and hence their grapes do not belong to everyone until they have done so.
  And in the case of the olive trees? After the descent of the second rainfall.  Olives, as we have seen throughout the tractate, are the most important agricultural product.  Therefore, the agricultural gifts given from olive trees do not become up for grabs for everyone until after the “second rainfall.” This does not mean the second time that it rains, but rather the first rain that falls during the second part of the rainy season.  There are three opinions as to when this is, the 7th, 17th or 23rd of Heshvan.
  Rabbi Judah said: But aren’t there those who do not harvest their olives until after the second rainfall?” Rather, once the poor man has gone out [to gather the agricultural gifts taken from olive trees] and cannot bring back with him [more than the value of] four issars.  Rabbi Judah responds that there are people who don’t harvest their olives until after the second rainfall.  Therefore, he says that we cannot use this mark to determine when the olives become up for grabs for anyone. Rather, the olives belong to the poor until the time comes when a poor person would go to collect the olives that belong to him and he wouldn’t even find four issars’ worth.  An issar is 1/24 of a dinar. According to the rabbis, four issars is enough money to buy four meals, two for the poor person himself and two for his wife.  If he can still collect enough olives to buy four meals then there are still substantial olives in the field and other people cannot take them.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  An “am haaretz,” a term I usually translate as “ignoramus”, is usually not believed to have tithed his produce. Therefore, one who buys produce from an am haaretz must tithe it. This is the subject of Tractate Demai, which we shall learn shortly.  Agricultural gifts are exempt from tithes.  Our mishnah teaches that even though an am haaretz is not believed to have tithed his produce, he is believed if he is a poor am haaretz claiming that his produce came from agricultural gifts and therefore was never liable to be tithed in the first place.
  They [amei haaretz] are to be believed concerning gleanings, the forgotten sheaf and peah during their [harvest] season, and concerning the poor man’s tithe during its whole year.  As stated in the introduction, poor amei haaretz (ignoramuses) are believed, to a certain extent, if they say that the produce in their hands was from the agricultural gifts to the poor and hence exempt from tithes.  However, they are only believed during the harvest season, when they are most likely to have this produce in their possession. At other times of the year they are not believed and one who buys from them would have to take out tithes. Poor man’s tithe, the tithe given to the poor during the third and sixth year of the sabbatical cycle, is also exempt from tithes, since it itself is tithe.  The poor am haaretz is believed to say that his produce is from this tithe during the entire third and sixth year, when he is most likely to have it in his possession. During other years he is not believed and one who buys such produce from him would have to take out tithes.
  They are only believed in those things which men are accustomed to give them.  A Levite who is an am haaretz is always believed to say that his produce is from first tithe, the tithe given to Levites. We should also note that when a Levite receives this tithe he must separate out terumat maaser, which is the terumah taken from tithes, and give it to the priest.  We trust him that he gave this terumah because Levites are not suspected of not separating terumah.
  This section actually introduces some examples that will be provided in the next mishnah.  The am haaretz is only believed if it is something that people are accustomed to give to him.  Thus he is believed with regard to grains of wheat because that is something that he customarily collects directly from the field.  However, he is not believed with regard to flour or bread, because he doesn’t collect these directly from the field nor does he usually receive them in this state from a field owner.  We shall learn more about this tomorrow.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday’s mishnah, which taught that amei haaretz, people who don’t tithe, are trusted to say that their produce is from the agricultural gifts to the poor and exempt from tithes.  However, they are trusted only if the produce is in the state in which it is customary to give such gifts.
  They are trusted concerning wheat, but they are not trusted when it is flour or bread.  It is customary for the field owner to give wheat to the poor before it has been processed into bread or flour.  Therefore, the poor are trusted to say that the wheat is from an agricultural gift and hence not liable to tithes.  However, the poor are not trusted when it comes to flour or bread.
  They are trusted concerning rice in its husk, but they are not trusted when it is either raw or cooked.  Rice is given to the poor before it is removed from its husk.
  They are trusted concerning beans but they are not trusted when they have been pounded, neither raw nor cooked.  Beans are given to the poor before they are pounded into half-beans.
  They are trusted when concerning oil, to declare that it is from the poor person’s tithe, but they are not trusted over [oil] when they claim that it is from the olives [left on the] top [of the tree.]  Oil is given as poor person’s tithe, therefore a poor am haaretz is believed to say that his oil is exempt from tithes.  However, if the am haaretz claims that his oil comes from the olives left over on top of the tree, then he is not believed because these olives would have been given to the poor person unprocessed.  The olives on the top of the tree refers to the olives that the field owner gives to the poor because it is just too much trouble to get them down.  In other words, people do give their poor person’s tithe in oil, and hence they are believed if they say that the oil came from this tithe.  However, people do not take down the olives that were hard to get off the tree during the olive harvest and process them into oil and then give them to the poor. Since they are not given when they are oil, the poor person is not trusted to say that they are from the agricultural gifts.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  Today’s mishnah continues to discuss when a poor am haaretz is believed to state that that which he has is from agricultural gifts and is exempt from tithes.
  They are trusted concerning raw vegetables, but they are not trusted concerning are cooked ones, unless he has only a little bit, for so it was the custom of a householder to take out of his stew-pot [and give a little to the poor]. Normally, a householder will give his vegetables to the poor as poor man’s tithe before he cooks them. After all, why bother cooking them if you’re just going to give them away?  Therefore, the poor am haaretz is only believed with regard to his raw vegetables and not cooked ones.  However, if he has just a small amount of cooked vegetables and he claims that these come from poor man’s tithe he is believed because a householder will give a small amount of the vegetables from his pot to the poor man as tithe.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  They may not give to the poor from the threshing-floor less than a half-kav of wheat or a kav of barley. R. Meir says: [only] half a kav [of barley].[They must give] a kav and a half of spelt, a kav of dried figs or a maneh of pressed figs. Rabbi Akiva says: half a maneh.[They must give] half a log of wine. Rabbi Akiva says: a quarter.[They must give] a quarter [log] of oil. Rabbi Akiva says: an eighth.As for other kinds of produce:  Abba Shaul says, [they must give enough] so that he can sell it and buy food enough for two meals.Our mishnah deals with poor man’s tithe, the tithe given to the poor in the third and sixth year of a sabbatical cycle.  As we have seen above, there is a difference between poor man’s tithe and the other agricultural gifts.  Whereas the other agricultural gifts (peah, leket, forgotten sheaves etc.) are collected by the poor themselves, the field owner gives poor man’s tithe directly to the poor.  Our mishnah instructs how much of the poor man’s tithe the owner should give to each poor person.  He doesn’t just give all of his tithes to the first poor person that he sees. Rather he gives a minimum amount to each poor person who comes his way this way there will be tithes left over for others who come later.The mishnah itself should be easily understood and hence I have refrained from commenting below.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah continues to discuss how one divvies out poor man’s tithe to the poor.
  This measure was stated for the priest, Levite and Israelite alike.  When it comes to receiving poor man’s tithe, all of Israel is treated alike.  No one receives less than the amount prescribed in section one.  Even though priests receive terumah and Levites receive other tithes, they are still eligible for the poor man’s tithe.
  If he was saving some [to give to his poor relatives], he can retain half and give the other half away.  If the person who has poor man’s tithe to give out wishes to save some for his poor relatives, he may do so, but he may only save half of the tithe. The rest he must give out freely to whichever poor person comes his way.  It seems to me that the mishnah acknowledges our nepotistic impulses and even grants them some legitimacy.  It is natural and even praiseworthy to want to help one’s relatives before one helps a stranger.  However, our impulses must be curbed and we must also realize that our duty to help the poor extends not only to our family, but to outsiders as well.  One can save some poor man’s tithe for his family, but he must also give away at least half of it to other poor people.
  If he has only a small amount, then he must place it before them and they then divide it among themselves.  If the person giving out his poor man’s tithe only has a little bit to give out and it is not enough to fulfill the minimum amounts listed above in mishnah five, then he should just put out what he has and let the poor divided it up among themselves.  Perhaps this is a way of avoiding suspicion that he is holding back.  Alternatively, the mishnah is teaching that this is better than holding it back until he saves up enough to meet the minimum measures in mishnah five.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  The final three mishnayot of Peah deal with the laws of tzedakah.
  They may not give a poor person wandering from place to place less than a loaf worth a pundion at a time when four seahs [of wheat cost] one sela.  The mishnah begins by dealing with a poor person wandering from place to place.  Although this poor person is not from the local town, and may be totally unknown to everyone, he is still provided for.  He is given a loaf of bread that can be bought for a pundion (a coin) at a time when wheat is going for four seahs per sela.  According to Mishnah Eruvin 8:2, this bread is enough for two meals.  The poor person is given enough bread to sustain him for a day.
  If he spends the night [at a place], they must give him the cost of what he needs for the night.  If he spends the night, he must be given enough money to rent pillows and blankets for the night.
  If he stays over Shabbat they must give him enough food for three meals.  If he spends Shabbat in town then he should be given three meals, because on Shabbat it is customary to eat three meals and not the normal two.
  He who has the money for two meals, he may not take anything from the charity dish.  The first three sections of the mishnah outlined the rights of a poor person and the consequent responsibilities of the community.  In the next two sections the mishnah defines what is a poor person.  This objective definition prevents people who actually have money from taking communal funds.  A person can take from the charity dish only if he doesn’t even have enough money to buy his next two meals.  If he has enough money to buy two meals, then he must use this money to feed himself and not take from the community.
  And if he has enough money for fourteen meals, he may not take any support from the communal fund.  The charity fund is a large basket used to collect money.  It is then given out to the poor of a city once a week, on Friday. This fund would not be used for food for those passing through but rather for the needs of the town’s fixed residents.  If a poor person has enough money to buy food for an entire week, that is he has enough money to buy fourteen meals, then he may not take from the charity fund.
  The communal fund is collected by two and distributed by three people.  When the charity collectors go around collecting money for this communal fund, there must be at least two people collecting the money, so as to avoid suspicion. When they give out the funds to the poor, there must be three, the same number needed for a court.  This body is like a court because they have to decide when the community really “owes” money because someone is actually poor and when someone is just “faking it” by pretending to be poor.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah continues to discuss the maximum amount of money a person can have in order to qualify for certain benefits given to the poor.
  One who possesses two hundred zuz, may not take gleanings” the forgotten sheaf, peah or the poor man’s tithe.  In order for a person to be eligible to take the agricultural gifts, he must have less than two hundred zuz to his name.  While it is extremely difficult to determine how much purchasing power there was in those times to this amount of money, we can note that this is the same amount as a woman’s ketubah.
  If he possesses two hundred minus one denar, then even if a thousand [men] each give him at the same time, he may accept.  If he has less than two hundred zuz (a denar is equivalent to a zuz), he can accept the agricultural gifts, even if a thousand people give to him at the same time. This would obviously put him “over the top” in terms of net worth.  Nevertheless, since when each person gives him their gifts he is officially poor, he can accept from everyone.
  If he had [two hundred zuz] mortgaged to a creditor or to his wife’s ketubah, he may take.  If he had money, but that money had a lien on it, either to a creditor or to his wife’s ketubah, which is essentially a debt document, then that money does not count and he may take the agricultural gifts.
  They do not force him to sell his house or his tools.  Finally, only cash counts, not property.  If he is poor but owns a house or some tools, for instance, they don’t force him to sell his property in order to buy food. Rather, although he has more than two hundred zuz worth of property, he may still take the agricultural gifts.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  One who has fifty zuz and he is using them for his business, he must not take.And anyone who does not need to take [charity] and yet takes, will not depart from this world before he actually needs [charity] from others.And anyone who needs to take and does not take, will not die of old age until he supports others with his own money. Concerning him the verse says: “Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord and whose hope is the Lord” (Jeremiah 17:7).And so too a judge who judges in truth according to its truth.And anyone who is not lame or blind but pretends to be as one of these, he will not die of old age before he actually becomes one of these, as it is said, “He who searches for evil, it shall come upon him” (Proverbs 11:27) and it is also said: “Righteousness, righteousness shall you pursue.”And any judge who accepts a bribe or who perverts justice will not die in old age before his eyes have become dim, as it is said: “And you shall not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of those who have sight.”The final mishnah of the tractate is one long exhortation for proper, ethical behavior.  It seems to me that the rabbis put out a double message when it came to charity.  On the one hand, people must give freely to the poor and support them at a relatively high degree.  Jewish law is full of gifts to the poor that are mandatory one must give them not out of the goodness of one’s heart, but because one is obligated to do so.On the other hand, when addressing the poor person, the rabbis emphasize to him that he must strive to do everything he can to prevent himself from having to take tzedakah.  A person who takes tzedakah when he doesn’t need it, will in the end become truly in need of tzedakah. The rabbis encourage poor people to strive to do all they can to avoid taking tzedakah.  Taking tzedakah, while allowed, is not preferable to trying to earn a living on one’s own.The mishnah also contains a few exhortations for judges not to accept bribes and for people not to pretend to be handicapped in order to garner mercy from their fellow human beings.The content of the mishnah itself is self-explanatory, so I have refrained from commenting below.