ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(a) Our Mishnah rules that if someone moves the sheaves in his field to a location of Pe'ah, making a haystack at a spot where the poor have not yet collected - then whatever is touching the ground belongs to the poor (as a penalty for depriving the poor of collecting there (see Tosfos Rebbi Akiva Eiger).
(b) And this ruling applies even if the sheaves comprise barley and the location is one where wheat is growing.
(c) In a case where the wind scattered the sheaves together with the grains of corn that were there - the Tana requires the owner to assess how much Leket there would have been, and give that to the poor.
(d) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel is more specific. According to him, the Chachamim already made an assessment - that Leket comprises four Kabin per Kur (which is the equivalent of a hundred and eighty Kabin or thirty Sa'ah).
(a) The Mishnah discusses a case where the owner leaves one stalk uncut, the top of which reaches to where the cut corn is growing. It will belong to ...
1. ... the owner - if he could have picked it (with his hand) together with the standing corn. Otherwise, it belongs to ...
2. ... the poor.
(b) If one stalk of corn fell into the hay-stack - the owner is obligated to Ma'aser one stalk and give it to a poor man who comes to pick Leket ...
(c) ... because it is forbidden to give the poor crops that need to be Ma'asered.
(a) Even though the owner has not yet performed 'Miru'ach' - the Ma'aser that he takes is effective, like a Levi who arrived 'at the stalks' to receive Ma'aser.
(b) He then takes two stalks from the hay-stack and declares on one of them that if it is the Leket that fell into it, then that's fine; and if it is not, then its Ma'asros are fixed in the second stalk.
(c) And just in case the second stalk is the Leket stalk - says the Yerushalmi, he does the same using a third stalk.
(a) Rebbi Eliezer's problem with the previous ruling, is that according to the Rabbanan in the previous Perek (who forbid a rich man to take Pe'ah on behalf of a poor one) - how can the owner switch one stalk for another without the permission of the poor man (who did not acquire it yet).
(b) According to Rebbi Eliezer in the Rabbanan - the owner would therefore have to first be Mezakeh him the entire haystack (a Matanah al'Menas Le'chachzir), and then Ma'aser one stalk and give it to the Ani.
(c) The Rabbanan counter Rebbi Eliezer's Kashya - by referring to the principle 'she'Asu es she'Eino Zocheh ke'Zocheh' (i.e. the Chachamim instituted in this case [among others)] that it is as if the poor man would have acquired the stalk).
(a) Rebbi Meir prohibits harvesting Tofach together with other crops. 'Tofach' might define a kind of thin legume. Alternatively - it might be a kind of seed similar to barley.
(b) The reason for the prohibition is - because some of the Leket that ought to have dropped from the other (superior) crops is likely to fall from them instead (see Tos. Yom-Tov), causing the poor a loss.
(c) The Chachamim nevertheless permit it - since it is possible that the Leket from the other kinds will fall proportionately.
(a) Alternatively, 'Ein Megalgelin be'Tofach' might mean that it is forbidden to draw water from the well to water the field or to settle the dust. Rebbi Meir forbids it - because it is difficult to collect Pe'ah from a field that has just been watered, and causes the Aniyim a loss.
(b) The Rabbanan nevertheless allow it - because it is possible to assess the Aniyim's losses, which he will then be obligated to pay.
(c) According to Rebbi Meir, on the other hand, the owner will recuperate his losses (caused by not watering the field) - by assessing them and charging the poor (though how much will have to pay to each Ani according to the Chachamim, and how much they will have to pay him according to R. Meir, is a mystery).
(a) Rebbi Eliezer permits a Balabos who is traveling from one place to another to take Leket, Shikchah and Pe'ah - provided he needs to.
(b) When he arrives home however - he obligates him to repay his loan to the poor.
(c) The Chachamim - completely exempt him from paying (see Tosfos Rebbi Akiva Eiger) on the grounds that he was a poor man at the time that he picked it (and the Halachah is like them).
(a) With reference to someone who exchanges his own crops with those of a poor man, when the Mishnah says 'she'Lo Patur, 'shel Ani Chayav' - means - that he is Patur from Ma'asering what he receives from the Ani, but Chayav to Ma'aser what he will give to the Ani.
(b) The former are Patur - because we assume that whatever they own is Leket, Shikchah or Pe'ah (which are all Patur from Ma'asros).
(c) The Mishnah permits two Aniyim who are joint Arisim (share-croppers) in a field - to give each other the Ma'aser Ani from their respective half.
(d) Each one is not permitted to take Ma'aser Ani (see Tosfos Yom Tov) from his own half - on account of the juxtaposition of the words (Semuchin) in the Pasuk Kedoshim "Lo Selaket ... le'Ani" (incorporating Ani landowner in the Isur).
(a) The Tana goes on to forbid someone who is Mekabel a field to harvest it for a percentage, from taking any of the Matnos Anitim for himself.
(b) Rebbi Yehudah qualifies this ruling - by confining it to where the owner stipulated that he receives as payment, a half, third or quarter of the yield each year, but not where he receives a percentage of what he cuts ...
(c) ... because then he is not Chayav to leave Leket, Shikchah and Pe'ah, and is therefore not considered an owner.
(d) And Rebbi Yehudah himself (in the previous Perek), obligated a Ger to give Leket, Shikchah and Pe'ah (even from what is detached - because he is considered the owner of the field.
(e) He is nevertheless Patur from Leket - because the basic obligation comes during the harvesting, at which time he was not yet Chayav.
(a) The Mishnah permits someone who sells his field to take Matnos Aniyim, but forbids the purchaser to do so - provided he sold him the actual field, but not if he only sold him the produce but retained the field ...
(b) ... in which case - the seller will be forbidden to take Matanos because it is considered "Sadcha", and the purchaser, because it is considered "Ketzircha".
(c) The Tana forbid someone to rent a field and to stipulate that his son will collect behind him - because we assume that, as a result, he will pay less rental (at the expense of the Aniyim [See Tiferes Yisrael[).
(d) Based on the Pasuk "Al Taseg Gevul Olam", the Mishnah refers to someone who prevents the poor from taking Matnos Aniyim, who allows one to take and the other one, not, or who assists one of the Aniyim who have come to collect - as someone who from the poor.
(e) 'Gevul Olim' either refers to those who came up from Egypt (meaning that one should not change the the prohibitions that were given to the Olei Mitzrayim') or is a refined way ('Lashon Sagi Nahor) of saying 'Gevul Yordim' (with reference to the poor, who have come down in the world).
(a) The Mishnah rules that a sheaf that the workers have forgotten in the field, but not the owner, or vice-versa - is not Shikchah.
(b) We qualify the first ruling - by restricting it to where the owner is in the field together with the workers, but if he is in town, the fact that he has a certain sheaf in mind, will not prevent it from becoming Shikchah, should the workers forget it.
(c) The Tana also rules that if the stand in front of a sheaf, blocking it from the view of the workers or the owner, causing them to forget it, or if they cover it with straw - it is not Shikchah either.
(a) The Mishnah exempts sheaves that are made 'le'Kova'os, u'le'Kumsa'os, le'Chararah u'le'Omarim' from the Din of Shikchah. 'le'Kova'os' means sheaves from which one makes a form of tall hat to be worn, 'le'Kumsa'os' - a hat that bends downwards (before coming to a point).
(b) Whereas a sheaf that is made 'le'Chararah' - refers to a method of sheaving whereby one harvests a little and immediately makes a sheaf with the intention of baking little cakes on coals.
(c) Alternatively, it is a matter of location, as the above are all arranged in one place before taking them to the threshing-floor. 'le'Kova'os' then refers to the sheaves that are arranged above the ground in the regular manner ...
1. ... 'le'Kumsa'os' - to sheaves that one arranges in a ditch below ground level. According to both interpretations, the root of the word is 'Kamus' (which means 'hidden'), and ...
2. ... 'le'Chararah' - in a circular fashion (like a mill-stone).
(d) All the above are Patur from Shikchah, because the Pasuk writes "Ki Siktzor Ketzircha be'Sadcha ve'Shachachta Omer ba'Sadeh" - which teaches us that (just like the harvest, which is not followed by another harvest) so too, does the Chiyuv Shikchah pertain exclusively to where no further sheaves will be made.
(a) If one forgets a sheaf whilst transporting the sheaves ...
1. ... from one of the above to the granary (i.e. the threshing-floor) - then it is subject to Shikchah, as he is where he is transporting it ...
2. ... to the haystack where he intends to thresh them.
3. ... from the haystack to the granary, after changing his mind - then he is Patur.
(b) The principle that governs these rulings is - that if he is taking sheaves to the place where the work will be concluded, Shikchah applies; from it to the granary, it does not. Whereas if he is transporting to a place where the work will not be concluded, Shikchah does not apply; from it to the granary, it does.