הלכות מתנות עניים ד׳Gifts to the Poor 4

Halacha 1א׳

אֵיזֶהוּ לֶקֶט זֶה הַנּוֹפֵל מִתּוֹךְ הַמַּגָּל בִּשְׁעַת קְצִירָה אוֹ הַנּוֹפֵל מִתּוֹךְ יָדוֹ כְּשֶׁמְּקַבֵּץ הַשִּׁבֳּלִים וְיִקְצֹר. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַנּוֹפֵל שִׁבּלֶת אַחַת אוֹ שְׁתַּיִם. אֲבָל אִם נָפְלוּ שָׁלֹשׁ כְּאֶחָד הֲרֵי שְׁלָשְׁתָּן לְבַעַל הַשָּׂדֶה. וְהַנּוֹפֵל מֵאַחַר הַמַּגָּל אוֹ מֵאַחַר הַיָּד אֲפִלּוּ שִׁבּלֶת אַחַת אֵינָהּ לֶקֶט:

What is considered leket? That which falls from within the scythe at the time of harvesting or that which falls from within one's hand while gathering sheaves that one is about to harvest. And this means one or two stalks that fall, but if three have fallen as one bunch, they belong to the owner of the field. And that which falls after the scythe or from behind the hand, even if it is only one stalk, [is also the owner of the field's] and is not considered to be leket.63See Mishnah Péah 4:10. In other words, any stray stalks that are missed through the normal motion of using a scythe, so long as they do not fall in bunches of three or more and therefore would normally be picked up by the harvester belong to the poor.

Halacha 2ב׳

הָיָה קוֹצֵר בַּיָּד בְּלֹא מַגָּל הַנּוֹפֵל מִתּוֹךְ יָדוֹ אֵינוֹ לֶקֶט. אֲבָל הַתּוֹלֵשׁ דְּבָרִים הַתּוֹלְשִׁים אוֹתָם הַנּוֹפֵל מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ לֶקֶט. הָיָה קוֹצֵר אוֹ תּוֹלֵשׁ דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהִתָּלֵשׁ וְאַחַר שֶׁקָּצַר מְלֹא זְרוֹעוֹ אוֹ תָּלַשׁ מְלֹא קֻמְצוֹ הִכָּהוּ קוֹץ וְנָפַל מִיָּדוֹ עַל הָאָרֶץ הֲרֵי זֶה שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת:

If one is harvesting by hand without a scythe [and it is usual to use a scythe to harvest], that which falls from within the hand is not leket, but as for one who picks things [and this is the normal manner to gather them], when they pluck them and something falls from under the hand, then this is leket. If one was harvesting or picking something for which it is usual to be plucked by hand and had harvested an armful or had picked a handful and then a thorn stuck him and it fell from his hand to the ground, then this [remains] the household owner's [and does not count as leket].64See Mishnah Péah 4:10.

Halacha 3ג׳

הָיָה קוֹצֵר וְנִשְׁאֲרָה שִׁבּלֶת אַחַת שֶׁלֹּא נִקְצְרָה וְנִקְצַר כָּל שֶׁסְּבִיבוֹתֶיהָ. אִם הָיָה רֹאשָׁהּ מַגִּיעַ לַקָּמָה שֶׁבְּצִדָּהּ וִיכוֹלָה לְהִקָּצֵר עִם הַקָּמָה הֲרֵי הִיא שֶׁל בַּעַל הַשָּׂדֶה וְאִם לָאו הֲרֵי הִיא שֶׁל עֲנִיִּים:

If one harvested and there remained one stalk that was not harvested but all around it was harvested, if its end was even with the standing grain that was on the side and it is possible that it will be harvested with the standing grain, then this is the owner of the field's, and if not [that is, it is not close enough to the standing grain to be harvested with it when the reapers come through again,] then this belongs to the poor.65See Mishnah Péah 5:2. These will be harvested in the normal course of things.

Halacha 4ד׳

הָיוּ שְׁתֵּי שִׁבּוֹלוֹת זוֹ בְּצַד זוֹ. הַפְּנִימִית יְכוֹלָה לְהִקָּצֵר עִם הַקָּמָה וְהַחִיצוֹנָה יְכוֹלָה לְהִקָּצֵר עִם הַפְּנִימִית וְאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לְהִקָּצֵר עִם הַקָּמָה. הַפְּנִימִית נִצֶּלֶת וּמַצֶּלֶת אֶת הַחִיצוֹנָה שֶׁהֲרֵי הִיא כְּנוֹפֶלֶת מִתּוֹךְ הַמַּגָּל וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא נִקְצְרָה. וְהַשִּׁבֳּלִים שֶׁבִּקֵּשׁ הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁל בַּעַל הַשָּׂדֶה:

If there were two stalks side by side [next to standing grain], and the one on the inside could be harvested with the standing grain and the outside one could be harvested with the inside one but could not be harvested with the standing grain, the inside one is saved [from being leket] and in turn it saves the outside one [from being leket],66See 5:21 and Mishnah Péah 6:8. for while it is similar to that which falls within the scythe, nevertheless it still has not been harvested [and therefore it is not leket]. And stalks that are covered by the stubble [so that they cannot be seen easily] belong to the owner of the field.67See 5:3 and Mishnah Péah 5:7.

Halacha 5ה׳

הָרוּחַ שֶׁפִּזְּרָה אֶת הָעֳמָרִים וְנִתְעָרֵב קָצִיר שֶׁל בַּעַל הַשָּׂדֶה עִם הַלֶּקֶט אוֹמְדִין אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה כַּמָּה לֶקֶט הִיא רְאוּיָה לַעֲשׂוֹת וְנוֹתֵן לָעֲנִיִּים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁזֶּה אֹנֶס. וְכַמָּה הוּא שִׁעוּר זֶה אַרְבָּעָה קַבִּין תְּבוּאָה לְכָל בֵּית כּוֹר:

If the wind scatters the sheaves [that are set aside as leket], and they became mixed in with the harvested grain that belongs to the owner of the field, they estimate according to the size of the field how much leket is appropriate to be provided, and he gives to the poor accordingly because this is a matter of forces beyond his control. How much is the measure [for estimating]? It is four kavim of produce for every bét kor.68See Mishnah Péah 5:1. In today's terms, according to the calculations found in the tables by Haim Herman Cohn, "Weights and Measures in the Talmud," Encyclopedia Judaica 16 (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing Company Ltd., 1972), four kavim would equal approximately 3.7 kilograms for every 4.3 acres which would produce about 2,750 kilograms, or only .1%. This is very small. However, in the Jerusalem Talmud Péah 5:1, Rabbi Zeira challenges this measurement and claims that the minimum amount should be four kavim for each area that produces a kor of grain, which would make more sense. Indeed, there is a dispute in the Jerusalem Talmud about different kinds of measuring and whether or not this leaves enough for the poor. The question that this brings up is whether or not the minimum amounts that one needs to give as gifts for the poor are of significance. Clearly they once were, but their equivalents in today's measurements are ambiguous.

Halacha 6ו׳

לֶקֶט שֶׁנָּפַל לָאָרֶץ וְלֹא לְקָטוּהוּ עֲנִיִּים וּבָא בַּעַל הַשָּׂדֶה וְהִגְדִּישׁ אֶת הַקָּצִיר שֶׁלּוֹ עַל הָאָרֶץ כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה. מְפַנֶּה הַגָּדִישׁ שֶׁלּוֹ כֻּלּוֹ לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר וְכָל הַשִּׁבֳּלִים הַנּוֹגְעוֹת בָּאָרֶץ כֻּלָּן לָעֲנִיִּים. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִים אֵי זוֹ הִיא מֵהֶם שֶׁהָיְתָה לֶקֶט וּסְפֵק מַתְּנוֹת עֲנִיִּים לָעֲנִיִּים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כג כב) "תַּעֲזֹב" הַנַּח לִפְנֵיהֶם מִשֶּׁלְּךָ:

If leket fell to the ground and the poor did not glean them and then the owner of the field came and bundled his harvest from all that was on the ground [including the leket left there], what is he supposed to do? He rolls his bundle over entirely to another place, and all the stalks which touch the ground [on the outside of the bundle] are for the poor69This method leaves a much greater quantity for the poor. because it cannot be known which was leket, and gifts for the poor that are in doubt are deemed to be for the poor,70It is better to err on the side of generosity than on the side of selfishness. See Babylonian Talmud Chullin 134a. as it is said, (Lev. 19:10, 23:22) Leave [them for the poor], that which is left before them from your property.

Halacha 7ז׳

וְלָמָּה אֵין אוֹמְדִין אוֹתָהּ וְלִתֵּן לָעֲנִיִּים מַה שֶּׁרְאוּיָה לַעֲשׂוֹת לֶקֶט. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעָבַר וְהִגְדִּישׁ עַל הַלֶּקֶט קְנָסוּהוּ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה שׁוֹגֵג וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הַלֶּקֶט שְׂעוֹרִים וְהִגְדִּישׁ עָלָיו חִטִּין. וַאֲפִלּוּ קָרָא לָעֲנִיִּים וְלֹא בָּאוּ אֲפִלּוּ הִגְדִּישׁוּהוּ אֲחֵרִים שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ כָּל הַנּוֹגְעוֹת בָּאָרֶץ הֲרֵי הֵן לָעֲנִיִּים:

And why do they not estimate [how much he should give in the preceding situation] and let him give to the poor that which is appropriate to become leket? Because he transgressed [the negative mitzvah against gathering overlooked gleanings] and bundled the leket, [so therefore] they fine him [with this costlier method]. Even if he did so by accident, even if the leket were barley and he bundled wheat, even if he called out to the poor and they did not come, and even if others bundled it for him without his knowledge, all that touches the ground is for the poor.

Halacha 8ח׳

הַצָּרִיךְ לְרַבֵּץ אֶת שָׂדֵהוּ קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּלְקְטוּ הָעֲנִיִּים לֶקֶט שֶׁבָּהּ אִם הֶזֵּקוֹ מְרֻבֶּה עַל הֶפְסֵד הַלֶּקֶט מֻתָּר לְרַבֵּץ. וְאִם הֶפְסֵד הַלֶּקֶט מְרֻבֶּה עַל הֶפְסֵדוֹ אָסוּר לְרַבֵּץ. וְאִם קִבֵּץ אֶת כָּל הַלֶּקֶט וְהִנִּיחוֹ עַל הַגָּדֵר עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא הֶעָנִי וְיִטְּלֶנּוּ הֲרֵי זֶה מִדַּת חֲסִידוּת:

If one needs to irrigate his field before the poor glean the leket that are in it, if not irrigating would result in more damage [to the owner] than the loss of the leket [would do to the poor], then watering is permitted, but if the loss of the leket [for the poor] is greater than his loss, then it is forbidden to irrigate.71See Tosefta Péah 2:21. If he [the owner] gathered all the leket and laid them against a fence [before he irrigated] so the poor person could come and take them, this is holding oneself to an extreme measure of piety.72Maimonides indicates that going to this extent to fulfill the commandment is going above and beyond the necessary requirements and effort. In another place in the Mishneh Torah, "Laws on Attributes," 1:4-5, Maimonides considers this level of observance extreme and not necessarily praiseworthy. Whereas the "wise person" lives a balanced life in moderation, the "pious" live life in unnecessary and often dangerous extremities.

Halacha 9ט׳

זְרָעִים הַנִּמְצָאִים בְּחוֹרֵי הַנְּמָלִים. אִם הָיוּ הַחוֹרִים בְּתוֹךְ הַקָּמָה הֲרֵי הוּא שֶׁל בַּעַל הַשָּׂדֶה. שֶׁאֵין לָעֲנִיִּים מַתָּנָה בְּתוֹךְ הַקָּמָה. וְאִם הָיוּ בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁנִּקְצַר הֲרֵי זֶה שֶׁל עֲנִיִּים שֶׁמָּא מִן הַלֶּקֶט גְּרָרוּהוּ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּמְצָא שָׁחוֹר אֵין אוֹמְרִים הֲרֵי זֶה מִשָּׁנָה שֶׁעָבְרָה שֶׁסְּפֵק הַלֶּקֶט לֶקֶט:

As for the seeds that are found in ant holes, if the holes are located within the standing grain, they belong to the owner of the field and not to the poor, for they are placed within the standing grain, but if they are in a place that has been harvested, then these belong to the poor, for perhaps they were buried from leket. And even though [a seed] might appear black [from having been there long time], they do not say that it is from the year that has passed [and therefore belongs to the owner], for leket that are doubtful are deemed to be leket [and are given to the poor].73See Mishnah Péah 4:11. See also the previous law 4:6.

Halacha 10י׳

שִׁבּלֶת שֶׁל לֶקֶט שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בְּגָדִישׁ הֲרֵי זֶה מַפְרִישׁ שְׁתֵּי שִׁבּוֹלוֹת וְאוֹמֵר עַל אַחַת מֵהֶן אִם הַלֶּקֶט הִיא זוֹ הֲרֵי הִיא לָעֲנִיִּים וְאִם אֵינָהּ לֶקֶט הֲרֵי הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת (שֶׁהִיא) שֶׁחַיֶּבֶת בָּהֶן שִׁבּלֶת זוֹ קְבוּעִים בְּשִׁבּלֶת שְׁנִיָּה. וְחוֹזֵר וּמַתְנֶה כֵּן עַל שִׁבּלֶת שְׁנִיָּה וְנוֹתֵן אַחַת מֵהֶן לֶעָנִי וְהָאַחֶרֶת תִּהְיֶה מַעֲשֵׂר:

If a stalk of leket became mixed with a bundle [for the owner], then he separates two stalks and declares over one of them, "If it is leket then it is for the poor and if it is not leket then it is for tithes," for the obligation on one of the stalks is connected with the second stalk. He then goes back and gives the second stalk [to the poor], thus giving one of them to the poor and the other for tithing.

Halacha 11י״א

לֹא יִשְׂכֹּר אָדָם אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל עַל מְנָת שֶׁיְּלַקֵּט בְּנוֹ אַחֲרָיו. אֲבָל הָאֲרִיסִין וְהַחֲכִירִין וְהַמּוֹכֵר קָמָתוֹ לַחֲבֵרוֹ לִקְצֹר יְלַקֵּט בְּנוֹ אַחֲרָיו. וְיֵשׁ לַפּוֹעֵל לְהָבִיא אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו לְלַקֵּט אַחֲרָיו. וַאֲפִלּוּ שְׂכָרוֹ לִטּל חֲצִי הַקָּצִיר אוֹ שָׁלִישׁוֹ אוֹ רְבִיעוֹ בִּשְׂכָרוֹ:

A man may not hire a worker on the condition that his [the worker's] son glean after him [and thus guarantee that there will be no leket], but one who is betrothed to him [the worker], or a tenant, or if he [the owner] sold his standing grain to his partner to harvest, then his son may glean after him [because these people are in need themselves]. And the worker may bring his wife or his children to glean after him, even if his wages equalled half the value of the harvest or a third or a fourth.74See Tosefta Péah 3:1 and Mishnah Péah 5:6.

Halacha 12י״ב

מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַנִּיחַ אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים לְלַקֵּט אוֹ שֶׁהוּא מַנִּיחַ אֶחָד וּמוֹנֵעַ אֶחָד אוֹ שֶׁמְּסַיֵּעַ אֶת אֶחָד מֵהֶן עַל חֲבֵרוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹזֵל אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים:

One who does not permit the poor to glean or who permits one but prevents another or who assists one of them rather than another is considered a robber of the poor.75See Mishnah Péah 5:6. This law names an important principle, the "robbery of the poor," which is the idea that if one does not give the poor their due then one has essentially stolen from them. The assumption here is that the poor already own the property that is under the owner of the field's supervision, and it is the owner of the field's privilege and duty to transfer the produce to its rightful owners as decreed by God. If one fails in that duty, then one has seized the property of another. There is a "constitutional" relationship that exists between the owner of the field and the poor in relation to God-given, inalienable rights that lay a foundation for their legal responsibilities. However, it is up to human actions to designate and transfer this property before the poor can lay their claim to specific produce. Just as the poor have the constitutional right to certain kinds of produce, so does the owner of a field have a constitutional right to designate and transfer that property. See 2:12-20 for an expansion upon these principles and rights, specifically 2:14 for the rights of the owner of the field.

Halacha 13י״ג

וְאָסוּר לְאָדָם לְהַרְבִּיץ אֲרִי וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ בְּתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּרְאוּ הָעֲנִיִּים וְיִבְרְחוּ. הָיוּ שָׁם עֲנִיִּים שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לִטּל לֶקֶט אִם יָכוֹל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת לִמְחוֹת בְּיָדָן מְמַחֶה וְאִם לָאו מְנִיחָן מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם:

It is forbidden for a man to let loose a lion or something similar within his field so that the poor see it and flee.76Maimonides implies that the poor must be able to gather their due free from coercion or intimidation. If there are poor people who are not supposed to take leket [for whatever reason], if the household owner can interfere with what they have taken, he may interfere, but if not, he should leave them be for the sake of peace.77See Babylonian Talmud Bava Metzia 12a. Earlier, in 1:9, the phrase "for the sake of peace" was used in relation to Gentiles, indicating that it was politically expedient to let the poor of Gentiles to gather food alongside the poor of the Jewish community. Here, the "poor people who are not supposed to take leket" may be the poor of Gentiles or might be those who are poor but not poor enough to merit public support. In any case, it seems that it would be an unnecessary hardship on the owner of the field to sort through and assess the needs of the poor, and it is simply easier to let them be.

Halacha 14י״ד

הַמַּפְקִיר אֶת הַלֶּקֶט עִם נְפִילַת רֻבּוֹ אֵינוֹ הֶפְקֵר מֵאַחֵר שֶׁנָּשַׁר רֻבּוֹ אֵין לוֹ בּוֹ רְשׁוּת:

If one [attempts to] declare leket as "ownerless" [and thus the community's property] along with the main part of it, which has fallen [to the ground of his crop], then [the leket] is not considered "ownerless" because since the main part fell off, it [the leket] is no longer his property.78See Mishnah Péah 6:1. In other words, leket belongs to the poor, and the owner of the field cannot declare it as "ownerless."

Halacha 15ט״ו

אֵי זֶהוּ פֶּרֶט זֶה גַּרְגֵּר אֶחָד אוֹ שְׁנֵי גַּרְגְּרִים הַנִּפְרָטִים מִן הָאֶשְׁכּוֹל בִּשְׁעַת הַבְּצִירָה. נָפְלוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה גַּרְגְּרִים בְּבַת אַחַת אֵינוֹ פֶּרֶט:

What is considered peret? These are one or two grapes that have separated from the cluster during the time of the grape harvest. If three grapes fell together as a bunch [at the same time], then this does not count as peret.79See Mishnah Péah 7:3. This parallels the definition of leket. One or two grapes indicate stray produce, but three is a significant bunch that the owner would normally pick up. See 4:1.

Halacha 16ט״ז

הָיָה בּוֹצֵר וְכָרַת אֶת הָאֶשְׁכּוֹל וְהֻסְבַּךְ בְּעָלָיו וְנָפַל לָאָרֶץ וְנִפְרַט אֵינוֹ פֶּרֶט. הָיָה בּוֹצֵר וּמַשְׁלִיךְ לָאָרֶץ כְּשֶׁמְּפַנֶּה הָאֶשְׁכּוֹלוֹת אֲפִלּוּ חֲצִי אֶשְׁכּוֹל הַנִּמְצָא שָׁם הֲרֵי הוּא פֶּרֶט (וְכֵן אֶשְׁכּוֹל שָׁלֵם שֶׁנִּפְרַט שָׁם הֲרֵי הוּא פֶּרֶט). וְהַמַּנִּיחַ אֶת הַכַּלְכָּלָה תַּחַת הַגֶּפֶן בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא בּוֹצֵר הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹזֵל אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים:

If one was harvesting grapes and cut down a cluster and it became entangled in the leaves and fell to the ground and [the grapes] fell from the bunch [and became separated], then this is not peret [for the intention was that this was one cluster]. [However,] if one was harvesting grapes and threw [the cluster] to the ground and the cluster rolled, or even half a cluster for that matter [obviously not caring for grapes that would separate from the cluster], what [fell away and] could be found counts as peret. (So also with a complete cluster that fell away, that this counts as peret.) If one places a basket under the vine at the time one is harvesting grapes [and thereby eliminating any chance for peret], then that person is considered a robber of the poor.80See Mishnah Péah 7:3. As with previous laws, one should not be overzealous in harvesting but do so in a normal, moderate fashion. That which goes astray is intended by God for the poor.

Halacha 17י״ז

אֵי זוֹ הִיא עוֹלֶלֶת זֶה אֶשְׁכּוֹל הַקָּטָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְעֻבֶּה כְּאֶשְׁכּוֹל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ כָּתֵף. וְאֵין עֲנָבָיו נוֹטְפוֹת זוֹ עַל זוֹ אֶלָּא מְפֻזָּרוֹת. יֵשׁ לָהּ כָּתֵף וְאֵין לָהּ נֶטֶף אוֹ יֵשׁ לָהּ נֶטֶף וְאֵין לָהּ כָּתֵף הֲרֵי הִיא שֶׁל בַּעַל הַכֶּרֶם. וְאִם סָפֵק לָעֲנִיִּים:

What is considered olélet? This is a small cluster that is not very dense like a regular cluster and does not have a shoulder81See the next law for an explanation of "shoulder" and "pendant." and its grapes do not droop down over each other but rather are scattered. If it has a shoulder but no pendant or a pendant but no shoulder, then this belongs to the owner of the vineyard, but if it is in doubt, it belongs to the poor.82See Mishnah Péah 7:4.

Halacha 18י״ח

אֵי זוֹ הִיא כָּתֵף פְּסִיגִין הַמְחֻבָּרוֹת בְּשִׁדְרָה זוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי זוֹ. נֶטֶף עֲנָבִים הַמְחֻבָּרוֹת בְּשִׁדְרָה וְיוֹרְדוֹת. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיוּ כָּל הָעֲנָבִים שֶׁבָּעוֹלֵלוֹת נוֹגְעִין בְּפַס יָדוֹ. וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ עוֹלָל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא לִשְׁאָר הָאֶשְׁכּוֹלוֹת כְּעוֹלָל לְאִישׁ:

What is a "shoulder"? Growths which are joined at the stem, one next to the other [forming the wide, upper part of a cluster]. What is a "pendant"? Grapes which are joined to the stem and droop down [forming the lower, cone-shape of the cluster]. In the case of olélot, all of the leaves touch within the palm of one's hand.83Ravad takes issue with these definitions, citing the Jerusalem Talmud Péah 7:4. There is a dispute between the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who gives the definitions that Maimonides puts forward, and an instance cited by Rabbi Chiya who claims that a malformed grape cluster was once weighed and it came out to be an enormous amount. While this cluster was still understood to be malformed, it was clearly much too large to fit into the palm of one's hand. Rather, a third opinion was offered by Rabbi Chinena which said a malformed grape cluster was one where, when it was placed on a table, all of the grapes touched the table's surface. That is, it is not that the entire cluster be of a size as to fit into the palm of one's hand but that it lay flat in an unusual way when one would hold out one's hand horizontally. And why is the term [for a malformed grape cluster] olél [literally: infant]? Because it is [small compared] to the rest of the regular clusters the way an infant is to a person.

Halacha 19י״ט

וְאֵין בַּעַל הַבַּיִת חַיָּב לִבְצֹר הָעוֹלֵלוֹת וְלִתְּנָן לָעֲנִיִּים. אֶלָּא הֵן בּוֹצְרִין אוֹתָן לְעַצְמָן וְגַרְגֵּר יְחִידִי הֲרֵי הִיא עוֹלֶלֶת:

And the owner is not obligated to harvest the olélot for the poor, but rather they harvest them for themselves. And a single grape [growing by itself] falls into the category of olélot.84See Mishnah Péah 7:4.

Halacha 20כ׳

זְמוֹרָה שֶׁהָיָה בָּהּ אֶשְׁכּוֹל וּבָאַרְכֻּבָּה שֶׁל זְמוֹרָה עוֹלֶלֶת אִם נִקְרְצָה עִם הָאֶשְׁכּוֹל הֲרֵי הִיא שֶׁל בַּעַל הַכֶּרֶם וְאִם לָאו הֲרֵי הִיא לָעֲנִיִּים:

In the case of a vine-shoot with a cluster on it that is joined with a vine shoot that has an olélet on it, if it [the olélet] is clipped with the regular cluster then it belongs to the owner of the vineyard, and if not then it belongs to the poor.

Halacha 21כ״א

כֶּרֶם שֶׁכֻּלּוֹ עוֹלֵלוֹת הֲרֵי הוּא לָעֲנִיִּים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט י) "וְכַרְמְךָ לֹא תְעוֹלֵל" אֲפִלּוּ כֻּלּוֹ עוֹלֵלוֹת. וְאֵין הַפֶּרֶט וְהָעוֹלֵלוֹת נוֹהֲגִין אֶלָּא בְּכֶרֶם בִּלְבַד:

A vineyard made entirely of olélot belongs to the poor, as it is said, (Lev. 19:10) You shall not pick your vineyard bare [te'olél] even if it is entirely made of olélot. And the categories of peret and olélot apply only to the vineyard.85See Mishnah Péah 7:7 where Rabbi Akiba dissents.

Halacha 22כ״ב

אֵין הָעֲנִיִּים זוֹכִין לִקַּח פֶּרֶט וְעוֹלֵלוֹת עַד שֶׁיַּתְחִיל בַּעַל הַכֶּרֶם לִבְצֹר כַּרְמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד כא) "וְכִי תִבְצֹר כַּרְמְךָ לֹא תְעוֹלֵל". וְכַמָּה יִבְצֹר וְיִהְיוּ זוֹכִין בָּהֶן שְׁלֹשָׁה אֶשְׁכּוֹלוֹת שֶׁהֵן עוֹשִׂין רְבִיעַ:

The poor have no right to take peret and olélot until the owner of the vineyard begins to harvest his grapes, as it is said, (Deut. 24:21) When [and only when] you pick the grapes of your vineyard, do not go over it again [te'olél]. And how much does he need to harvest until they [the poor] have the right [to start picking]? Three clusters, for this is enough to make a quarter of a kav.

Halacha 23כ״ג

הַמַּקְדִּישׁ כַּרְמוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נוֹדְעוּ הָעוֹלֵלוֹת אֵין הָעוֹלֵלוֹת לָעֲנִיִּים. וְאִם מִשֶּׁנּוֹדְעוּ הָעוֹלֵלוֹת הָעוֹלֵלוֹת לָעֲנִיִּים וְיִתְּנוּ שְׂכַר גִּדּוּלָם לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ:

If one dedicates his vineyard to the Temple before it can become known which will be olélot, then the olélot do not belong to the poor. But if one waited until olélot could be discerned, then they belong to the poor, and they [the poor] dedicate [to the Temple] the increase of their due.86See Mishnah Péah 7:8.

Halacha 24כ״ד

הַזּוֹמֵר אֶת הַגֶּפֶן אַחַר שֶׁנּוֹדְעוּ הָעוֹלֵלוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה זוֹמֵר כְּדַרְכּוֹ וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁכּוֹרֵת הָאֶשְׁכּוֹלוֹת כָּךְ כּוֹרֵת הָעוֹלֵלוֹת:

One who prunes a vine after it is already known which are olélot prunes as usual, and as he cuts the regular clusters, he also cuts the olélot.

Halacha 25כ״ה

נָכְרִי שֶׁמָּכַר כַּרְמוֹ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לִבְצֹר חַיָּב בְּעוֹלֵלוֹת. יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנָכְרִי שֶׁהָיוּ שֻׁתָּפִים בְּכֶרֶם חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל חַיָּב וְשֶׁל נָכְרִי פָּטוּר:

If a Gentile sold his vineyard to a Jew to harvest, then he [the Jew] is obligated to give olélot. If a Jew and a Gentile are partners in owning a field, then the Jew owes [olélot] from his section and the Gentile is exempt.87See Tosefta Péah 3:12.

Halacha 26כ״ו

בֶּן לֵוִי שֶׁנָּתְנוּ לוֹ מַעֲשֵׂר טֶבֶל וּמָצָא בּוֹ עוֹלֵלוֹת נוֹתְנָן לְעָנִי. וְאִם נִקְרֶצֶת עִם הָאֶשְׁכּוֹל יֵשׁ לוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר עַל מָקוֹם אַחֵר:

A Levite to whom is given ma'esar tevel [produce from which the portion due to the priests, terumah, was not separated] and who finds within it olélot should give them to the poor. But if it was clipped with regular clusters, then he [the Levite] needs to give terumat ma'esar [the portion the Levites must give to the priests] from another crop.88Ravad objects and cites Tosefta Péah 3:14, which states that if a Levite is given a portion of grapes in which he finds olélot, he need not be concerned that these belong to the poor. As it is explained further in the Jerusalem Talmud Péah 7:4, it is stated that the Levite who finds olélot in his portion may declare these as terumat ma'asér, that is, the portion the Levites separate from the tithe given to them that they give to the priests, for other produce in another location. Nevertheless, an objection is raised that the Levite is still depriving the poor of their share by designating it as another kind of tithe. Rabbi Avin then comments that the grapes under dispute are not really olélot at all but rather the Levite may assume that these malformed grapes were cut as one bunch along with regular grapes and thereby do not belong to the poor. In any case, these sources seem to contradict Maimonides' claim that the Levite should give olélot to the poor from their apportioned share.

Halacha 27כ״ז

מִי שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ חָמֵשׁ גְּפָנִים וּבְצָרָם לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ. אִם לֶאֱכל עֲנָבִים פָּטוּר מִן הַפֶּרֶט וּמִן הַשִּׁכְחָה וּמִן הָרְבָעִי וְחַיָּב בְּעוֹלֵלוֹת. וְאִם בְּצָרָן לַעֲשׂוֹת יַיִן חַיָּב בַּכּל אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן שִׁיֵּר מִקְצָתָן:

In the case of someone who owns five grape vines and brings their produce within his house, if [he harvested them] to eat the grapes, then he is exempt from peret, from shikhecha, from the fourth year's produce,89The fourth year of a tree was the first year that one could eat its fruit, and one would offer its fruits to the Temple. See Mishnah Péah 7:6 and Babylonian Talmud Berachot 35a. but owes olélot. If he harvested them for wine, then he owes everything except if he leaves some of them remaining.90Referring to Tosefta Péah 1:10, where the case of one who harvests four or five grape vines and brings them into the house is described, Ravad hastens to include péah among the categories from which one is exempt. Ravad also disputes Maimonides last statement, that if the owner of the vines harvested them for wine, then he owes all types of categories unless he left some of them on the vine. Ravad claims that he owes everything even if he leaves some behind, as is stated in the Tosefta.