Menachot 71b (עא:) — the Talmud in English

a.

They permit the shoots of consecrated carob and sycamore trees,

b.

and they breach openings in their gardens and orchards,

in order

to feed a vulture to the poor during years of famine,

even

on Shabbatot and Festivals.

c.

And they give pe'a to vegetables,

although they are not legally obligated in pe'a. This was not with the approval of the Sages, because the poor would eat it untithed, as with ordinary pe'a, although this is not legally required, since it is not pe'a.

And

in all these matters

they protested against them.

The Gemara now raises a difficulty: “Who teaches the clause ‘they protested’ and the clause ‘they did not protest’?” That is, since our Mishna teaches concerning stacking grain before the Omer, “and they did not protest against them,” it follows that the author is Rabbi Yehuda, for he is the one who distinguished among the practices of the people of Jericho, saying that in some cases the Sages protested against them and in others they did not; and he said concerning stacking that the Sages did not protest against them. Rabbi Meir, however, did not address the matter of protest at all—

And if so, what we learned at the beginning of the Mishna is difficult: “They reap with the approval of the Sages,” for according to Rabbi Yehuda their reaping, too, was without the approval of the Sages!?

The Gemara answers:

But according to your reasoning,

if you maintain that this beraita is not corrupt and that Rabbi Yehuda indeed said that they reaped without the approval of the Sages, the following difficulty arises:

Were there

six

practices of the people of Jericho, as it teaches: “The people of Jericho performed six things”? Surely there were

seven

things

there,

according to Rabbi Yehuda: he added reaping among those against which the Sages did not protest, in addition to the three against which they did protest. Thus there were seven.

Rather, remove from here

[remove from Rabbi Yehuda’s statement in the beraita] the

reaping,

and according to Rabbi Yehuda reaping is not included among the six at all, because their reaping was with the approval of the Sages; only those practices they performed without the approval of the Sages are counted among the six—

And if so, our Mishna is entirely according to Rabbi Yehuda.

We learned in the Mishna:

“One may reap for fodder and feed it to an animal.”

Rabbi Yehuda said: “When does this apply? When he began before it produced one-third.” Rabbi Shimon says: “He may even reap and feed it after it produced one-third.”

The Gemara cites a Mishna that discusses the laws of pe'a, and explains what is stated there in light of what is stated in our Mishna concerning the Omer:

We learned there,

in tractate Pe'a 2:1:

And these interrupt

a large field

for

the purpose of

pe'a,

so that if one of these divides the field, it is considered two fields and one must give pe'a separately for each of them:

A stream, and a pool

[of rainwater]—

a private road

[a road four cubits wide],

and a public road

[a road sixteen cubits wide]—

and a public path

[a very narrow path, used by many people for walking, unlike a road along which wagons and horses travel]

and an established private path

[the word “paths”] are

both in the summer

and

in the rainy season,

if one of these divides the field—

And an uncultivated area

[a part of the field that was not sown],

and plowed land

[a part that was not sown but only plowed],

and another seed

[a different one], sown in a field sown with another species.

The tannaim did not disagree about all these cases. They did, however, disagree about the law stated later in the Mishna:

“And one who reaps for fodder,”

if he reaped part of the field’s grain while it was still fodder and had not fully ripened—even if he reaped it for a person— it too

interrupts

the field on both sides, so that when the grain ripens he gives separate pe'a from each side. The continuation of the discussion explains whether this fodder had not yet produced one-third, or even whether it had already produced one-third—

These are the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say:

One who reaps for fodder

does not cause an interruption, unless

he also

plowed

the place, making it like plowed land, which causes an interruption. But when he did not plow, the reaping of the fodder is considered the beginning of reaping the field; when all the grain has completed its ripening and he reaps it, he has completed his reaping and gives one portion of pe'a for all of it.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

Rabbi Meir,

in tractate Pe'a, who holds that reaping fodder is not considered reaping, meaning that even if it had produced one-third, as long as it had not fully ripened, it is not reaping—

stated it according to the view of Rabbi Shimon

in our Mishna—

he said

that he, too, holds that reaping fodder is not considered reaping, even if it was reaped after it had produced one-third—

For

Rabbi Shimon

said

in our Mishna:

“He may reap

fodder before the Omer

and feed it, even after it had produced

the grain

one-third”—

Apparently, he holds

Rabbi Shimon:

any

reaping

for fodder—

even if the grain had produced one-third but had not fully ripened—

is not reaping,

and therefore it is permitted before the Omer. The same applies: reaping fodder is not considered the beginning of reaping the field, and consequently it causes an interruption even when he did not plow.

Rabba sat and repeated this teaching

[Rabba sat and repeated this tradition in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan].

Rav Aḥa bar Huna raised an objection to Rava

against Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement that, according to Rabbi Meir, reaping for fodder is not considered reaping even after the grain had produced one-third—from what we learned in the Tosefta of Pe'a:

A locust ate

part of the field’s grain, and that part divides the field, or

ants gnawed it,

or

the wind broke it,

everyone agrees:

If he

plowed

there, it

interrupts

the field and it becomes two fields. But if he

did not plow, it does not interrupt,

because it is the beginning of reaping, even though no person reaped it.

But

everyone agrees—

who

is the one about whom the beraita needed to say that he agrees in this matter? Surely it is

Rabbi Meir,

who disagreed concerning one who reaps for fodder and held that this is not reaping; yet he agrees here that it is the beginning of reaping and does not interrupt without plowing.

The difficulty now arises:

Granted, if you say: the Mishna

of Pe'a—which states, “one who reaps for fodder interrupts,” and identifies this as Rabbi Meir’s view—deals only

with grain that had not produced one-third,

and the

beraita

of Pe'a concerning the locust, which states

“if he plowed, it does”

[indeed interrupt],

“if he did not plow”

it does not

interrupt, deals

with grain that

had already

produced one-third—

then

it is well explained that the distinction between them is that reaping grain that had not produced one-third is not considered the beginning of reaping, even when a person reaped it, and therefore it interrupts; whereas reaping grain that had produced one-third is considered reaping even when it was not performed by a person, and it does not interrupt unless he plowed—

and it interrupts only if he plowed—

But if you say

as you claim:

the Mishna

of Pe'a

also

[even]

deals with grain that had produced one-third,

and nevertheless Rabbi Meir holds that all reaping for fodder is not considered reaping, the following difficulty arises:

Now, if there—“one who reaps for fodder interrupts”—

is reaping by a person,

as a person reaped it, and it is more logical to say that this is the beginning of reaping, yet

Rabbi Meir said that reaping

for fodder

is not called reaping—

here,

in the beraita concerning the locust and ants, where the reaping was not performed by a person,

is it not all the more so

that if they cut it while it was still fodder, this is not the beginning of reaping, and the field should consequently be divided!?

Rather,

as a result of this difficulty, the Gemara explains Rabbi Meir’s position differently:

Rabbi Meir,

who said, “one who reaps for fodder interrupts,” meaning specifically when the grain had not produced one-third, as explained, did not state this according to the view of Rabbi Shimon. On the contrary, he stated it

according to the view of Rabbi Yehuda

in our Mishna—

he said it, for

Rabbi Yehuda said in our Mishna:

“When”

is it permitted to reap fodder?

When he began before it had produced one-third,

because reaping fodder that had not produced one-third is not considered reaping;

“but if he began after it had produced one-third, it is prohibited,”

because reaping fodder is considered reaping once the grain has produced one-third—

And Rabbi Meir, who distinguishes in the reaping of fodder between less than one-third and one-third, stated his view according to Rabbi Yehuda.

The Gemara challenges this:

You can say that Rabbi Yehuda is heard

to hold that reaping fodder before the grain has produced one-third is not reaping only in a case where one reaped

for an animal,

which is the case under discussion in our Mishna, as we learned: “one who reaps for fodder and feeds it to an animal.”

But when one reaps fodder

for a person

[to make roasted grain from it], as Rabbi Meir’s statement concerns,

who

has heard this from him,

from Rabbi Yehuda—that reaping fodder is not considered reaping!?

For if so,

if you say that Rabbi Yehuda in our Mishna does not distinguish between reaping for a person and reaping for an animal, and that he disagrees here with the first tanna, who permitted only reaping fodder for an animal—

Thus

there are

in our Mishna

three tannaitic opinions

[three tannaitic approaches]—

a. The first tanna permitted reaping fodder only when it is reaped in order to feed it to an animal, as we learned: “One who reaps for fodder and feeds it to an animal.”

b. Rabbi Yehuda, according to your statement, permits reaping fodder even for a person, provided that the grain had not produced one-third.

c. Rabbi Shimon permits reaping fodder even for a person and even after it had produced one-third.

And we have established: wherever Rabbi Yehuda teaches “When,” he intends only to explain, and not to disagree with the first tanna.

It necessarily follows that just as the first tanna permitted reaping fodder only for an animal, so too did Rabbi Yehuda. If so, Rabbi Meir’s view in Pe'a—that reaping fodder for a person is not reaping—cannot be learned from Rabbi Yehuda. How, then, can we say that Rabbi Meir stated it according to Rabbi Yehuda!?

Rather, when Rav Dimi came, he said: Rabbi Meir -

who holds that harvesting hay that has not reached one-third of its growth is not considered harvesting even for a person -

spoke in accordance with the view of his master, Rabbi Akiva

[he],

who said:

Rabbi Akiva:

even for a person it is not

the harvesting of hay

considered harvesting

when it has not reached one-third of its growth.

As we learned

in tractate Peah:

One who harvests part of his field in strips

[harvesting alternating rows: he harvests one and leaves one, and then harvests again]

and leaves moist stalks in it,

that is, the stalks he did not harvest are moist stalks that have not fully ripened.

Rabbi Akiva says:

he gives

pe'a from each and every one

[from each and every row of the rows that he will harvest].

And the Sages say: from one for all -

And Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

Rabbi Akiva obligated him only when harvesting in strips for making parched grain,

that is, when he harvests grain that has not reached one-third of its growth in order to make parched grain from it,

but when harvesting in strips for storage,

that is, when he harvests grain that has reached one-third of its growth in order to store it and let it age -

he did not.

We have therefore learned from the words of Rabbi Akiva that every harvesting of hay, when the grain has not reached one-third of its growth, is not considered harvesting even when it is harvested for a person; therefore, he gives two portions of pe'a.

And we challenge what we said, “Rabbi Meir stated his view in accordance with the view of his master, Rabbi Akiva”:

Is that so?!

But when Ravin came, he said that Rabbi Yohanan

not in accordance with the statement of Shmuel:

held Rabbi Akiva to obligate even when harvesting in strips for storage,

which is grain that has reached one-third of its growth; and if so, the statement of Rabbi Meir—who distinguishes between grain that has reached one-third and grain that has not reached one-third—is not in accordance with the view of Rabbi Akiva?!