Menachot 71b — the Talmud in English

1.

They permit the shoots of consecrated carob and sycamore trees,

2.

and they make breaches in their gardens and orchards,

in order

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

and even

on Shabbatot and Festivals.

3.

And they give pe'a to vegetables,

which are not legally obligated [to receive pe'a]; but this was not with the consent of the Sages, because the poor would eat it in a state of tevel, as with other pe'a, although this is not legally required, since it is not pe'a.

6

in all these

they protested against them.

And now this is difficult: “Who teaches ‘they protested’ and ‘they did not protest’?” That is, since our Mishna teaches concerning stacking before the omer, “and they did not protest against them,” it follows that it is Rabbi Yehuda, for he is the one who distinguished among the practices of the people of Jericho, in some of which the Sages protested against them and in some they did not, and he said concerning stacking that the Sages did not protest against them; whereas Rabbi Meir did not address the matter of protest at all—

and if so, what we learned in the first clause is difficult: “They reap with the consent of the Sages,” for according to Rabbi Yehuda their reaping too was without the consent of the Sages!?

And we answer:

But according to your reasoning,

that you maintain that this beraita is not corrupt, and that Rabbi Yehuda indeed said that they used to reap without the consent of the Sages, surely this is difficult:

Were there

six

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

seven

things

there were, according to Rabbi Yehuda, since he added the reaping among those against which they did not protest, and there were also three against which they did protest; and if so, there were seven.

according to Rabbi Yehuda. He added reaping to the practices against which the Sages did not protest, while there were also the three practices against which they did protest; therefore, there were seven.

Rather, erase from here

[remove from the words of Rabbi Yehuda in the beraita] the

reaping,

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

and if so, our Mishna is entirely Rabbi Yehuda.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who reaps for fodder and feeds it to an animal;

Rabbi Yehuda said: When is this so? When he began before it had produced a third; Rabbi Shimon says: He may even reap and feed it after it had produced a third:

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

We learned there,

we learned in tractate Pe'a 2:1:

And these interrupt

a large field

with regard to

the matter of

pe'a,

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

The stream, and the rainwater channel

[of rainwater]—

and a private path

[a path four cubits wide],

and a public thoroughfare

[a path sixteen cubits wide]—

and a public footpath

[a very narrow path, which is a place of passage for many, and is not like a way on which wagons and horses travel]

and an established private footpath

[these] are

both in the summer

and

both in the rainy season,

if one of these divided the field—

And an uncultivated pit

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

and fallow ground

[a part that is not sown, but merely plowed],

and another seed

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

The tannaim did not disagree concerning all these, but they disagreed concerning the law stated later in the Mishna:

And one who reaps for fodder,

if he reaped part of the produce of the field while it was fodder that had not fully ripened—and even if he reaped it for a person— that too

interrupts

the field on its two sides, and when the produce ripens he gives separate pe'a from each side; and later in the discussion it is explained whether this fodder had still not produced a third, or even when it had produced a third of its growth—

these are the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say:

One who reaps for fodder

does not interrupt, unless

he also

plowed

there, and it is then like fallow ground, which interrupts; but when he did not plow, they regard the reaping of the fodder as the beginning of the reaping of the field, and when the ripening of all the produce is completed and he reaps it, this is like completing his reaping, and he gives one pe'a for everything.

Rabba bar bar Hana said that Rabbi Yohanan said:

Rabbi Meir,

in tractate Pe'a, who holds that the reaping of fodder is not considered reaping, which implies: even if it had produced a third, as long as it had not fully ripened—

according to the view of Rabbi Shimon

in our Mishna—

said it,

for he too holds that the reaping of fodder is not considered reaping, even if he reaped it after it had produced a third—

for

Rabbi Shimon

said

in our Mishna:

he may reap

fodder before the omer

and feed it, even after it had produced

the produce

a third—

evidently he holds

Rabbi Shimon:

every

reaping

for fodder—

even if the produce had produced a third, but had not fully ripened—

is not reaping,

and therefore it is permitted before the omer, and likewise the reaping of fodder is not considered the beginning of the reaping of the field, and consequently it interrupts even when he did not plow.

Rabba sat and recited this teaching

[Rabba sat and repeated this teaching in the name of Rabbi Yohanan],

Rav Aḥa bar Huna raised an objection to Rava

against the words of Rabbi Yohanan, who holds that reaping for fodder, even when the produce had already produced a third, is not considered reaping according to Rabbi Meir—from what we learned in the Tosefta of Pe'a:

A locust ate

part of the produce of the field, and that part divides the field, or

ants nibbled it,

or

the wind broke it,

everyone agrees:

If he

plowed

there, it

interrupts

the field and they become two fields, but if he

did not plow, it does not interrupt,

because it is the beginning of reaping, even though a person did not reap it.

But

everyone agrees—

who?

Who is the one concerning whom the beraita needed to say that he agrees to this? Surely it is

Rabbi Meir,

who disagreed concerning one who reaps for fodder and holds that this is not reaping; and he agrees in this case that it is the beginning of reaping, and it does not interrupt without plowing.

And now this is difficult:

If you grant that: the Mishna

of Pe'a—which we learned: “And one who reaps for fodder interrupts,” the words of Rabbi Meir—is concerned only

with a case where it had not produced a third,

and the

beraita

of Pe'a concerning the locust, in which we learned

that if he plowed, it does

[indeed interrupt]

and if he did not plow—

it does not

interrupt, is concerned

with a case where it had already

already

produced a third—

then

it is well explained that the distinction between them is that reaping produce that had not produced a third is not considered the beginning of reaping, even if a person reaped it, and therefore it interrupts; whereas reaping produce after it had produced a third is considered reaping even when it was not performed by a person,

and it interrupts only if he plowed—

But if you say

as you say: the

Mishna

of Pe'a

also

[even]

concerns a case where it had produced a third, and nevertheless Rabbi Meir holds that every reaping of fodder is not called reaping, then this is difficult:

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

Now, and what there—“One who reaps for fodder interrupts”—

for it is the reaping of a person,

a person reaped it, and it is more reasonable to say that it is the beginning of reaping; nevertheless

Rabbi Meir said that reaping fodder

is

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 consumed it while it was fodder, this is not the beginning of reaping, and by law the field should be interrupted!?

Rather,

because of this difficulty, the Gemara explains Rabbi Meir’s position differently:

Rabbi Meir,

who said, “One who reaps for fodder interrupts”—and this is specifically when it had not produced a third, as explained—did not say this according to the view of Rabbi Shimon, but, on the contrary,

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 a third,

because reaping fodder when it had not produced a third is not considered reaping;

but if he began until it had produced a third, it is forbidden;

because reaping fodder is considered reaping once the produce had already produced a third—

and Rabbi Meir too—who distinguishes in reaping fodder between less than a third and a third—said this according to the view of Rabbi Yehuda.

And we challenge this:

You may say that you heard Rabbi Yehuda

that reaping fodder when the produce had not produced a third is not reaping—only in a case where he 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 he reaped fodder

for a person

[to make parched grain from it], and in the manner of which Rabbi Meir spoke,

who

did you hear him—Rabbi Yehuda—say that the reaping of fodder is not considered reaping!?

say 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 disagrees here with the first tanna, who permitted only reaping fodder for an animal—

Thus

there are

in our Mishna

three tannaim

[three tannaitic positions]—

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 permits—in your view—reaping fodder even for a person, provided that the produce had not produced a third.

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

And we have established: Wherever Rabbi Yehuda teaches “When is this so?” it is 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 Rabbi Yehuda did; and if so, the reaping of fodder for a person, which is not reaping according to Rabbi Meir in Pe'a, cannot be learned from Rabbi Yehuda. How then can we say: Rabbi Meir stated this according to the view of Rabbi Yehuda!?

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

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

said it in accordance with the method of Rabbi Akiva, his teacher,

the,

who said

Rabbi Akiva:

even for a person likewise it is not

the harvesting of hay

harvesting

when it has not reached one-third.

For we learned

in tractate Peah:

One who harvests part of his field in patches

harvesting rows alternately: he harvests one and leaves one, and then harvests again

and leaves moist stalks in it,

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

Rabbi Akiva says:

this one 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 only when harvesting in patches for parched grain,

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

but when harvesting in patches for storage,

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

not.

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

And we raise an objection to what we said, “Rabbi Meir said it in accordance with the method of Rabbi Akiva, his teacher”:

Is that so!?

But when Ravin came, Rabbi Yohanan said

contrary to Shmuel’s words:

Rabbi Akiva would obligate even when harvesting in patches for storage,

which is grain that has reached one-third; and if so, Rabbi Meir’s words—he who distinguishes between when it has reached one-third and when it has not reached one-third—are not in accordance with Rabbi Akiva!?