וּֽבְקֻצְרְכֶם֙ אֶת־קְצִ֣יר אַרְצְכֶ֔ם לֹ֧א תְכַלֶּ֛ה פְּאַ֥ת שָׂדְךָ֖ לִקְצֹ֑ר וְלֶ֥קֶט קְצִֽירְךָ֖ לֹ֥א תְלַקֵּֽט׃
Apabila kamu menuai hasil panen di negerimu, janganlah engkau menuai habis sudut ladangmu, dan sisa-sisa panenmu yang berjatuhan janganlah engkau pungut.
Jerusalem Talmud Peah
HALAKHAH: Our Mishnah is about someone who sold the field with the standing crop. But if someone sold the standing crop and retained the field for himself, for him I read “your field”, for the other one I read “your harvest.109Since Deut. 24:19 reads: “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field,” both the owner of the field and the owner of the harvest are forbidden to take of the gleanings and peah.”
Jerusalem Talmud Peah
HALAKHAH: It was stated: The gleanings of your harvest, not what anybody harvests with his bare hands142See Chapter 3, Halakhah 3: The gathering of your harvest, not the gathering of your plucking.. And equally, the dropped berries of your vineyard, and not what drops from hand-picking143If single berries are plucked rather than whole bunches cut off with a knife..
Jerusalem Talmud Peah
There151The discussion is paralleled in Baba Qama 6:5 in a different formulation. we have stated: “If someone sets fire to a stack in which were hidden vessels, Rebbi Jehudah says, he pays for all that was in it. But the Sages say, he only pays for a stack of wheat or barley152Both Babli and Yerushalmi are agreed that the Mishnah refers only to a man who lights a legal fire on his own field and it burns out of control. But an arsonist has to pay for everything under any circumstance. The Babli (Baba Qama 61b) states that the Sages agree that whoever started the fire is responsible for agricultural implements usually hidden in stacks. Hence, in the opinion of the Babli but not the Yerushalmi, the Sages free him only from the responsibility for unexpected losses..” The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted; there he says to include the hidden things, but here he says to exclude the hidden things. There (Ex. 22:5) “and a153This is the Biblical text, not “the stack” as given here. “If fire gets out of control and a stack, or the standing grain, or the field is consumed, the person who caused the fire should certainly pay.” stack or standing grain was consumed.” I understand that since it says “standing grain” it includes a stack. Why does the verse add “a stack?” In order to include the hidden things. But here (Deut. 24:10) “your field,” in the open, to exclude anything hidden. The argument of the rabbis is inverted; there they say to exclude the hidden things, but here they say to include the hidden things. There, “or standing grain or a field,” just as a field is in the open, so all must be in the open. But here, “your field,” in the open, to exclude that which is hidden; “your harvest,” in the open, to exclude that which is hidden. That is a restriction after a restriction and every restriction after a restriction is only154There is an אלא missing in the text or the אין is superfluous (Yebamot12:1). The principle that a restriction after a restriction is an extension is universally accepted in both Talmudim; in Horaiot 1:1 it is generalized to the statement that any sequence of restrictions of an even number of elements is an extension; for an odd number of elements it is a restriction. to add the hidden things.