Tractate Peah, Chapter 2, Tosefta 8

Notes:

1. The Tosefta states a new law regarding Peah. It is not related to any Mishna.
2. Standing crops means crops that are still attached to the ground.
3. It does not really matter why the Jew sold the crops to the Non-Jew. All the Tosefta is trying to emphasize is that the crops were sold while they were still standing, before they were harvested. The Tosefta simply gives an example of why someone would want to sell standing crops. Because he did not want to deal with the harvest and therefore he sold the standing crops so that the buyer would harvest them himself.

   The Tosefta implies that the field itself still belongs to the Non-Jew and only the crops themselves were sold to the Jew. This is obvious, because if this was not the case then it would be obvious that the Jew is obligated to leave Peah since the whole field with the crops now belongs to him and it makes no difference who owned that field before. However since the field itself belongs to the Non-Jew we may think that the Jew would be exempt from leaving Peah in this case, because in the verses in the Torah (Vayikra 19:9 and 23:22) that talk about Peah it specifically says פְּאַת שָׂדְךָ, “the corner of your field”, implying that the field must belong to the Jew as well. Therefore the Tosefta teaches us that even though in this case the field belongs to the Non-Jew, since the crops themselves belong to the Jew, he is obligated in leaving Peah.

4. In this case the law follows the same logic that since the Jew does not own the crops themselves, even though he owns the field, he does not have to leave Peah. Obviously, the only possible way for him to leave Peah in such case would be before the sale took place (i.e. he had to not sell some of his crop in order to leave it as Peah), because once the crops were sold he cannot tell the Non-Jew to leave some of them for the poor, because the Non-Jew is not obligated in leaving Peah. The reason why the Tosefta need to teach us this case as well would be for the same reason as was explained in the previous note, that since the Torah implies that the field must belong to the Jew, then maybe we would think that even if only the field belongs to the Jew, but not the crops, he still has to leave Peah somehow.

   The reason that in both of these cases the obligation of Peah follows who ever does the harvest and not whoever owns the field is because the verses in the Torah about Peah (Vayikra 19:9 and 23:22) say וּבְקֻצְרְכֶם, “and when you harvest”, meaning that the law of Peah applies only to the owner of the harvested crops. This supposition overrides the implication from the rest of the verse that says “your field” that the field should be owned by the Jew, because it creates a condition for the commandment of Peah, that Peah takes place only during harvest, by the owner of the harvest.