“And when you reap the
harvest of your land do not completely harvest the ends of your field. And do not collect the individual stalks
that have fallen. And do not completely
pick the grapes of your vineyard. They
must be left to the poor person and the convert. I am Hashem your G-d.” (VaYikra 19:9-10)
According to Maimonides, the two passages above are
the source for six commandments. First,
the passages are the source for the positive and negative commandments
regarding Pe’ah. When we harvest a field we are not permitted
to completely harvest the grain of the field.
Instead, we are required to leave a portion for the needy. The requirement to leave this portion – the Pe’ah – is a positive command.[1] The prohibition against completely
harvesting the field – and not leaving Pe’ah
is a negative command.[2] Second, we are commanded leave Leket.
When the grain is reaped, some stalks naturally fall to the ground. We are required to leave these individual
stalks for the needy. The requirement
to leave these stalks – the Leket –
is a positive commandment.[3] The prohibition against collecting the Leket is a negative commandment.[4] Third, when we collect the grapes of a
vineyard, we are required to leave a portion for the needy. The requirement to leave this portion is a
positive commandment.[5] The prohibition against completely
collecting the grapes of the vineyard is a negative commandment.[6] In other words, the passages outline three
requirements. We are required to leave
standing a portion of the grain in the field.
We must leave any individual stalks that fall to the ground. We must leave a portion of the grapes on the
vines. Each of the requirements is
expressed as a positive commandment and a negative commandment. This results in
a total of six commandments.
Sefer HaChinuch explains that these mitzvot apply in the land of Israel on a
Torah level. The Sages extended these
commandments to apply outside of Israel.[7]
The mishne explains that the Torah did not establish
a standard for the mitzvah of Pe’ah.
We are not required to leave a specific amount of grain standing or a
set percentage of the field’s produce for the needy. Instead, on the Torah level, the requirement of Pe’ah can be fulfilled by leaving any
small amount of grain.[8] However, the mishne adds that the Sages did
establish a set requirement. One 60th
of the field’s grain must be left standing.
The mishne continues to explain that this standard of one 60th
is a minimum. Under some circumstances
a larger percentage must be left. Two
of the factors that affect the required percentage are the number of poor
people requiring support and the size of the field.[9]
The first factor is readily understood. The requirement to leave a minimum of one
sixtieth of the gain for the poor assumes that this amount will provide a
meaningful resource for the poor people of the area. However, if there are an unusually large number of poor people in
the area, then one 60th of the field’s grain will not provide these
poor people with a meaningful level of assistance. Under such circumstances, we are required to leave more than the
minimum one 60th of the grain for the poor.[10]
However, the second circumstance noted by the mishne
is not completely clear. The mishne
explains that the amount of grain in the field is also affected by the size of
the field. According to Maimonides, the
mishne is referring to a small field.
In a small field, it is not adequate to leave one 60th of the
grain for the needy: some amount more than one 60th must be left
standing. Rabbaynu Ovadia Bertinoro
argues that the mishne means that in a large field more than one 60th
must be left standing.[11] It is true that the wording of the mishne is
ambiguous. But it is strange that these
two authorities came to exactly opposite conclusions regarding the mishne’s
meaning. What is the basis for this
dispute?
In order to understand this unusual dispute, it is
important to begin with a more fundamental issue. As explained above, on a Torah level there is no established
minimum for Pe’ah. A person can discharge this obligation by
leaving a single stalk standing. This
seems strange. Maimonides includes his
discussion of Pe’ah in the section of
his code – the Mishne Torah – that deals with charity for the poor. Most forms of charity have more clear and
substantial standards. For example, we
are required on selected years to give a tithe to the poor from the
harvest. The amount of this tithe is
one tenth of the harvest.[12] The mitzvah
of charity also has a standard. We are
required to provide the poor with meaningful support.[13] It is odd that the mitzvah of Pe’ah lacks
any similar standard on the Torah level.
No specific percentage is required and the amount of grain need not
provide meaningful support.
This question can be answered on two levels. First, the question can be addressed on a
strictly halachic level. An analysis of
the passages above provides an important insight into the formulation of the
requirement of Pe’ah. The passages begin with a statement of the
negative commandment regarding Pe’ah. The Torah tells us, “And when you reap the
harvest of your land do not completely harvest the ends of your field.” The Torah commands us to not completely harvest
the grain of the field. This
requirement is met by leaving any portion of the grain standing. The positive commandment to leave Pe’ah is based on and reflects the
structure of this negative commandment.
Just as the negative commandment merely requires that we do not
completely harvest the grain, so too, the positive commandment requires that we
leave some portion of the grain standing.
However, on a deeper level it is appropriate to consider the objective
of this formulation.
As mentioned above, Maimonides treats the mitzvah of Pe’ah as one of the mitzvot
requiring that we support the needy.
Why are we required to care for those who are less fortunate? We generally assume that this requirement is
based on an ethic of social justice. In
other words, the Torah’s ethic of social justice demands that the more
fortunate have compassion for and provide assistance to the less fortunate
members of society. However, Sefer
HaChinuch in his treatment of the mitzvah
of Pe’ah does not describe the mitzvah’s objective as social
justice. Instead, he stresses the
impact of the mitzvah on the owner of
the field. Apparently, according to
Sefer HaChinuch, the fundamental purpose of the mitzvah – on a Torah level – is not to provide support for the
poor. The fundamental objective of the mitzvah is expressed in its impact on
the owner of the field. Apparently, the
mitzvah is designed to discourage
greed. The miserly person cannot
imagine leaving any portion of the grain in his field standing. The Torah discourages this miserly attitude
by requiring that the owner of the field train himself to not be greedy. Some portion must be left standing.
Sefer HaChinuch’s interpretation of the mitzvah of Pe’ah is reflected by another requirement outlined in these
passages. The requirement of Leket is that we leave for the poor any
individual stalks that fall to the ground during the harvest. Clearly, Leket
is directed against greed. Leket instructs us to not be so greedy
as to pick up every stray stalk that has slipped from our grasp.
Sefer HaChinuch adds that the mitzvah of Pe’ah helps a
person achieve happiness. A person who
is greedy is never satisfied with his portion.
He never has enough. Because of
his greed he is unsatisfied with his financial successes and is constantly
driven to amass more wealth. But
because of his basic disposition of greed, new additional wealth does not
satisfy him and he remains as unsatisfied as he was before he added to his
fortune.[14]
According to Sefer HaChinuch it makes perfect sense
that the Torah did not establish a minimum standard for Pe’ah. A minimum standard
would be misleading. It might mislead
us to conclude that the mitzvah is
designed primarily to aid the poor.
However by omitting a minimum standard for Pe’ah, the Torah indicates that the purpose of the mitzvah is not only to assist the
poor. The purpose is also to assist the
owner of the field become a healthier and more fulfilled individual.
One can also conclude from the Torah’s formulation
of the requirement of Pe’ah that
poverty is not merely a result of the misfortune of the poor. It is also a result of the greed of the more
fortunate. The Torah does not provide a
standard for Pe’ah. Instead, it directs the field owner to not
be greedy. The implication is that if
we can overcome our greed, there will be adequate resources to care for
ourselves and the less fortunate.
Based on this analysis, it is possible to explain
the dispute between Maimonides and Rabbaynu Ovadia Bertinoro. Both agree that the Sages established one 60th
as a minimum standard for Pe’ah and
that if there are numerous poor people, then a greater portion of the grain
must be left standing. They agree that
this greater portion is required in order to provide the numerous poor people
with a meaningful level of support. It
is apparent that although the primary objective of the mitzvah of Pe’ah may be
to counter greed, the Sages placed stress on the objective of supporting the
poor.
According to Maimonides, this second objective –
supporting the poor – is also reflected in the requirement to adjust the
required Pe’ah in accordance with the
size of the field. If the field is
small and one 60th of its produce will not provide meaningful
support, then a greater portion of the grain must be left standing. However, according to Rabbaynu Ovadia
Bertinoro, the requirement to adjust the required Pe’ah for the size of the field reflects the primary objective of
the mitzvah – to discourage
greed. He maintains that if the field
is large, then more than one 60th of the grain must be left
standing. In other words, the Sages
required that a minimum of one 60th of the grain must be left
standing. A token amount is not
adequate. The owner must leave a
portion of the gain standing that will be significant to him. In a typical field, one 60th is a
significant amount. The owner will be
impacted. However in a large field,
leaving one 60th of the grain may not have a significant impact on
the owner. Therefore, in the larger
field a greater portion must be left standing.
[1] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Sefer HaMitzvot, Mitzvat Aseh 120.
[2] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Sefer HaMitzvot, Mitzvat Lo Ta’aseh 210.
[3] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Sefer HaMitzvot, Mitzvat Aseh 121.
[4] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Sefer HaMitzvot, Mitzvat Lo Ta’aseh 211.
[5] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Sefer HaMitzvot, Mitzvat Aseh 123.
[6] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Sefer HaMitzvot, Mitzvat Lo Ta’aseh 212.
[7] Sefer HaChinuch, Mitzvah 216.
[8] Mesechet Pe’ah 1:1.
[9] Mesechet Pe’ah 1:2.
[10] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Matnot Aniyim 1:15.
[11] Rabbaynu Ovadia Bertinoro, Commentary on the Mishne, Mesechet Pe’ah 1:2.
[12] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Matnot Aniyim 6:1-4.
[13] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Matnot Aniyim 7:1.
[14] Sefer HaChinuch, Mitzvah 216.