This is the final mishnah which deals with the topic of gleanings.

Mishnah Six

1)      One who sells, the seller is permitted [to take the agricultural gifts] and the purchaser is forbidden.

2)      One may not hire a worker on the condition that the son [of the worker] should gather the gleanings after him.  

3)      One who does not allow the poor to gather, or one who allows one but not another, or one who helps one of them [to gather]—behold he is a robber of the poor.   Concerning him it is said: “Do not remove the landmark of those that come up (olim)” (Proverbs 22:28).

Explanation

Section one: Someone who sells a field may subsequently take the agricultural gifts (provided he is poor) from that field because once he has sold it, he is no longer the owner.  The opposite also holds true–the one who bought the field may not take the agricultural gifts even if he is poor because he is now the owner.

Section two:  The remainder of our mishnah teaches that it is forbidden to create a system whereby one poor person will have an advantage over others in collecting the gleanings.  A field owner is not allowed to hire a worker who stipulates that his son would collect the gleanings after him.  Such a scenario could entirely corrupt the system.  First, the worker’s son gains an unfair advantage. Second, one can easily imagine the field owner telling the worker that he is going to pay him less because he is giving him preferential ability to collect the gleanings.  The owner might try to in essence sell the gleanings.  In other words, forbidding this contract protects the rights of other poor people as well as this worker himself.

Section three:  The mishnah concludes with some general exhortations against these types of arrangements.  One should not do anything to give preferential treatment to some poor people over others.

The final midrash on Proverbs 22:28 is based on a variant reading of the text of Proverbs.  The Masoretic (traditional Jewish) text reads, “Do not remove the ancient (olam) landmark stone.”  Our text reads the word “olam” as if it was written “olim.”  “Olim” usually means “those who go up” and therefore it may be being used euphemistically here for the poor who could be called “those who are going down,” meaning they have lost their money.        

1)      One who exchanges with the poor, [what they give in exchange] for his is exempt [from tithes] but what [he gives in exchange] for that of the poor is subject [to tithes].  

2)      Two who received a field as sharecroppers, this one may give to the other his share of the poor man’s tithe and this one may give to the other his share of the poor man’s tithe.  

3)      One who receives a field in order to harvest it, he is forbidden to take gleanings, the forgotten sheaf, peah or the poor man’s tithe.  

4)      RabbiJudahsaid: When is this so? When he receives it [in order to pay the owner] a half, third or quarter [of the crop].  But [if the owner] had said to him: “A third of that which you harvest belongs to you,” then he may take gleanings, the forgotten sheaf and peah, but not the poor man’s tithe.

Explanation

Section one:  The agricultural presents received by the poor are not obligated in tithes, whereas normal produce is.  So if a field owner gives the poor some of his produce and in return they give him back the peah, forgotten sheaf, or gleanings that he gives to them, then that which he gives to them must be tithed and that which they give to him is exempt from tithes.  In other words, the fact that they now have possession over some produce does not change the fact that it was not originally exempt from tithes, and the same holds true for the opposite scenario.  All of the produce retains its original status even after it was swapped.

Section two:  In this scenario two people receive a field from its owner in return for giving the owner a percentage of the crop.  In general, a field owner cannot take the agricultural gifts from his field for himself, even if he is poor. This is probably meant to prevent corruption.  However, these two sharecroppers do not own the field, and hence each can give the other the agricultural gifts of peah, forgotten sheaves, gleanings and the poor man’s tithe.  They cannot take the agricultural gifts from the part of the field that they are actually harvesting because that part of the field is considered as belonging to them.

Section three:  In contrast, a single person who receives a field in order to harvest it and to take a share of the harvest as payment, cannot take the agricultural gifts for himself.  The difference between this case and that in the previous section is that here there is only one person. Since he harvests the whole field, he cannot take any of its agricultural offerings.

Section four: RabbiJudahsays that the previous ruling holds true only if the contract with the sharecropper implied that the sharecropper owns his percentage of the crop while it is still attached to the ground.  In such a scenario he is considered to have sufficient ownership of the crop that he cannot take the agricultural offerings. However, if the contract implies that the crop becomes his only after it has already been harvested, then he may take gleanings, forgotten sheaf and peah, because it is as if he is being paid to harvest with produce that has been detached from the ground.  He is not the owner of the field and therefore he can take the agricultural gifts.  However, he still cannot take the poor man’s tithe because poor man’s tithe is always given with harvested produce and not with the crop while still attached to the land. And once he harvests the crop some of it belongs to him and he cannot take the poor man’s tithe from his own produce.     

This mishnah deals with a person who is not truly poor, but while traveling has no money to buy food and takes one of the agricultural gifts that goes to the poor.  The question is must he make restitution.  One of the interesting things about this mishnah is that it contains a definition of what it means to be poor. 

Mishnah Four

1)      A property owner who was passing from place to place and need to take gleanings, the forgotten sheaf, peah or the poor man’s tithe, he may take them, and when he returns home, he must pay [for the amount gathere], the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

2)      The sages say: he was a poor man at that time [and so he need not make restitution].

Explanation

Section one: Rabbi Eliezer holds that the person who is temporarily poor can take the agricultural gifts that belong to the poor.  However, since he has land, he is not truly poor. When he returns to his home, he has to make restitution to the poor for that which he took.

Section two: The other sages look at his current status and not his overall status. Since he was poor and had no money to buy food while he was out traveling, he need not make restitution when he returns.

We could explain this mishnah as a debate about the definition of poverty. To Rabbi Eliezer, a poor person is one who doesn’t have any property.  Since this person has property, he must make restitution for that which he took.  In contrast the other rabbis hold that a person is poor if he doesn’t have any money to buy food.  After all, all the property in the world won’t help him if he doesn’t have cash to buy food.  

Our mishnah deals with the potential problem of watering a field with a water wheel.

Mishnah Three

1)      They should not [irrigate a field] with a water wheel, the words of Rabbi Meir.

2)      The sages permit it, because it is still possible [for the poor to get their gleanings]. 

Explanation

Section one:  Rabbi Meir prohibits watering a field with a water wheel before the poor come and collect their gleanings because the water will cause the gleanings to be ruined.

Section two: The other sages permit this because he can just pick up the gleanings and put them on the side and the poor can come and collect them from there. Furthermore, if he does end up ruining some of their gleanings, he can always compensate them for their losses. 

By Rabbi Mordechai Silverstein

Shehehiyanu and Tu BiShvat Sourcesheet (pdf with Hebrew)
Shehehiyanu and Tu BiShvat E-shiur (pdf of this page with Hebrew)

Life is filled with special moments which, to our detriment, we take for granted. Our lives would be better if we would learn to appreciate the blessings it has to offer. Yerushalmi Kiddushin 4:12 (66b) teaches us that it is wrong to neglect even the simplest of life’s blessings:

“Rabbi Hezkiah, Rabbi Kohen in the name of Rav: In the future a person will give an accounting for everything that his eyes saw and he did not eat. Rabbi [E]liezer took this teaching seriously. He saved his coins so that he might eat of everything once a year.”
This anecdote has been codified in the Jewish practice of reciting the Shehehiyanu blessing over eating new seasonal fruit but it could equally apply to a number of other opportunities where this blessing should be recited. This shiur will examine three of these opportunities:

1. Eating new fruits and vegetables;

2. Acquiring new purchases;

3. Seeing a friend or relative after a long period of time.

The recitation of Shehehiyanu over new fruits is often associated in people’s minds with Tu BiShvat, the New Year of the Trees, which has in recent times been marked by eating special and exotic fruits. However, in truth, the Shehehiyanu blessing is recited whenever new fruits are eaten. When eating new fruits, one recites the appropriate blessing over the fruit along with the special berachah (blessing), the Shehehiyanu (more on the order of the blessings later):

“Blessed are You, Lord our God, who has given us life, sustained us and brought us to this time.”

By reciting this blessing over new fruit, we express our cognizance of and thankfulness for God’s seasonal renewal of His world.

As we shall see in the following passage, the origins of this practice are found in a discussion between two sages in the Babylonian Talmud Eruvin 40b concerning the obligation to recite Shehehiyanu on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. One sage supports the practice of reciting it on Rosh Hashanah by citing his own behavior regarding new fruits:

“When I (Rabbah) came to the home of Rav Yehudah, he (Rav Yehudah) said: I say Shehehiyanu even over new squash. He (Rabbah) responded to him: I am not asking whether it is permitted [to recite Shehehiyanu on Rosh Hashanah]; I am asking whether it is obligatory [to recite it].”

Rabbah rejects Rav Yehudah’s analogy because the two situations are not analogous. Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are mandated – they are holidays that will arrive no matter what. This is an obligatory situation. In contrast, seeing or eating new fruit is voluntary. Furthermore, the recitation of Shehehiyanu over new fruit is itself permitted, not obligatory. In contrast, the Shehehiyanu is mandated on festivals.

Despite the failure of the passage to answer the question concerning Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, this discussion does set a precedent for a new practice. In his commentary on Rav Yosef’s practice, Rashi writes:

“When I see new squash from year to year I say Shehehiyanu.”

According to Rashi, one recites this blessing over seeing seasonal fruits for the first time each year. The Rambam, in the Mishnah Torah (Blessings 10:2), agrees with Rashi’s interpretation and codifies this practice:

“One who sees fruit which is new from year to year – on first seeing it should recite Shehehiyanu.”

The Tosafot, however, disagree and establish what eventually became normative practice for most Jews (Berachot 49b s.v. hatam):

“And so all new fruit – when he eats it he blesses Shehehiyanu.”

Tosafot’s reasoning is probably based on the notion that people experience more pleasure in eating fruit than in seeing it, and therefore, the Shehehiyanu, which is a blessing that denotes personal rejoicing, should be recited then.

Here are some simple guidelines for reciting Shehehiyanu over new fruits:

It should be recited over fruits that are seasonal. Fruits and vegetables that are available all year don’t merit the berachah. Also, the blessing is tied to seasonality and not the individual – so tasting a fruit that you have never tasted only requires the Shehehiyanu blessing if it is a seasonal fruit.

One can say the berachah over different varieties of the same fruit.

Some say the Shehehiyanu first and then the blessing over fruit (many Ashkenazim). Others, the reverse (many Sefardim).

In modern times, due to advances in agricultural technology, most fruits are available all year around. This creates a problem for the recitation of Shehehiyanu for fruit that is seasonal in one place but is available in another place. Some rabbis maintain that this would rule out saying the blessing over these types of produce. Rav Moshe Feinstein, however, maintains that where it is possible to distinguish between produce from the new local harvest (such as watermelon in the summer in the Northern Hemisphere) and old produce (watermelon left from the previous year), the blessing should be recited over the new produce. (Igrot Moshe Orah Hayim 3:34)

****

The sages of the Mishnah (Berachot 9:3) prescribed the recitation of the Shehehiyanu blessing over the purchase of certain new items which bring joy to the purchaser or receiver:

“One who builds a new house or buys new clothing (things), recites Shehehiyanu.”

The Babylonian Talmud debates whether a person should recite this blessing if s/he already owned a similar item or has owned the item before. The decision rendered from this discussion is recorded in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Hayim 223:3):

“One who builds a new house or buys new clothing (or other things), even if he already has things like them; or he bought them and returned and bought them again, recites the Shehehiyanu blessing each time, and not necessarily [if these items are] new, for it also applies to old (second hand) items, if they are new for him, for they were never his, and the intention when they [the sages] say “new” was to exclude if he sold them and bought them back.”

The Mishnah Berurah, (an early 20th century commentary on Shulchan Aruch, Orach Hayim) notes that the essential element here is that the purchaser has a sense of joy (lev sameah) in the purchase. Consequently, he notes, a rich person might not recite the blessing over something upon which a poorer person would. Halakhic authorities disagree as to whether a poor person can say the Shehehiyanu blessing over an item which would be considered insignificant to other people. According to the Shulchan Aruch, it depends upon the happiness of the poor person; she should recite it if the item causes her to be happy. In contrast, the Tosafot rule that the significance of the item depends upon the societal view of the item. Thus, if generally people are not particularly joyous over the purchase of such an item, one does not, according to the Tosafot, recite the Shehehiyanu even if one does have joy over such a purchase.

The Shehehiyanu blessing serves as a means of promulgating a sense of appreciation for material things. It is hard for human beings to maintain a sense of gratefulness in a world full of so much bounty. It is easy to take blessings for granted or worse yet, to develop a sense of entitlement. This blessing gives us the grounding to appreciate the ultimate source of blessings and to gain a little bit of humility in the process.

Here are some general rules as to how and when the berachah should be recited for newly acquired things:

• The blessing is recited over items which were bought, inherited, or received a a gift.
• It is recited over important purchases which bring joy. It is not recited over the purchase of shoes. (The fact that rabbis in the past excluded the purchase of shoes is interesting. People in the past did not consider shoes a luxury item, but one wonders if this attitude will change now that the status of shoes has changed.)
• It is generally recited at the time of purchase. However, when it comes to clothing some recite it when it is first worn. (For example, wearing a tallit for the first time under the huppah or at a bar or bat mitzvah.)

****

The Babylonian Talmud )Berachot 58b) records another often neglected occasion in which to recite Shehehiyanu: 

“R. Joshua b. Levi said: One who sees a friend after a lapse of thirty days says: Blessed is He who has kept us alive and preserved us and brought us to this season. If after a lapse of twelve months he says: Blessed is He who revives the dead. 

We can explain this source in light of the meaning of Shehehiyanu we have seen elsewhere. When one sees a friend after an extended period, the experience brings about a sense of joy, and therefore, this occasion should be marked with the Shehehiyanu blessing or, after an even more extended period, “tehiyat matim“. In our day, since we have easy communications with people around the world and know their whereabouts, most authorities hold that if we have been in contact with the person then one does not recite the later blessing. However, one does recite the Shehehiyanu if one has not seen the person in a month’s time.

In light of this last passage, let me conclude with a hope that all of our former students, colleagues, and friends will take the opportunity to visit the Yeshiva in the near future so that we can become reacquainted, rejoice and recite this wonderful blessing together!

This mishnah continues to deal with cases where we have a doubt as to whether the gleanings belong to the owner of the field or to the poor.  However, the first half of the mishnah seems to deal with the laws of forgotten sheaves and not with the laws of gleanings.  It is probably brought here due to some language which is similar to the second half of the mishnah.

Mishnah Two

1)      The top of a single ear of grain [that remained] after the harvesting and its top touches the standing stalk:

a)      If it can be cut with the stalk, it belongs to the owner; 

b)      But if not, it belongs to the poor.

2)      If an ear of grain of gleanings that became mixed up with a stack of grain, [the owner] must tithe one ear of grain and give it to him [the poor]. 

3)      Rabbi Eliezer says: how can this poor man give in exchange something that had not yet become his?  Rather, [the owner] must transfer to the poor man the ownership of the whole stack and then tithe one ear of grain and give it to him.

Explanation

Section one:   After having harvested the stalks, one stalk remains that has a single ear of grain on it.  The question is, is this ear of grain considered to be “forgotten,” in which case it belongs to the poor? The rule is that if it still touches a standing stalk that has not yet been harvested and it can be cut in one swipe with that stalk then it is not forgotten.  If it cannot be cut together with the stalk, then it is not considered to be forgotten and it still belongs to the owner. 

Section two:  In this case an ear of grain of gleanings that should belong to the poor gets mixed up with a stack of grain that belongs to the field owner.  The problem here is that the gleanings are exempt from tithes whereas the stack is liable to be tithed. Therefore, he owner can’t just give the ear to the poor person, because he would be forcing the poor person to tithe it.  So according to the Rambam what he does is he takes two ears of grain from the stack.  He picks up the first one and says, “If this is the gleaning then let it belong to the poor person. But if it is not gleanings, then let the tithes that I give from the other ear be taken for this ear.”  He then makes the same statement on the second ear of grain.  Then he gives one to the poor person.

Section three:  According to Rabbi Eliezer, the problem with this is that the poor person has not yet taken the gleanings such that he can exchange them for another ear.  In other words, according to the sages, the poor person relinquishes ownership over the original gleanings when he accepts the ear of corn in exchange despite the fact that he has not even taken possession of the gleanings.  To avoid this problem what the field owner should do is give the whole stack to the poor person as a retractable gift (which according to halakhah counts as a gift), and then take it back and then perform the tithing procedure as described above.

This mishnah deals with gleanings that are, for various reasons, hard or impossible for the poor person to find.

Mishnah One

1)      If a pile of grain was stacked [on part of a field] from which gleanings had not yet been collected, whatever touches the ground belongs to the poor. 

2)      If the wind scattered the sheaves, they estimate the amount of gleanings the field would have yielded and they give that to the poor. 

a)      Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: he must give to the poor the amount that would fall.

Explanation

Section one:  If the field owner makes a stack of grain on a part of the field from which the poor have not yet collected their gleanings, then we penalize him and he loses the bottom part of the stack, that which touches the ground.  The poor person can, in a sense, say to the field owner, that any part of the stack that touched the ground might actually be gleanings and hence belongs to him.

Section two:  If the wind scattered all the sheaves, mixing the sheaves that belonged to the field owner with the sheaves that should belong to the poor, then we estimate how much gleanings the field would produce and we give that amount to the poor person. 

Section three:  Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that we estimate how many gleanings would fall from a field of this size.  Kehati explains that the debate between Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel and the opinion in the previous section is that Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that we determine the gleanings based on a typical field of this size, whereas the previous opinion says we estimate that specific field.

This mishnah deals with grain that is found in ant holes in a field. The question is whether they count as gleanings, which as we saw in yesterday’s mishnah, is grain that falls during the time of the harvest. 

Mishnah Eleven

1)      [Grain found in] ant holes where the stalks are still standing, behold it still belongs to the owner.

2)      After the harvesters [had passed over them], those found in the top parts [of the ant holes belong] to the poor, but [those found] on the bottom parts [belong] to the owner.

a)      Rabbi Meir says: it all belongs to the poor, for gleanings about which there is any doubt are regarded as gleanings.

Explanation

Section one: If the stalks are still standing that means that the field has not yet been plowed.  In such a case, the grain that has fallen into the ant holes in the ground still belongs to the owner.

Section two:  If the field has already been harvested then we can assume the top layer of grain in the holes fell out during the harvest and therefore it belongs to the poor. The bottom layer of grain, however, may have fallen out before the harvest and therefore it still belongs to the owner.

Rabbi Meir says that when we have a doubt as to whether grain is considered to be gleanings or not, then we regard it as gleanings and it goes to the poor.  Generally there is a rule that the burden of proof is upon the claimant. In this case the poor person is the claimant, for he is coming to take the grain from its original owner.  This seems to be the rule invoked by the opinion in the previous section. Nevertheless, according to Rabbi Meir, in this case, perhaps because the claimant is poor, this general is not applied.

Having finished discussing peah, the mishnah proceeds to discuss “gleanings” or “leket,” one of the other agricultural gifts given to the poor. Gleanings are mentioned in Leviticus 19:9-10, and 23:22.

Mishnah Ten

1)      What are gleanings?  That which falls down at the time of harvesting.

2)      If while he was harvesting, he harvested a handful, or plucked a fistful, and then a thorn pricked him, and what he had in his hand fell to the ground, it still belongs to the owner.

3)      [That which drops from] inside the hand or the sickle [belongs] to the poor, but [that which falls from] the back of the hand or the sickle [belongs] to the owner.  

4)      [That which falls from] the top of the hand or sickle: 

a)      Rabbi Ishmael says: to the poor;  

b)      But Rabbi Akiva says: to the owner.

Explanation

Section one:  “Gleanings” are produce that falls during the time of harvesting.  The owner is not allowed to go back and claim that which falls, but rather he must give it to the poor.

Section two:  The mishnah now goes on to define what it means to “fall down.”  There are going to be several limiting definitions in this mishnah. First of all, if he harvests the grain and grabs it in his hand and then a thorn causes him to drop that which he had just harvested, then that which is dropped does not belong to the poor.  The reason is that this didn’t fall during the harvest but after the harvest had already been completed. Once it is securely his hand he has harvested it and if he subsequently drops it, it does not belong to the poor.

Section three: If he was harvesting by hand and as he plucked the stalk, it fell from his hand, or if he was harvesting with a sickle and the stalks of grain fell from the sickle before he got them into his hand, the stalks belong to the poor because they fell while being harvested.  If, however, while harvesting, a stalk hits the back of his hand or the back of the sickle and falls to the ground, it still belongs to the owner because this stalk did not fall while he was intending to harvest and neither did it fall during harvesting.

Section four:  Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Akiva debate whether a stalk that falls because it struck the top of the hand or the top of the sickle is like one that falls from inside the hand or the front of the sickle, in which case it belongs to the poor, or from the back of the hand or sickle, in which case it still belongs to the owner.  Rabbi Ishmael says it belongs to the poor and Rabbi Akiva says it belongs to the owner.

The first section of our mishnah deals with the owner of a field who transfers title over the peah to a poor person without the poor person being present.  The second half of the mishnah deals with the fields of non-Jews.

Mishnah Nine

1)      One who collected peah and said, “This is for so-and-so a poor man:”

a)      Rabbi Eliezer says: he has thus acquired it for him.  

b)      The sages say: he must give it to the first poor man he finds.  

2)      Gleanings, the forgotten sheaf and the peah of non-Jews are subject to tithes, unless he [the non-Jew] had declared them ownerless.

Explanation

Section one:  According to Rabbi Eliezer, a field owner can harvest his own peah and by mere declaration transfer ownership to a poor person of his choosing.  This would seem to follow the general rule that a person can benefit another person even though that person is not in his presence.  However, the other rabbis disagree and say that the peah remains peah and can still be taken by the first person who comes across it.  This would seem to prevent owners from selecting one poor person over another, and potentially corrupting the system of “first come, first serve.” 

Section two:  Gleanings, forgotten sheaves and peah that are taken from a field of a Jew are not liable to be tithed, meaning the poor person can eat them without tithing them. However, if they are taken from the field of a non-Jew then they are liable for tithes because the non-Jew was not liable to give the gifts to the poor in the first place.  In other words, these are not technically considered gleanings, forgotten sheaves or peah, but rather just ordinary produce. The only way that they can be exempt from tithes is if the owner declared them ownerless and gave them to the poor as ownerless property.  Ownerless property is always exempt from tithes, as we shall learn when we learn tractate Maasrot.