Talmud - Menachot 71b מנחות ע״א ב׳

They would permit the use of consecrated branches of carob and of sycamore trees; they would make breaches in the walls of their gardens and orchards, in order to feed fallen fruit to the poor during drought years on Shabbatot and Festivals; and they would designate for the poor the produce in the corner [pe’a] in a field of vegetables. And the Sages reprimanded them for those actions. It is clear from the baraita that according to Rabbi Yehuda the reaping of the grain before the omer offering was performed without the approval of the Sages. So why does the mishna, which represents Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, teach that it was with the approval of the Sages?

The Gemara responds: And according to your reasoning, why did the baraita say that the residents of Jericho performed six actions without the approval of the Sages? Counting the cases listed in the baraita, there were in fact seven actions, as reaping and piling count as two actions. Evidently, the text of the baraita is problematic. The Gemara concludes: Rather, omit from here the case of the reaping of the grain before the omer offering was brought. If so, then in the baraita Rabbi Yehuda never commented about the reaping of the grain before the omer, and therefore it does not contradict the mishna’s statement that it was performed with the approval of the Sages.

§ The mishna teaches: One may reap crops in any field for fodder and feed it to an animal even before the omer offering. The Gemara notes that we learned in a mishna there (Pe’a 2:1): And these divide a field for the purpose of pe’a, i.e., the presence of any of these separates a field so that each section constitutes a distinct field from which pe’a must be allocated independently: A stream that passes through the field, and a canal [vehashelulit], and a private road that is four cubits wide, and a public road that is at least sixteen cubits wide, and a permanent public trail or a private trail that is used whether in the summer or in the rainy season, i.e., winter, and an uncultivated field, and a plowed field, and a seed of a different kind of plant, e.g., a section of barley seed in a field full of wheat.

In all of the aforementioned instances a field is considered divided into two distinct fields. Another type of separation is subject to dispute: And in the case of one who reaps crops in a field for fodder, this action also divides a field in two. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: It does not divide a field unless one also plowed the area that he reaped. Only then is the field divided, as it is a plowed field.

With regard to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Meir said his statement in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says in the mishna: One may reap and feed the crops to animals even after they reached one-third of their potential growth. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon holds that any reaping performed for fodder is not considered reaping. Likewise, Rabbi Meir maintains that reaping for fodder, even after the crop has reached one-third of its potential growth, is not considered the start of the reaping of the entire field, and therefore it divides the field.

Rabba sat and stated this halakha. Rav Aḥa bar Huna raised an objection to Rava from a baraita: If a section of crops in a field was consumed by grasshoppers, or ants nibbled away at those crops [kirsemuha], or the wind broke it down, all concede that if that section was subsequently plowed, it divides the field, and if it was not plowed, it does not divide the field. When the baraita states: All concede, to whom is it referring? It must be referring to Rabbi Meir, who maintains that usually, reaping for fodder divides a field without subsequent plowing, yet in this case he admits that it divides the field only if it is subsequently plowed.

Rav Aḥa bar Huna explains his objection to the opinion that Rabbi Meir holds in accordance with Rabbi Shimon: Granted, Rabbi Meir’s opinion can be explained if you say that the mishna, where Rabbi Meir maintains that reaping fodder is not considered reaping, is referring to a case where the fodder had not yet reached one-third of its potential growth, and the baraita, where he maintains that only if it was plowed, yes, it divides the field, but if was not plowed, no, it does not divide the field, is referring to a case where the fodder had already reached one-third of its growth. If so, the difference between the rulings of Rabbi Meir is clear, as it all depends on the growth of the produce.

But if you say that Rabbi Meir holds in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, and the mishna is also referring to a case where the fodder had reached one-third of its growth, how can his ruling in the baraita be explained? Now, if with regard to reaping there, in a case where it involves human intervention, Rabbi Meir said: It is not called reaping; here in the baraita, where the reaping is performed by grasshoppers or ants, is it not clear all the more so that Rabbi Meir would not consider it reaping? And yet the baraita indicates that all agree that it is considered reaping, as it does not divide the field without plowing.

Rather, Rabbi Meir stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says, with regard to the statement of the first tanna in the mishna that one may reap fodder and feed it to an animal: When [eimatai] may one do so? At a time when he began reaping before the crop reaches one-third of its potential growth. But if he began after the crop reached one-third, it is prohibited. If so, the discrepancy between Rabbi Meir’s opinion in the mishna and in the baraita can be resolved, as the mishna is referring to a case where the crops had not yet reached one-third of their growth, whereas the baraita is speaking of crops that had already reached one-third of their growth and therefore their harvesting is considered the start of the reaping of the field, which divides it only if he subsequently plows.

The Gemara asks: You can say that you heard Rabbi Yehuda express his opinion with regard to fodder that is reaped for the purposes of feeding an animal, but did you hear him say so with regard to a case where the reaping is performed for human consumption? That cannot be his opinion, since if it were so, then there would be three disputing opinions among the tanna’im: The opinion of the first tanna, who holds that reaping fodder for animal consumption is permitted; the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that it may be reaped even for human consumption provided that it has not grown one-third; and the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that it is permitted for human consumption even in a case where it had grown one-third. This is problematic, as the Gemara in tractate Sanhedrin (25a) states a principle that whenever Rabbi Yehuda says in a mishna: When [eimatai], he is clarifying, rather than disagreeing with, the opinion of the previous tanna.

Rather, when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael he said: Rabbi Meir stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, his teacher. Rabbi Akiva holds that even harvesting for human consumption is not considered reaping with regard to the halakhot of pe’a, as we learned in a mishna (Pe’a 3:2): With regard to one who reaps alternate rows of his field, and he leaves in it moist stems that are not yet fully grown, Rabbi Akiva says: One must separate pe’a in each and every row, as each one is considered a separate field.

And the Rabbis say: One separates pe’a from one row for the whole field, as they are all considered a single field. And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Rabbi Akiva maintained that one is obligated to separate pe’a from each row only when he reaps alternate rows and the grain is unripe kernels used for making roasted grains. But when one reaps alternate rows and the grain is fully grown produce for his storehouse, there is no obligation to separate pe’a from each row, as all the rows are considered part of one field. Rav Dimi is suggesting that Rabbi Meir holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, and therefore the discrepancy between the mishna and the baraita can be resolved: The mishna is discussing unripe grains that have not yet grown one-third, similar to unripe kernels used for roasted grains, whereas the baraita is discussing fully grown, ripened grains.

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he reported that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Akiva deems one obligated in the separation of pe’a from each row even where he reaped fully grown fodder in alternative sections of his field for the purposes of storing in a storehouse. According to Ravin, Rabbi Akiva holds that reaping even fully grown fodder is not considered the start of the entire field’s reaping process, but only of the individual row. Therefore, one must separate pe’a from each row. This is inconsistent with Rabbi Meir’s opinion that the harvesting of fodder that has grown one-third is considered reaping.

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Menachot 71b examines Jericho's controversial agricultural customs and debates whether pre-omer harvesting had rabbinic approval, alongside pe'a field division rules.