Mishneh Torah — Gifts to the Poor הלכות מתנות עניים, Chapter 4

אֵיזֶהוּ לֶקֶט זֶה הַנּוֹפֵל מִתּוֹךְ הַמַּגָּל בִּשְׁעַת קְצִירָה אוֹ הַנּוֹפֵל מִתּוֹךְ יָדוֹ כְּשֶׁמְּקַבֵּץ הַשִּׁבֳּלִים וְיִקְצֹר. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַנּוֹפֵל שִׁבּלֶת אַחַת אוֹ שְׁתַּיִם. אֲבָל אִם נָפְלוּ שָׁלֹשׁ כְּאֶחָד הֲרֵי שְׁלָשְׁתָּן לְבַעַל הַשָּׂדֶה. וְהַנּוֹפֵל מֵאַחַר הַמַּגָּל אוֹ מֵאַחַר הַיָּד אֲפִלּוּ שִׁבּלֶת אַחַת אֵינָהּ לֶקֶט:

What is meant by leket? Produce that fall from the sickle when one is reaping or falls from his hand when he gathers the stalks [of grain] 4:10), the Rambam summarizes the principle as follows: "[Crops] encompassed by the hand or by the sickle that fall are leket." and harvests. [The above applies] provided only one or two stalks fell. If, however, three fell at the same time, the three belong to the owner of the field. If grain fell from behind the sickle or behind one's hand, it is not leket even if only one stalk fell.

הָיָה קוֹצֵר בַּיָּד בְּלֹא מַגָּל הַנּוֹפֵל מִתּוֹךְ יָדוֹ אֵינוֹ לֶקֶט. אֲבָל הַתּוֹלֵשׁ דְּבָרִים הַתּוֹלְשִׁים אוֹתָם הַנּוֹפֵל מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ לֶקֶט. הָיָה קוֹצֵר אוֹ תּוֹלֵשׁ דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהִתָּלֵשׁ וְאַחַר שֶׁקָּצַר מְלֹא זְרוֹעוֹ אוֹ תָּלַשׁ מְלֹא קֻמְצוֹ הִכָּהוּ קוֹץ וְנָפַל מִיָּדוֹ עַל הָאָרֶץ הֲרֵי זֶה שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת:

When he was harvesting by hand without a sickle, the stalks that fall from his hand are not leket. 4:5) derives this from exegesis of the phrase (Leviticus 23:22 : "You shall not gather the gleanings of your harvest." "Your harvest" implies crops cut with a sickle. When, however, one pulls out crops that are usually pulled out by hand, those which fall from his hand are leket. apply when produce falls from one's hands. If he was harvesting [with a sickle] or pulling out crops that are usually pulled out and after he harvested an armful [of produce] or after he pulled out a handful, [the produce] fell from his hand because he was struck by a thorn, [the produce] belongs to the owner.

הָיָה קוֹצֵר וְנִשְׁאֲרָה שִׁבּלֶת אַחַת שֶׁלֹּא נִקְצְרָה וְנִקְצַר כָּל שֶׁסְּבִיבוֹתֶיהָ. אִם הָיָה רֹאשָׁהּ מַגִּיעַ לַקָּמָה שֶׁבְּצִדָּהּ וִיכוֹלָה לְהִקָּצֵר עִם הַקָּמָה הֲרֵי הִיא שֶׁל בַּעַל הַשָּׂדֶה וְאִם לָאו הֲרֵי הִיא שֶׁל עֲנִיִּים:

[The following laws apply if a person] was harvesting and left a stalk of grain standing without harvesting it, although he harvested all the grain around it. If its tip could reach the standing grain at its side and it could be harvested with that grain, it belongs to the owner of the field. derives this law from the exegesis of the phrase (Deuteronomy 24:19 : "Do not return to take it." As long as the stalk of grain can be harvested together with the standing grain, one is not "going back" to harvest it. A question, however, arises: Why does the Rambam (and his source, Pe'ah 5:2) mention this law in the context of the laws of leket and not together with those governing shichichah (the subject of the verse cited)? This question is resolved in Halachah 4. If not, it belongs to the poor.

הָיוּ שְׁתֵּי שִׁבּוֹלוֹת זוֹ בְּצַד זוֹ. הַפְּנִימִית יְכוֹלָה לְהִקָּצֵר עִם הַקָּמָה וְהַחִיצוֹנָה יְכוֹלָה לְהִקָּצֵר עִם הַפְּנִימִית וְאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לְהִקָּצֵר עִם הַקָּמָה. הַפְּנִימִית נִצֶּלֶת וּמַצֶּלֶת אֶת הַחִיצוֹנָה שֶׁהֲרֵי הִיא כְּנוֹפֶלֶת מִתּוֹךְ הַמַּגָּל וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא נִקְצְרָה. וְהַשִּׁבֳּלִים שֶׁבִּקֵּשׁ הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁל בַּעַל הַשָּׂדֶה:

[The following laws apply if] there were two stalks next to each other, the inner stalk could be harvested with [the remainder of] the standing grain and the outer could be harvested together with the inner stalk, but not with the standing grain. The inner stalk is retrieved and it retrieves the outer stalk. For it is considered as falling from the sickle, even though it was not harvested yet. (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).Stalks that are among the straw belong to the owner of the field. do not apply to grain that was not harvested.

הָרוּחַ שֶׁפִּזְּרָה אֶת הָעֳמָרִים וְנִתְעָרֵב קָצִיר שֶׁל בַּעַל הַשָּׂדֶה עִם הַלֶּקֶט אוֹמְדִין אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה כַּמָּה לֶקֶט הִיא רְאוּיָה לַעֲשׂוֹת וְנוֹתֵן לָעֲנִיִּים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁזֶּה אֹנֶס. וְכַמָּה הוּא שִׁעוּר זֶה אַרְבָּעָה קַבִּין תְּבוּאָה לְכָל בֵּית כּוֹר:

[The following laws apply when] the wind scattered sheaves [of grain] and the harvest belonging to the owner becomes mixed with the leket. We estimate how much leket the field would produce and that amount is given to the poor. [A greater amount is not required]. because this comes about due to forces beyond one's control. How much is this measure? Four kabbin for an area in which a kor of wheat would grow. 3:31 states that according to the Rambam, a kav is equivalent to 1626 grams.

לֶקֶט שֶׁנָּפַל לָאָרֶץ וְלֹא לְקָטוּהוּ עֲנִיִּים וּבָא בַּעַל הַשָּׂדֶה וְהִגְדִּישׁ אֶת הַקָּצִיר שֶׁלּוֹ עַל הָאָרֶץ כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה. מְפַנֶּה הַגָּדִישׁ שֶׁלּוֹ כֻּלּוֹ לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר וְכָל הַשִּׁבֳּלִים הַנּוֹגְעוֹת בָּאָרֶץ כֻּלָּן לָעֲנִיִּים. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִים אֵי זוֹ הִיא מֵהֶם שֶׁהָיְתָה לֶקֶט וּסְפֵק מַתְּנוֹת עֲנִיִּים לָעֲנִיִּים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כג כב) "תַּעֲזֹב" הַנַּח לִפְנֵיהֶם מִשֶּׁלְּךָ:

What should the owner of a field do if leket fell to the ground, it was not collected by the poor and he made a grainheap of his harvest on this earth?. He should move his grain pile to another place, [but] all the stalks that are touching the ground belong to the poor. [The rationale is that] we do not know which of them was leket and whenever there is a doubt concerning [whether produce] is from the presents for the poor, [it is given] to the poor. [This is implied by the term (Leviticus 23:22 :] "Leave," i.e., leave from your produce for them.

וְלָמָּה אֵין אוֹמְדִין אוֹתָהּ וְלִתֵּן לָעֲנִיִּים מַה שֶּׁרְאוּיָה לַעֲשׂוֹת לֶקֶט. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעָבַר וְהִגְדִּישׁ עַל הַלֶּקֶט קְנָסוּהוּ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה שׁוֹגֵג וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הַלֶּקֶט שְׂעוֹרִים וְהִגְדִּישׁ עָלָיו חִטִּין. וַאֲפִלּוּ קָרָא לָעֲנִיִּים וְלֹא בָּאוּ אֲפִלּוּ הִגְדִּישׁוּהוּ אֲחֵרִים שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ כָּל הַנּוֹגְעוֹת בָּאָרֶץ הֲרֵי הֵן לָעֲנִיִּים:

Why don't we make an estimation and give the poor [the amount that would be left as leket? Because [the owner] transgressed and made his grainheap on leket, he was penalized, even if he did so inadvertently. Even if the leket was barley and he made a grainheap of wheat upon it, and which is ordinary produce. even if he called for the poor [to collect the leket] and they did not come, and even if others made the grainheap without his knowledge, all of the produce touching the ground belongs to the poor.

הַצָּרִיךְ לְרַבֵּץ אֶת שָׂדֵהוּ קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּלְקְטוּ הָעֲנִיִּים לֶקֶט שֶׁבָּהּ אִם הֶזֵּקוֹ מְרֻבֶּה עַל הֶפְסֵד הַלֶּקֶט מֻתָּר לְרַבֵּץ. וְאִם הֶפְסֵד הַלֶּקֶט מְרֻבֶּה עַל הֶפְסֵדוֹ אָסוּר לְרַבֵּץ. וְאִם קִבֵּץ אֶת כָּל הַלֶּקֶט וְהִנִּיחוֹ עַל הַגָּדֵר עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא הֶעָנִי וְיִטְּלֶנּוּ הֲרֵי זֶה מִדַּת חֲסִידוּת:

[The following laws apply when a person] must fertilize his field before the poor collect the leket in it. If his loss will be greater than the loss to the poor, he is permitted to fertilize it. If the loss to the poor will be greater than his loss, it is forbidden for him to fertilize. If he collects all the leket and places it on the fence until a poor person comes and collects it, that is an expression of the quality of piety.

זְרָעִים הַנִּמְצָאִים בְּחוֹרֵי הַנְּמָלִים. אִם הָיוּ הַחוֹרִים בְּתוֹךְ הַקָּמָה הֲרֵי הוּא שֶׁל בַּעַל הַשָּׂדֶה. שֶׁאֵין לָעֲנִיִּים מַתָּנָה בְּתוֹךְ הַקָּמָה. וְאִם הָיוּ בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁנִּקְצַר הֲרֵי זֶה שֶׁל עֲנִיִּים שֶׁמָּא מִן הַלֶּקֶט גְּרָרוּהוּ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּמְצָא שָׁחוֹר אֵין אוֹמְרִים הֲרֵי זֶה מִשָּׁנָה שֶׁעָבְרָה שֶׁסְּפֵק הַלֶּקֶט לֶקֶט:

When kernels of grain are found in ant holes, if the holes were located in the midst of the standing grain, [the kernels] belong to the owner of the field, for the poor people do not have a right to anything in the standing grain. If they were located in the place which was harvested, 4:11), the Rambam speaks of the grain "behind the reapers." they belong to the poor, because perhaps they were taken from the leket. Even if the kernel [in the hole] is black, we do not say that it was from the previous year, because whenever there is a doubt concerning [whether produce] is leket, we consider it as leket.

שִׁבּלֶת שֶׁל לֶקֶט שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בְּגָדִישׁ הֲרֵי זֶה מַפְרִישׁ שְׁתֵּי שִׁבּוֹלוֹת וְאוֹמֵר עַל אַחַת מֵהֶן אִם הַלֶּקֶט הִיא זוֹ הֲרֵי הִיא לָעֲנִיִּים וְאִם אֵינָהּ לֶקֶט הֲרֵי הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת (שֶׁהִיא) שֶׁחַיֶּבֶת בָּהֶן שִׁבּלֶת זוֹ קְבוּעִים בְּשִׁבּלֶת שְׁנִיָּה. וְחוֹזֵר וּמַתְנֶה כֵּן עַל שִׁבּלֶת שְׁנִיָּה וְנוֹתֵן אַחַת מֵהֶן לֶעָנִי וְהָאַחֶרֶת תִּהְיֶה מַעֲשֵׂר:

When a stalk of leket becomes intermingled with the grain heap, the owner must separate two stalks. On the first, he says: "If this is leket, it belongs to the poor. If it is not leket, may the tithes for which I am obligated from this stalk. The stipulation is necessary because tithes must be separated while the produce is still in one's possession, before the stalk is given to the poor. be fixed on the other stalk." 5:2), that one of the stalks will be designated for the tithes, then since the identity of that stalk is not known and one of the stalks will be given to the poor, it is possible that the poor will be given the stalk that contains the tithes. Furthermore, leket cannot be used for tithes.Therefore, the commentaries (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh, et al) suggest that we are speaking about a third stalk which would also be used for the tithes of the entire field. The stipulations are made separately on the two stalks and then one is given to the poor and the other to the owner. And the third stalk is used for the tithes of the field. He then goes back and makes this same stipulation on the second stalk. He then gives one of the stalks to the poor and the other one will be [part of] the tithes.

לֹא יִשְׂכֹּר אָדָם אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל עַל מְנָת שֶׁיְּלַקֵּט בְּנוֹ אַחֲרָיו. אֲבָל הָאֲרִיסִין וְהַחֲכִירִין וְהַמּוֹכֵר קָמָתוֹ לַחֲבֵרוֹ לִקְצֹר יְלַקֵּט בְּנוֹ אַחֲרָיו. וְיֵשׁ לַפּוֹעֵל לְהָבִיא אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו לְלַקֵּט אַחֲרָיו. וַאֲפִלּוּ שְׂכָרוֹ לִטּל חֲצִי הַקָּצִיר אוֹ שָׁלִישׁוֹ אוֹ רְבִיעוֹ בִּשְׂכָרוֹ:

A person should not hire a worker. with the intent that his son collect the leket after him. his son would collect. This is, however, considered as stealing from the poor, because the worker is likely to hire himself out for a lower wage in return for this consideration. As indicated by the continuation of the halachah, there is no difficulty with the worker's family collecting the leket. Since he - and/or they - are poor, they have that privilege. The difficulty is with stipulating it in his contract. Sharecroppers, tenant farmers, and a person who purchased standing grain from a colleague to harvest, by contrast, may have their sons collect after them. from the field, for they will not reduce their share for the license to have their son collect the leket. The other poor do not feel that the share-cropper is infringing upon their rights, because they expect that - were they to have the opportunity - their sons would be given the same privilege. A worker may bring his wife and his children to collect leket after him. [This applies] even if he hired him with the intent that he receive half of the harvest, one third, or one fourth as his wage. differentiates between this instance and that of the share-cropper mentioned in the previous clause, noting that here the worker's wife is mentioned and there she is not. He states that the wife of the sharecropper or the like is not entitled to collect the leket. Since he owns the produce, he is not entitled to collect a share. And since he is not entitled to collect a share, his wife may not do so either. His son may, however, because he is an independent person. The rationale is that the share-cropper is the owner of the harvest and he pays a share to the owner of the land. In this instance, by contrast, the harvest belongs to the owner and he pays a share to the worker. Hence, the worker is poor and his wife has the right to collect the leket.

מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַנִּיחַ אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים לְלַקֵּט אוֹ שֶׁהוּא מַנִּיחַ אֶחָד וּמוֹנֵעַ אֶחָד אוֹ שֶׁמְּסַיֵּעַ אֶת אֶחָד מֵהֶן עַל חֲבֵרוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹזֵל אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים:

A person who does not allow the poor to collect the leket, allows one but does not allow another, or helps one of them, [giving him an advantage] over his colleagues is considered as stealing from the poor. and other agricultural obligations, the owner has no right to control who will be the recipient of leket.

וְאָסוּר לְאָדָם לְהַרְבִּיץ אֲרִי וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ בְּתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּרְאוּ הָעֲנִיִּים וְיִבְרְחוּ. הָיוּ שָׁם עֲנִיִּים שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לִטּל לֶקֶט אִם יָכוֹל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת לִמְחוֹת בְּיָדָן מְמַחֶה וְאִם לָאו מְנִיחָן מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם:

It is forbidden for a person to have a lion or the like rest in his field so that the poor will fear and flee.. When there are those among the poor who are not entitled to collect leket, if the owner can rebuke them, he should. If not, he should allow them [to collect it as an expression of] the ways of peace.

הַמַּפְקִיר אֶת הַלֶּקֶט עִם נְפִילַת רֻבּוֹ אֵינוֹ הֶפְקֵר מֵאַחֵר שֶׁנָּשַׁר רֻבּוֹ אֵין לוֹ בּוֹ רְשׁוּת:

If a person [desires to] declare [produce falling] as leket ownerless, if the majority has already fallen, it is not ownerless. [The rationale is that] once the majority has left his hand, he no longer has authority over it. 25a).

אֵי זֶהוּ פֶּרֶט זֶה גַּרְגֵּר אֶחָד אוֹ שְׁנֵי גַּרְגְּרִים הַנִּפְרָטִים מִן הָאֶשְׁכּוֹל בִּשְׁעַת הַבְּצִירָה. נָפְלוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה גַּרְגְּרִים בְּבַת אַחַת אֵינוֹ פֶּרֶט:

What is meant by peret? One grape or two grapes that separate from the cluster in the midst of the harvest. If three grapes fall at the same time, they are not peret.

הָיָה בּוֹצֵר וְכָרַת אֶת הָאֶשְׁכּוֹל וְהֻסְבַּךְ בְּעָלָיו וְנָפַל לָאָרֶץ וְנִפְרַט אֵינוֹ פֶּרֶט. הָיָה בּוֹצֵר וּמַשְׁלִיךְ לָאָרֶץ כְּשֶׁמְּפַנֶּה הָאֶשְׁכּוֹלוֹת אֲפִלּוּ חֲצִי אֶשְׁכּוֹל הַנִּמְצָא שָׁם הֲרֵי הוּא פֶּרֶט (וְכֵן אֶשְׁכּוֹל שָׁלֵם שֶׁנִּפְרַט שָׁם הֲרֵי הוּא פֶּרֶט). וְהַמַּנִּיחַ אֶת הַכַּלְכָּלָה תַּחַת הַגֶּפֶן בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא בּוֹצֵר הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹזֵל אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים:

When a person was reaping [his grape harvest] and cut off a cluster, [that cluster] became entangled with its leaves and it fell to the ground and became divided into individual grapes, it is not peret. If, however, [the reaper] was harvesting and throwing the clusters to the earth, [more stringent rules apply]. Even if half the cluster is discovered [broken into individual grapes], it is peret. Similarly, [even] if an entire cluster was broken up into individual grapes, they are peret. has fallen must give all the stalks touching the ground to the poor. In this instance as well, since his grapes become mixed with those which fell as peret, we penalize him preventing him from taking any of the individual grapes.The Jerusalem Talmud (Pe'ah 6:4) mentions two opinions: one which states that this stringency applies only to half a cluster and one that it applies even to the entire cluster. The Rambam follows the latter view. When a person places a basket below the vine at the time he is harvesting, he is stealing from the poor.

אֵי זוֹ הִיא עוֹלֶלֶת זֶה אֶשְׁכּוֹל הַקָּטָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְעֻבֶּה כְּאֶשְׁכּוֹל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ כָּתֵף. וְאֵין עֲנָבָיו נוֹטְפוֹת זוֹ עַל זוֹ אֶלָּא מְפֻזָּרוֹת. יֵשׁ לָהּ כָּתֵף וְאֵין לָהּ נֶטֶף אוֹ יֵשׁ לָהּ נֶטֶף וְאֵין לָהּ כָּתֵף הֲרֵי הִיא שֶׁל בַּעַל הַכֶּרֶם. וְאִם סָפֵק לָעֲנִיִּים:

What is an olelet?. This is a small cluster which is not thick like ordinary clusters and does not have a kataf, nor are its grapes notfot one on top of the other, but rather scattered. If it has a kataf, but not a nataf or a nataf, but not a kataf, it belongs to the owner of the vineyard. If there is a doubt, it should be given to the poor.

אֵי זוֹ הִיא כָּתֵף פְּסִיגִין הַמְחֻבָּרוֹת בְּשִׁדְרָה זוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי זוֹ. נֶטֶף עֲנָבִים הַמְחֻבָּרוֹת בְּשִׁדְרָה וְיוֹרְדוֹת. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיוּ כָּל הָעֲנָבִים שֶׁבָּעוֹלֵלוֹת נוֹגְעִין בְּפַס יָדוֹ. וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ עוֹלָל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא לִשְׁאָר הָאֶשְׁכּוֹלוֹת כְּעוֹלָל לְאִישׁ:

What is kataf? Small clusters connected to the central stem [of the larger cluster], one on top of the other. [What is] nataf? Grapes connected to the center stem and hanging down. [The above applies] provided all of the individual grapes in the ollelot can touch the palm of his hand. 7:4). The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh support the Rambam's interpretation.Why is such [an underdeveloped cluster] called an ollel? Because it is comparable to a developed cluster in the same way an infant is comparable to an adult.

וְאֵין בַּעַל הַבַּיִת חַיָּב לִבְצֹר הָעוֹלֵלוֹת וְלִתְּנָן לָעֲנִיִּים. אֶלָּא הֵן בּוֹצְרִין אוֹתָן לְעַצְמָן וְגַרְגֵּר יְחִידִי הֲרֵי הִיא עוֹלֶלֶת:

The owner of the vineyard is not obligated to harvest the underdeveloped clusters and give them to the poor. (Chapter 2, Halachah 15). Here too, the command for the mitzvah uses the term "leave," implying that the mitzvah is not to give the underdeveloped clusters to the poor, but to allow them to collect them.The Radbaz writes that if a vine is elevated to a high trestle and it would be dangerous for the poor to climb up and collect the underdeveloped clusters, the owner should harvest them for the poor. Note the parallel in Chapter 2, Halachah 16. Instead, [he should leave them for the poor] to harvest themselves. An individual grape is considered as an ollelet.

זְמוֹרָה שֶׁהָיָה בָּהּ אֶשְׁכּוֹל וּבָאַרְכֻּבָּה שֶׁל זְמוֹרָה עוֹלֶלֶת אִם נִקְרְצָה עִם הָאֶשְׁכּוֹל הֲרֵי הִיא שֶׁל בַּעַל הַכֶּרֶם וְאִם לָאו הֲרֵי הִיא לָעֲנִיִּים:

[The following laws apply when] there was a cluster on a branch of a vine and an underdeveloped cluster on an offshoot of the branch. If [the offshoot] can be harvested with the cluster, it belongs to the owner of the vineyard.. If not, it belongs to the poor.

כֶּרֶם שֶׁכֻּלּוֹ עוֹלֵלוֹת הֲרֵי הוּא לָעֲנִיִּים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט י) "וְכַרְמְךָ לֹא תְעוֹלֵל" אֲפִלּוּ כֻּלּוֹ עוֹלֵלוֹת. וְאֵין הַפֶּרֶט וְהָעוֹלֵלוֹת נוֹהֲגִין אֶלָּא בְּכֶרֶם בִּלְבַד:

When a vineyard is comprised entirely of underdeveloped clusters, it belongs to the poor. [This is derived from Leviticus 19:10:] "Do not collect underdeveloped clusters in your vineyard," i.e., even if it comprises the entire vineyard. [The laws of] peret and ollelot apply only in a vineyard.

אֵין הָעֲנִיִּים זוֹכִין לִקַּח פֶּרֶט וְעוֹלֵלוֹת עַד שֶׁיַּתְחִיל בַּעַל הַכֶּרֶם לִבְצֹר כַּרְמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד כא) "וְכִי תִבְצֹר כַּרְמְךָ לֹא תְעוֹלֵל". וְכַמָּה יִבְצֹר וְיִהְיוּ זוֹכִין בָּהֶן שְׁלֹשָׁה אֶשְׁכּוֹלוֹת שֶׁהֵן עוֹשִׂין רְבִיעַ:

The poor do not have the right to take peret and ollelot until the owner of the vineyard begins harvesting his vineyard, as [Deuteronomy 24:21] states: "When you harvest your vineyard, do not collect underdeveloped clusters." How much must [the owner] harvest for [the poor] to receive this right? Three clusters that will produce a revi'it [of wine].

הַמַּקְדִּישׁ כַּרְמוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נוֹדְעוּ הָעוֹלֵלוֹת אֵין הָעוֹלֵלוֹת לָעֲנִיִּים. וְאִם מִשֶּׁנּוֹדְעוּ הָעוֹלֵלוֹת הָעוֹלֵלוֹת לָעֲנִיִּים וְיִתְּנוּ שְׂכַר גִּדּוּלָם לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ:

When a person consecrates his vineyard before he becomes aware of the underdeveloped clusters, the underdeveloped clusters do not belong to the poor. If he has become aware of the underdeveloped clusters, the underdeveloped clusters belong to the poor. 7:8, based on the Jerusalem Talmud and Arachin 28a).Tosafot Yom Tov asks: Since, as stated in the previous halachah, the poor are not entitled to the produce until the owner begins his harvest, seemingly, it remains the property of the owner and he has the right to consecrate it. He explains that although the poor do not have the right to collect it until the harvest begins, these clusters belong to them and not the owner and he does not have the right to consecrate them. They must pay a fee for their [increase in value] while they grew). to the Temple treasury.

הַזּוֹמֵר אֶת הַגֶּפֶן אַחַר שֶׁנּוֹדְעוּ הָעוֹלֵלוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה זוֹמֵר כְּדַרְכּוֹ וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁכּוֹרֵת הָאֶשְׁכּוֹלוֹת כָּךְ כּוֹרֵת הָעוֹלֵלוֹת:

When one prunes a vine after he became aware of ollelot, he may prune according to his ordinary pattern. Just as he cuts off [fully-formed] clusters, he cuts off underdeveloped clusters. 7:5.

נָכְרִי שֶׁמָּכַר כַּרְמוֹ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לִבְצֹר חַיָּב בְּעוֹלֵלוֹת. יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנָכְרִי שֶׁהָיוּ שֻׁתָּפִים בְּכֶרֶם חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל חַיָּב וְשֶׁל נָכְרִי פָּטוּר:

When a gentile sells his vineyard to a Jew to harvest, the Jew is obligated to leave the underdeveloped clusters. takes effect only at the time of the harvest and the person performing the harvest is Jewish.The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh note that the Rambam's source, the Tosefta (Pe'ah, the conclusion of ch. 3) also states the converse: that if a Jew sells his field to a gentile, the obligation to leave ollelot no longer applies and they question why the Rambam's omits this point. When a Jew and a gentile are partners in a vineyard, there is an obligation [to leave] ollelot in the portion belonging to the Jew. That belonging to the gentile is exempt.

בֶּן לֵוִי שֶׁנָּתְנוּ לוֹ מַעֲשֵׂר טֶבֶל וּמָצָא בּוֹ עוֹלֵלוֹת נוֹתְנָן לְעָנִי. וְאִם נִקְרֶצֶת עִם הָאֶשְׁכּוֹל יֵשׁ לוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר עַל מָקוֹם אַחֵר:

When the tithes [of a vineyard] were given to a Levite while they were still tevel, has not been separated. and ollelot were found in them, he should give them to a poor person. If they can be harvested with the cluster, he may use them as terumat ma'aser for other crops. explain the Rambam's position.

מִי שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ חָמֵשׁ גְּפָנִים וּבְצָרָם לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ. אִם לֶאֱכל עֲנָבִים פָּטוּר מִן הַפֶּרֶט וּמִן הַשִּׁכְחָה וּמִן הָרְבָעִי וְחַיָּב בְּעוֹלֵלוֹת. וְאִם בְּצָרָן לַעֲשׂוֹת יַיִן חַיָּב בַּכּל אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן שִׁיֵּר מִקְצָתָן:

[The following laws apply when a person] has five vines, harvests them, and [brings the grapes] into his home. If his intent is to eat them while they are grapes, he is not obligated [to leave] peret, shichichah,. The Kessef Mishneh states that, as indicated by Chapter 2, Halachah 67, the Rambam would also accept this ruling. and [neta] revai'i, refers to the produce of the fourth year of a tree's growth which must be brought to Jerusalem and eaten in a state of ritual purity or exchanged for money that is brought to Jerusalem and used to purchase food that must be eaten in a state of ritual purity (see Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni, chs. 9-10).The owner is not considered as having harvested the grapes, but rather as having picked them for immediate use, e.g., as a snack. Hence he is freed from these obligations. Rambam LeAm accepts this explanation with regard to peret and shichichah, but not neta revai'i. With regard to the first two, the obligations are dependent on harvesting and he is not considered to have harvested his grapes, but neta revai'i is not connected with harvesting, but rather is an obligation incumbent on the crops themselves. but is obligated [to leave] the ollelot [for the poor]. belong to the poor and are not dependent on whether one harvests the grapes to use as wine or as fruit. If he reaped them to make wine, he is obligated in all of the above unless he left a portion [unharvested]. for the entire crop be separated from the produce that remains and to leave peret and shichichah. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain the Rambam's position.