Misva #221: The Prohibition Against Taking “Olelot” of a Vineyard for Oneself

The Biblical requirement of “Olelot” – to leave certain portions of one’s vineyard for the poor – includes two commands: an affirmative command to leave these portions unharvested (Misva 220), and a prohibition against harvesting them for oneself (Misva 221). As discussed in Misva 220, the Rambam understood this command as the parallel of the Misva of Pe’a, which requires leaving the corner of one’s field for the poor. In regard to vineyards, the Rambam explains, instead of an obligation of Pe’a, the farmer has the obligation to leave behind the Olelot. The Ramban, however, disagrees. In his view, the obligations of Pe’a and Olelot are two entirely separate Misvot. The Olelot, according to the Ramban, are small grapes with certain unique features, and they must be left for the poor in addition to, and not in place of, the corner of the vineyard. The Ramban notes that the Rambam himself appears to have changed his mind on this subject. In Hilchot Matenot Aniyim (1:7), the Rambam lists four different portions of a vineyard which must be left for the poor, and he names Pe’a and Olelot as two separate portions – clearly indicating that both Olelot and Pe’a must be given from a vineyard. As the obligation of Olelot entails both an affirmative command and a prohibition, one is not liable to Malkut if he harvests the Olelot and keeps them for himself. A famous rule establishes that one is not liable to Malkut for transgressing a “Lav Ha’nitak La’aseh” – a violation which can be rectified by fulfilling an associated affirmative command. As long as the Olelot are still extant, the violator can rectify his mistake by giving them to the poor, and so he is not liable to Malkut.