(Baraisa from R. Meir): All trees are considered dangerous (for the poor to climb).

Question: Is it only Rabbanan but not R. Meir who expound (as above daf 34-1(e-f) 'harvest' - that for most produce, Peah is given while it is attached, except for vines on a lattice and date palms?

Answer: All expound 'harvest', but R. Meir said that all trees are dangerous and Rabbanan said that only vines on a lattice and date palms are dangerous.

(R. Chananya citing Reish Lakish): (The reasoning of R. Shimon in the Mishnah (daf 34-1(b)) that the owner must bring down even the fruits of a smooth nut tree is that) it once happened that five brothers all died when each was climbing a smooth nut tree.

Whether or not a landowner first declared Peah, if he then harvested the entire field, he has transgressed the pasuk that states (Vayikra 23:22), "you shall not completely remove the corner of your field during your harvesting".

Even in the case of the vine on a lattice or the date palm, if the poor agreed to take it for themselves directly from the tree, we listen to them. But if the owner brought down the fruits and the poor then agreed to take it for themselves rather than have it distributed by the owner, we do not listen to them, as we are concerned that he might see a poor man that he knows and throw it towards him to help him. (Note: These last two entries follow the explanation of Rav Chaim Kanievski. See Rash for an alternative explanation.)

Question (R. Shmuel b' R. Avduma): If he (wrongly) harvested the entire field, does the obligation of Peah now fall on the sheaves? (R. Shmuel asked a question for which the answer is already known to us.)

Question #2: Although the obligation now falls on the sheaves, do we say that the poor should come and take it themselves (as we say for the standing crops) or should it be distributed to them by the owner, as we are concerned that he might see a poor man that he knows and throw it towards him for him to take for himself?