Pe'ah Chapter 3, Mishnah 1. This mishnah continues with the idea we discussed in the previous chapter: whether certain areas within a single field are considered separate fields or not.
"Malbenos hatevu'ah sheibein hazeisim":
The mishnah opens with the law of the malbenos. The word comes from 'malben' (a rectangle), because of the shape of the area: rectangular plots of grain planted between olive trees. In other words, two rectangular plots of grain with olive trees growing between them. It is worth noting that this is not specific to olive trees, and the same law applies to other kinds of trees.
The dispute between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel:
Beis Shammai say: "Pe'ah mikol echad ve'echad" - one must take pe'ah from each rectangular plot separately, since they are considered separate fields with regard to pe'ah.
Beis Hillel say: "Me'echad al hakol" - one takes pe'ah from a single plot for the entire field, covering all of its plots.
"Umodim": Even though Beis Shammai hold that the plots are considered separate fields, they agree with Beis Hillel "she'im hayu roshei shuros me'uravin" - that if the ends of the rows are intermingled with one another, either before the trees or after them, so that the plots are joined to each other at a certain point - "shenosnin pe'ah me'echad al hakol", since they are connected to one another.
The limitation of the dispute in the Jerusalem Talmud:
The Jerusalem Talmud stresses that the dispute between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel applies specifically when there are ten olive trees in an area of fifty by fifty amos, which is the area of a beis se'ah. But with other densities, the law changes:
Fewer than ten per beis se'ah: When the trees are few and scattered, even Beis Hillel agrees that each plot is considered a separate field. The small number of trees makes it clear that the separation of the grain plots has nothing to do with the trees; rather, the owner wanted from the outset that these should be separate grain fields.
Ten per beis se'ah: Here Beis Hillel say that the density shows that the separation between the plots resulted only from the trees in the middle; otherwise he would have planted the whole area as one, and indeed his intention was for a single field. Therefore the whole area is considered one field.
More than ten per beis se'ah: With a density greater than this, even Beis Shammai agree with Beis Hillel, since it shows that his intention was for a single field, and only the trees in the middle got in the way.
It emerges that everything depends on the question of whether the separation of the plots came about because of the trees in the middle, or whether the owner intended separate fields from the outset.