QUESTIONS: The Gemara (11b) attempts to prove from the Mishnah in Pe'ah (4:9) that the Tana'im argue about whether one may acquire an item on behalf of someone else when other people will lose out as a result ("ha'Tofes l'Ba'al Chov b'Makom she'Chav l'Acherim"). The Mishnah describes a case in which a person gathers Pe'ah and declares that he is gathering it on behalf of a specific poor person. Rebbi Eliezer maintains that one may acquire the Pe'ah on behalf of the poor person, while the Rabanan rule that he may not acquire the Pe'ah for a specific person but instead must give it to the first poor person he finds. The Gemara rejects this proof and says that even the Rabanan may rule that a person normally is able to acquire an object on behalf of someone else "b'Makom she'Chav l'Acherim," but the case of Pe'ah is different. In the case of Pe'ah, a specific verse in the Torah prohibits one from gathering Pe'ah for a specific poor person ("Lo Selaket l'Ani"; Vayikra 23:22). Similarly, perhaps Rebbi Eliezer maintains that normally a person cannot acquire something on behalf of someone else "b'Makom she'Chav l'Acherim," but in the case of Pe'ah he can, since he can be Mafkir all of his own possessions and make himself a poor person who is then entitled to take the Pe'ah for himself. Since he could take it for himself, he may be acquire it on behalf of someone else. Only when he is unable to take the object for himself may he not acquire it on behalf of someone else.

The Gemara adds that Rebbi Eliezer does not derive from the verse, "Lo Selaket l'Ani," that a person cannot be Zocheh the Pe'ah for a specific poor person, but rather he learns that a poor person may not keep the Pe'ah that comes from his own field.

RASHI explains that in the case of the Mishnah in Pe'ah, the person who gathered Pe'ah on behalf of a specific poor person was a wealthy field-owner. The wealthy field-owner gathered the Pe'ah of his own field on behalf of a specific poor person.

(a) Why does Rashi explain that the person who gathered the Pe'ah for the poor person was both wealthy and the owner of the field?

Rashi's intention is to explain why the person could not take the Pe'ah for himself. Since he is the owner and he is wealthy, he is not entitled to take Pe'ah for himself. Why, though, does Rashi need to say that he is both the owner and that he is wealthy? Even if the person who owns the field is poor, he still is not entitled to acquire the Pe'ah on behalf of another poor person! Conversely, if the person is wealthy, even if he is not the owner of the field, he is not entitled to take the Pe'ah for himself! How does Rashi know that the Mishnah refers to someone who is both the field-owner and wealthy?

(b) Rashi himself in Bava Metzia (9b) emphatically rejects the possibility that the person who gathered the Pe'ah on behalf of a poor person is the owner of the field. Rashi there writes that if the person who gathered the Pe'ah for the poor person is the owner of the field, Rebbi Eliezer would not have permitted him to acquire it on behalf of the poor person, according to the Gemara's conclusion. The Gemara concludes that the reason why Rebbi Eliezer permits the wealthy man to acquire the Pe'ah on behalf of a specific poor person is that the wealthy man is able to be Mafkir all of his possessions and then take the Pe'ah for himself. The owner of a field, however, can never take Pe'ah from his own field, because Rebbi Eliezer agrees that "Lo Selaket l'Ani" teaches that a poor person cannot take Pe'ah from his own field! How does Rashi here answer this question?

(a) The reason why Rashi needs to explain that the person who gathers the Pe'ah on behalf of a poor person is wealthy is that the Gemara here says that when he is Mafkir his property "he will become a poor person and be able to take Pe'ah," which implies that the reason why he was unable to take Pe'ah for himself until now is that he was wealthy.

The reason why Rashi says that he is the owner of the field might be the fact that the Mishnah does not explain why the person cannot take the Pe'ah for himself. (It does not mention "a wealthy person who collects Pe'ah" on behalf of a poor person, but merely "one who collects Pe'ah" on behalf of a poor person). This implies that the reason why he may not collect the Pe'ah for himself is not that he is wealthy, but that he owns the field (regardless of the amount of money he has).

(b) The ROSH (on the Mishnah in Pe'ah) explains that although the owner of a field may not gather Pe'ah for himself from his own field, if he is Mafkir the field he becomes permitted to take Pe'ah from it, just as he is permitted to take Pe'ah from any other field. Accordingly, the owner of the field may acquire the Pe'ah on behalf of a specific poor person since he is able to be Mafkir his field and take the Pe'ah for himself.

Rashi in Bava Metzia rejects this approach, perhaps because he considers it unfeasible to suggest that making one's field Hefker can permit a person to take the Pe'ah that was separated before he made his field Hefker. The verse prohibits the person who owned the field at the time Pe'ah was designated from ever taking the Pe'ah that he designated himself.

Rashi here seems to take a different approach than that of the Rosh. Rashi (DH l'Hazhir) explains that according to Rebbi Eliezer, the verse does not teach that a poor person may not take Pe'ah from his own field, but rather it teaches that a poor person may not exempt himself from separating Pe'ah from his own field. Once he separates Pe'ah, however, the verse does not prohibit him from collecting that Pe'ah. Even if he is not Mafkir his field, perhaps the poor owner of the field is permitted to take the Pe'ah which he separated from his own field.

Rashi in Bava Metzia (9b, DH Mi she'Liket), however, explains that the verse indeed teaches that a poor person may not gather Pe'ah for himself from his own field. That is why Rashi explains there that the owner of the field can never gather Pe'ah on behalf of a specific person (since he cannot collect his own Pe'ah even after he is Mafkir his own field).

(The RASH on the Mishnah in Pe'ah points out that the Yerushalmi implies that an owner of a field is permitted to gather the Pe'ah for a specific poor person.)

QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the argument between Rebbi Meir and the Rabanan in the Mishnah (11b) with regard to whether one who appointed a Shali'ach to bring a Get Shichrur to his Eved may retract the Shelichus. Rebbi Meir maintains that freedom is a Chov, a liability, for the Eved, and, therefore, just as a Shali'ach may not acquire a Get Ishah on behalf of a woman without her knowledge, one may not acquire a Get Shichrur on behalf of an Eved. The Rabanan counter that freedom is a Zechus, a benefit, for the Eved, because he does not necessarily receive Mezonos from his master even while he is an Eved. The Rabanan agree that the divorce of a woman is a Chov for her because "it prohibits her from Terumah (if she is married to a Kohen) and it causes her to lose her husband's financial support."

The Rabanan in the Beraisa here present two arguments to explain why it is a Chov for a woman to be divorced: not only does she lose Mezonos, but she loses Terumah as well. Similarly, Rebbi Meir's words in the Mishnah (11b) imply that one of the reasons why the Rabanan consider it a Chov for the woman to be divorced is that she thereby loses Terumah (see TOSFOS to 13a, DH u'Mah Ilu).

Why do the Rabanan note the fact that the wife loses Terumah when she is divorced? This reason applies only to the wife of a Kohen. The other reason (the fact that she loses financial support), in contrast, explains why the divorce of every woman is a Chov! What do the Rabanan intend to add when they say that her loss of Terumah gives the divorce the status of a Chov?

ANSWER: If the only reason why a divorce is considered a Chov to the woman is that she loses Mezonos, a divorce should not be a Chov for an Arusah for whom the husband does not provide Mezonos (see Kesuvos 57a). Since she does not receive Mezonos, an Arusah does not lose Mezonos as a result of divorce. The fact that after she becomes married (with Nisu'in) she is able to receive Mezonos does not make Erusin into a Zechus, as Rashi earlier writes (10a, DH u'Parchinan).

The Rabanan mention the Chov of losing Terumah in order to explain why a divorce is not a Zechus for a woman who is an Arusah. After all, the divorce permits her to become married to any person she wants, and it does not cause her to lose Mezonos. The Rabanan explain that if the husband is a Kohen, the Arusah's divorce indeed is a Chov because she loses the right to eat Terumah.

This answer, however, needs elucidation. Just as an Arusah does not receive Mezonos, an Arusah also is not permitted to eat the Terumah of her Arus, the Kohen! Even after twelve months have passed and her Arus has not yet married her (with Nisu'in) -- at which time he is obligated to give her Mezonos, she still may not eat Terumah (according to the Mishnah Acharonah, Kesuvos 57b)! The Gemara in Kesuvos (57b) points out, however, that there are two reasons why an Arusah is not permitted, mid'Rabanan, to eat Terumah. According to Ula, the Chachamim were concerned that she might feed the Terumah to her brothers and sisters (who are not Kohanim) since she is still living in her father's home. According to Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah, the Chachamim were concerned for "Simpon" (a "revocation" of the marriage) -- the husband might discover later that the woman has a blemish, and the Kidushin will be rendered a "Mekach Ta'us" (an acquisition in error). The betrothal will be annulled retroactively, and, consequently, the woman will have transgressed the Isur d'Oraisa of eating Terumah. The Gemara there explains that there is one situation in which an Arusah may eat Terumah: where the husband accepts upon himself that even if the woman has a blemish he wants the Kidushin to remain valid. In such a situation, the Arusah may eat Terumah since there no longer is any concern for "Simpon." If twelve months have passed and the husband has begun to give Mezonos to his Arusah, there is no concern that she might feed the Terumah to her family members, because after twelve months she eats in a separate place. Therefore, according to all opinions there is a situation in which an Arusah may eat Terumah. In such a situation it would be considered a Chov for the woman to receive a Get, because the Get would cause her to lose the Terumah.