Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Gitin, 12

1) GATHERING PE'AH ON BEHALF OF A SPECIFIC POOR PERSON

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

The Gemara adds that Rebbi Eliezer does not learn from the verse, "Lo Selaket le'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.

When RASHI explains the Mishnah, he explains that the person who gathered Pe'ah on behalf of the poor person was a field-owner who was wealthy. 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 is both wealthy, and the owner of the field?

Rashi is trying to explain why the person could not take the Pe'ah for himself. Since he is the owner, and he is wealthy, he cannot take Pe'ah for himself. Why, though, does Rashi have to say that he is both the owner and that he is wealthy? Even if the person who owned the field was poor, he still could not be Zocheh the Pe'ah for another poor person! Conversely, if the person is wealthy, even if he was not the owner of the field, he could not take the Pe'ah for himself! How does Rashi know that the Mishnah is referring to someone who is both the field-owner and who is wealthy?

(b) Rashi himself (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 writes that if the person who gathered the Pe'ah for the poor person is the owner, then Rebbi Eliezer would *not* have permitted him to be Zocheh for the poor person, according to the Gemara's conclusion. The Gemara concludes that the reason why Rebbi Eliezer permits the wealthy man to be Zocheh the Pe'ah for a specific poor person is because the wealthy man could be Mafkir all of his possessions and take the Pe'ah for himself. The owner of a field, though, can never take Pe'ah from his own field, because Rebbi Eliezer agrees that "Lo Selaket le'Ani" teaches that a poor person cannot take Pe'ah from his own field! How does Rashi here answer this question?

ANSWERS:

(a) The reason why Rashi needs to explain that the person gathering the Pe'ah was wealthy is because the Gemara here says that when he is Mafkir his property "he will become a poor person and be able to take Pe'ah," implying that the reason he could not take Pe'ah for himself until now is because he was wealthy.

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

(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, the field is no longer his and he is permitted to take Pe'ah from it just like he is permitted to take Pe'ah from any other field. Accordingly, the owner of the field may be Zocheh 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, though, rejects this approach. Perhaps Rashi 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 that the Pe'ah was separated and declared as Pe'ah from *ever* taking the Pe'ah that he himself separated.

Rashi in our Sugya seems to take a different approach than 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 field, but rather it teaches that a poor person may not *exempt* himself from separating Pe'ah from his field. Once he does separate Pe'ah, though, 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 will be permitted to take Pe'ah that 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 the poor person.)

12b

QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the argument between Rebbi Meir and the Rabanan in the Mishnah (11b) concerning 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 like a Shali'ach may not be Zocheh a Get Ishah on behalf of one's wife without her knowledge, one may not be Zocheh a Get Shichrur on behalf of an Eved. The Rabanan counter that freedom is a Zechus 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 to 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 are presenting 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. In the Mishnah (11b), also, Rebbi Meir's words imply that one of the reasons the Rabanan consider it a Chov for the woman to be divorced is because she is losing Terumah (see TOSFOS 13a, DH u'Mah Ilu).

Why do the Rabanan note the fact that the wife loses her 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 explain why the divorce of *every* woman is a Chov! What could the Rabanan possibly be adding by saying that her loss of Terumah gives the divorce the status of a Chov?

ANSWER: If the only reason a divorce is considered a Chov to the woman is because she loses Mezonos, then 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 upon being divorced. The fact that after she becomes married (with Nesu'in) she is able to receive Mezonos does not make Erusin into a Zechus, like Rashi says earlier (10a, DH u'Parchinan).

The Rabanan had to mention the Chov of losing Terumah in order to explain why a divorce is not a Zechus for a woman who is an Arusah, since 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, then the divorce of an Arusah is a Chov because she loses the right to eat Terumah.

This answer, however, needs explanation. Just like an Arusah does not receive Mezonos, an Arusah is also not permitted to eat Terumah! Even after 12 months have passed and her Arus has not yet married her (with Nesu'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, though, that there are two reasons why an Arusah is not permitted, mid'Rabanan, to eat Terumah. According to Ula, we are afraid 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, we are afraid of "Simpon" (a "revocation" of the marriage) -- the husband might discover later that the woman has a blemish, making the Kidushin a "Mekach Ta'us" (an acquisition in error). The betrothal will be annulled retroactively, and thus retroactively 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 a fear of "Simpon." If 12 months have passed and the husband has begun to give Mezonos to his Arusah, then we are not concerned with the problem that she might feed the Terumah to her family members, because after 12 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 she is losing her Terumah.