Objection #1 (Ameimar): Perhaps all agree that one who seizes property from a borrower on behalf of a creditor does not acquire for him when this harms others;

R. Eliezer holds that Migo (since) Levi could make his property Hefker (and he would be an Oni, who may take Pe'ah), even when he is rich, Pe'ah befits him;

Since he could acquire Pe'ah for himself, he may acquire it for an Oni.

Objection #2 (Ameimar): Perhaps all agree that one who seizes for a creditor acquires, even when this harms others;

Chachamim expound that one cannot acquire Pe'ah for an Oni from "do not gather, for an Oni (you will leave it)." We read this "do not gather for an Oni."

Question: How does R. Eliezer expound this?

Answer: This forbids a poor man to gather Pe'ah from his own field.

(Mishnah): If a man does not want to feed...

Inference: One can tell his (Kena'ani) slave 'work for me and I will not feed you,'

Rejection: No. The case is, the master told him 'feed yourself from your earnings.'

Question: The corresponding case of his wife would be that he told her 'feed yourself from your earnings.' Why is he obligated to feed his wife?

Answer: The case is, her earnings do not suffice for her food.

Question: We should say that it likewise discusses a slave whose earnings do not suffice for his food!

Answer: One need not feed a slave who eats more than the value of his work.

(Beraisa): If a slave was exiled to a refuge city (for killing b'Shogeg), his master need not feed him, but his earnings go to his master.

Inference: One can tell his slave 'work for me and I will not feed you.'

Rejection: No. The case is, the master told him 'feed yourself from your earnings.'

Question: If so, why does the Beraisa say that his earnings go to his master?

Answer: The excess earnings (above the cost of his food) go to his master.

Question: This is obvious!

Answer: One might have thought that since the master does not give the slave at times when the slave lacks, he does not take from the slave when the slave has extra. The Beraisa teaches that this is not so.

Question: If the law is always true, why does the Beraisa discuss a slave in exile?

Answer: It says about one in exile "he will live." One might have thought that one must take extra efforts to ensure his livelihood. The Beraisa teaches that this is not so.

Question (Seifa): If a wife was exiled to a refuge city, her husband must feed her.

We must say that he did not tell her to feed herself from her earnings.

Just like in the Seifa he did not tell her, also in the Reisha he did not tell his slave!

Answer: Really, he told them. He must feed his wife when she cannot feed herself from her earnings.

Question (Seifa): If he told his wife to feed herself from her earnings, he is allowed.

Inference: In the previous clause he did not say this!

Answer: The Beraisa says thusly: if she earns enough to feed herself, he can tell her to feed herself from her earnings.

Question: If she can earn enough, this is obvious!

Answer: One might have thought that due to "the honor of the king's daughter is (to stay) inside", she need not work and he must feed her. The Beraisa teaches that this is not so.

Suggestion: Tana'im argue about whether or not a master can tell his slave 'work for me and I will not feed you':

(Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): In years of famine, a slave can tell his master, 'feed me or free me';

Chachamim say, the master need not comply;

Suggestion: Chachamim hold that a master can say 'work for me and I will not feed you', and R. Shimon says that he cannot.

Rejection #1: If so, (according to R. Shimon) why does the slave request food or freedom? His claim should be 'feed me or give me my earnings towards my food'!

Rejection #2: If so, why does the Beraisa discuss specifically famine years?

Rather, (all agree that one cannot tell his slave 'work for me and I will not feed you'). The case is, his master said 'feed yourself from your earnings.' In famine years, the slave's earnings do not suffice;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel holds that if he will not feed him, he must free him, so people will have mercy on him and feed him.

Chachamim hold that whoever has mercy to feed a free man will also have mercy to feed a slave.

(Rav): If one makes Hekdesh his slave's hands, the slave borrows money for food, and pays up the debt through his earnings.

Inference: One can tell his slave 'work for me and I will not feed you.'

Rejection: No. The case is, his master is feeding him.

Question: If so, why does the slave borrow to eat?

Answer: He borrows for extra food.

Question: (The treasurer of) Hekdesh should tell him 'until now, you managed with standard rations. Now also, that suffices for you!'

Answer: It is beneficial for Hekdesh that he eats extra, for this will increase his value.

Question: How can he pay his debt through his earnings? Every bit of money he earns becomes Hekdesh immediately!

Answer: He pays from his earnings bit by bit, before his earnings accumulate to a Perutah.

Support: We must say that the case is that the master is feeding him (to answer a contradiction in Rav).

Contradiction (Rav): If one makes his slave's hands Hekdesh, the slave works and eats what he earns. If he will not work, who will feed him?!

Resolution: In the former teaching, the master feeds him. In this teaching, he does not.

Question: If in the first teaching, the master does not feed him, because a master can say 'work for me and I will not feed you', why does the second teaching say, 'who will feed him'? Whoever wants to will feed him (we are not concerned)!

Answer: We must say that Rav holds that he cannot say 'work for me and I will not feed you,'

(R. Yochanan): If Reuven cut off the hand of Shimon's slave, Reuven compensates Shimon for the loss of earnings and the medical expenses. The slave is fed from Tzedakah.

Inference: R. Yochanan holds that a master can say 'work for me and I will not feed you.'

Rejection: No. The case is, the master is feeding him.

Question: If so, why is the slave fed from Tzedakah?

Answer: This is for extra food.

Objection: If so, it should say he is financed from Tzedakah!

Conclusion: Our inference was correct. R. Yochanan holds that a master can say 'work for me and I will not feed you.'

Question: Why did R. Yochanan say that Shimon receives the compensation for the loss of earnings and the medical expenses? Obviously, he gets the compensation for the loss of earnings!

Answer: Indeed, it was merely taught along with the medical expenses.

Question: The medical expenses should go to the slave. He must heal himself!

Answer: The case is, the doctors estimated that he needs five days of treatment; they gave him a potent (but painful) drug that healed him in three days.

One might have thought that the savings goes to the slave, since it came through his pain. R. Yochanan teaches that it goes to the master.

(Beraisa - R. Elazar): We told R. Meir that a slave benefits by going free!

R. Meir: No, it is disadvantageous for him. If his master was a Kohen, freedom disqualifies him from eating Terumah.

Chachamim: The master can say that he will not feed him!

R. Meir: A Kohen's slave who fled, or a Kohen's wife who rebels on him, may eat Terumah, but a freed slave may not!

But it is disadvantageous for a wife to be divorced, for she is disqualified from Terumah and ceases to be fed.

Question: How do we understand this dialogue between R. Meir and Chachamim?

Answer: R. Meir admitted 'you refuted my proof from food. What can you answer about Terumah?'

Suggestion: The master could throw a Get at the slave (and free him against his will), and disqualify him from Terumah.

Rejection: The slave could run away!

A Kohen's slave who fled, or a Kohen's wife who rebels, may eat Terumah, but a freed slave may not!

Question: R. Meir's argument is sound. Why didn't Chachamim agree?

Answer (Rava): The Mishnah records their answer, because he is the money of the Kohen. His master may sell him to a Yisrael for a small amount and disqualify the slave from Terumah, wherever the slave is.