Explanation: This answer is merely pushing off the question (not what Rav Papa really holds is correct).

Proof: Rav Papa openly states in Kesuvos (84b) that he holds that someone who seizes money for a creditor where it causes a loss to others does not acquire what he has seized. (Note: Therefore, Rav Papa would say that each Tana holds like him, not that they could hold either way.)

Question: According to the opinion in Temurah (4b) that whatever the Torah says should not be done takes effect anyway if someone does it, the poor person should acquire (the Pei'ah even though the Torah said someone else should not do it for him)?

Answer: (Note: Even that opinion would agree that here the poor person does not acquire the Pei'ah.) Here, after the Pasuk "Do not gather (which the Gemara explains includes on behalf of the poor person)," the Pasuk continues "to the poor person and convert you should leave them." This implies that not only is it forbidden to collect on his behalf, it is not effective.

Question: Why don't we derive from here that someone who picks up a lost object for his friend has not effectively acquired it for him?

Answer: Here there is a logical reason behind the law, as the Torah only allowed a poor person to acquire what he gathers for himself.

However, according to Rav Chisda who explained that the Rabbanan's reasoning is indeed because of the regular law of seizing for a creditor when it causes a loss to others, he might indeed hold that this is the source for the law that one who picks up a lost object for his friend has not effectively acquired it for him.

Question #1: Is it possible that because he does not make enough money to cover his food bills that his master will be obligated to feed him, and he cannot tell him use the money you get from your work in lieu of my supporting you?

Question #2: Additionally, the terminology that the Gemara uses that a slave who is not worth the bread he eats is not worth having as a slave is difficult. Why didn't the Gemara openly state that the master is simply not obligated to support him once he says that he should use the money from his work to support himself?

Answer #1: The Ri says that the Gemara originally thought that the slave would normally go and serve his master even if his master tells him to use the money from his work to support himself. This is why the Gemara wants to say that if the slave does not make enough to support himself the owner should have to support him, as he really does serve the master anyway. This is why the Gemara answers that a slave who does not earn the value of the bread he eats is not worth having as a slave.

This is why the Gemara said earlier that we see from here that a master can say to his slave, "do work for me and I will not support you." This is because even if the case is where the master said that the slave should use the money from his work to support himself, being that the slave is still working for him he should have to pay for his food. This would be true if he did not have the claim, "do work for me and I will not support you."

Answer #2: Additionally, it is possible that the Gemara thinks at this point that the case is where the master did not make this claim to the slave. This is similar to a wife, in that it is uncommon that she will not be able to earn enough for her own support.

Explanation: One might say that it is understandable that the Beraisa was specifically stated regarding Arei Miklat. Even though the Torah says, "and he will live," (Devarim 4:42) implying that he should have a good livelihood, even so the master can claim etc. (use you work wages for your food).

However, the Gemara did not understand from "and he will live" (ibid.) that the slave should be able to keep the extra amount from the work that he does. (Note: This is why it asked what is the reason Arei Miklat is the case mentioned in the Beraisa.)

Explanation: If you will say that the Beraisa is understandable if it is talking about a case where she earns enough money to pay for her food. Accordingly, we would say that the end of the Mishnah is coming to explain that the first part of the Mishnah is in a case where he simply did not tell her that her earnings should be hers in place of his paying for her upkeep.

However, the Gemara is saying that the first case is where she did not make enough money to pay for her upkeep. The second part of the Beraisa is merely to tell us that if she did make enough money he could tell her to keep her earnings in place of him supporting her. Why, then, did the Beraisa bother saying these cases? They are obvious!

Implied Question: The Beraisa states that the slave can demand that if his owner does not support him he must set him free. (Note: Is it really possible that a slave can claim that his owner must set him free due to lack of support?)

Answer: It doesn't really mean that he can claim that he must be set free. Rather, it means that he can claim that he should be able to keep his earnings (to support himself) as does a free man. (Note: Tosfos is explaining the Beraisa according to the question of the Gemara, not according to the conclusion where the Beraisa indeed is taken to mean that he should literally be freed.)

Question: Rav Yitzchak ben Ha'Ram asked that when the Gemara later (37b) discusses a slave who is captured and is redeemed by someone other than his master, we see the opposite opinions. The Rabbanan say that he does not go back to work for either his first (original) or second (redeemer) master. He does not go back to his second master because the redemption was in order that he should be a free man, and he does not go back to his first master as this will prevent (other) people from redeeming him. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that just as it is a Mitzvah to redeem free people, it is also a Mitzvah to redeem slaves. (Note: This seemingly contradicts our Gemara. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel here says that people will only have mercy on free men, while later (37b) he says they will redeem slaves as well. If they will redeem then, it would seem they will feed them as well! The Rabbanan here say that they will feed slaves too, while in the Gemara later (37b) they imply that people will only redeem free men. If they will only redeem free men, they probably will not feed slaves out of the kindness of their hearts either!)

Answer: The Ri answers that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that people are more likely to redeem him (than feed him), so that he should not become assimilated amongst the Nochrim. The Rabbanan hold that while people will have mercy on him that he should not starve and everyone will give him a little bread, it is more difficult for him to be redeemed. This is because many people (generally) have to come together (and give a lot more money than the value of a little bread in order to successfully redeem a captive (see Tosfos Ha'Rosh 37b).

Observation: This text ("One who is Makdish the hands of his servant") is correct. We do not have the text "one who is Makdish his servant," as in such a case he goes free. This is as stated by Rav later (38b), that someone who is Makdish his servant must have meant that he should become part of the "holy nation."

Question: Just as we say that if someone is Makdish the hands of his slave that they are set aside for their work, so too when someone is Makdish all of his slave we should say that he was Makdish him for his work! This should be the equivalent of saying that his mouth is set aside for talking, his hands for working, his feet for walking etc. These terms would be effective to create Hekdesh, as stated in Nedarim (13b).

Answer #1: Rabeinu Yitzchak says that it is logical that he did not intend to set him aside for work. This is because there is a difference in the type of work (that his body parts do), as his mouth, hands, and feet do different types of work. Therefore, it is more logical that he intended to free him, as this way everything he said meant one thing.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is possible to answer that in the Gemara later (38b) where he just says that he is Makdish his slave, the implication is more towards making him part of the "holy nation" than that he is setting him aside for his work. However, when someone says that he is being Makdish the hands of his slave, the implication is that he is setting aside his slave for work, as it is not possible to give any other reason (why he would specifically say hands).

Implied Question: Regarding (the claim) "do work for me and I will not support you," it is understandable that Hekdesh does not say this while a regular master can. (Note: Why?)

Answer: This is because it is obvious that it is in the best interests of Hekdesh that the slave should not die of hunger (as opposed to a master who can use any claim that he can even though it might seem to be fiscally unwise).

Explanation: Rashi explains that (a proclamation that something is) Hekdesh is not effective on less than a Perutah.

Question: Rabeinu Yitzchak asks that in Bava Metzia (55a) the Mishnah says that there are five Halachos regarding a Perutah. Let it say that there are six such Halachos, as there is (also) this law that Hekdesh is not effective on less than a Perutah!

Answer: The Ri answers that here the reason is that the Makdish does not have in mind that Hekdesh should be effective on less than a Perutah (not that it couldn't be).

Explanation: "Shivto" - "unempolyment" here refers to both "minor Sheves" (lack of work) and "major Sheves" which is the damages, pain, and embarrassment to his owner (see Maharam Shif). This is according to the Rabbanan who argue on Rebbi Yehudah in Bava Kama (86a) that a slave deserves a payment for embarrassment.

The reason that these (categories of) damages were not explicitly stated is because there is no novelty in saying that they go to the master. However, regarding his unemployment the novelty is that even though his master takes his unemployment money, he is not obligated to pay for the slave's support. This is because the master still has the claim, "work for me and I will not support you."

Implied Question: The Gemara later asks that "Shivto" is obvious. (Note: If this is so, why did it have to say Sheves either?)

Answer: This is what the Gemara means to ask. It is obvious that the unemployment goes to his master even if he will not support him, being that the master can always claim, "work for me and I will not support you." Being that this is so, Rebbi Yochanan should not have said a case of someone who cuts off the hand of his friend's slave, but rather he should have said straight out that a master can always claim, "work for me etc." (Note: Why did he say this case of someone who cuts off the hand of his friend's slave?)

The Gemara answers that Rebbi Yochanan said the case of cutting off a slave's hand to tell us a different novelty. When Rebbi Yochanan says that his master receives the money for his healing, he means that the slave does not receive the amount saved by using a sharp medication (that is more painful, but is quicker and cheaper). This is as the Gemara concludes that we would have thought that this savings should go the slave. Just as the slave receives money for his healing, so too when he endures pain in order to profit (by paying less for his medical bills), the money saved should go to him.

However, the pain of cutting off the hand obviously goes to the master. This is why the Beraisa does not state, "and so too regarding embarrassment." (Said by the Ri.)

Question: How does Rebbi Yochanan understand the argument between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbanan (12a)? He cannot say (as the Gemara said earlier) that one opinion says that the slave can (claim during a famine that his master should support him or release him) and one says he cannot, as the Gemara asked earlier. If it is like the Gemara concludes earlier that the master says "take your earnings instead of my having to support you," and in a year of famine it is not enough etc., according to everyone the master would not have such a claim!

Answer: Even though in other years the (master's) claim would be a valid claim (as Rebbi Yochanan holds that a master does not have to support his servant), in a year of famine it is not a valid claim. This is because in other years the slave will find more people who will have mercy on him when he collects door-to-door (to support himself) than in a famine year (when there are a lot of regular Jews collecting money).

Implied Question: The Gemara in Bava Kama (87a) says that if someone injured his own Eved Kenani he is exempt from all of these payments. (Note: How, then, can we say in our Gemara that the cost of the healing goes straight to the slave?)

Answer #1: It is possible to differentiate (and therefore say) that even though when someone else damages his slave the payment for healing the slave goes to the slave, if he injures his own slave he is not obligated to pay.

Answer #2: It could be that the Gemara in Bava Kama (ibid.) means that he does not have to pay the difference between the regular manner of healing and the cheaper, quicker, and more painful manner of healing using "sharp medication" to the slave, as we say in our Gemara. (Note: However, the Gemara there would admit that the master has to pay the slave for basic healing expenses.)

Question: He (Rebbi Meir) should have said instead (that becoming free is not a merit for him as) it forbids him from having relations with a Kenanis maidservant, who would otherwise be permitted even to a Jewish slave!

Answer: He did not say this as he would rather address their claim, which is that on the contrary, he now gains that he can marry a regular free Jewess.

Explanation: The Rabbanan who answered him that, "Just as if he did not want to support him, he would be allowed to do so etc." understood Rebbi Meir in the following manner. When Rebbi Meir said that if he was the slave of a Kohen the master (by freeing him) now makes him unfit to eat Terumah, he means that this is a demerit for him. This is because the master used to give him a lot of food as the Kohanim often had a lot of Terumah, or because there is a Mitzvah in eating Terumah. This is why the Rabbanan answered Rebbi Meir that the master doesn't even have an obligation to feed his slave.

Rebbi Meir's reply was that you only answered me about food. What will you answer about Terumah? He meant that even if the master does not want to support his slave, the slave is still losing out because he is being freed. This is because the slave is able to buy Terumah cheaply, as it is less costly than regular food (which is permitted to everyone). Additionally, he can even receive a portion of Terumah for free by the silos, (at least) according to the opinion of Rebbi Yosi in Kesuvos (28b) that a slave can receive a portion of Terumah even though his master is not present.

Question: Why is this an issue? Even if he cannot run away, there should still be a problem because freeing him makes him unable to eat Terumah!

Answer #1: Rebbi Meir holds that (in these circumstances) it would not be considered a liability for someone else to accept the Get freeing him, being that even if he (messenger) didn't do so, the slave's master could disqualify him from eating Terumah in a different way.

Answer #2: Alternatively, this is what Rebbi Meir means. If the master would throw a Get to him in such a way where it would be doubtful whether the Get was closer to the slave or the master, this would result in him being forbidden from eating Terumah and having relations with both a Shifchah and a free Jewess. In such a case it would (certainly) be better for him to be freed. Additionally, the master could take four Zuz from a Yisrael (in exchange for the slave) and thereby make him unfit for Terumah (as he is now the slave of a regular Yisrael), and he is still a slave.

Observation: This implies that if he would indeed run away, he would still be able to eat Terumah (as the servant of a Kohen).

Question: Why don't we suspect that his master sold him to a Jew, and he should therefore be forbidden to eat Terumah?

Answer: It is uncommon that a Yisrael will buy such a slave, as he has already ran away.