Dear Rav Weiner:
On 9B the gemara is discussing the case of a poor person failing to acquire peah by his 4 amos.
I am asking about a similar case and see if there would be a valid reason for him to keep what he fell upon.
Here are a few preliminary questions which could preempt my question:
1) acquision by 2 methods
2) acquiring straw for animal feed
3) acquiring straw for a mattress
4) giving the benefit of the doubt to a simple person
5) the law of a mute person
1) If he were to have first declared that he acquired the peah by his 4-amos and then fell upon it to protect it, would this be valid? Its a different case than how Rashi for example explains what is going on. But is it valid to acquire by 2 methods?
My chavrusa said it is illogical to acquire something by 2 methods.
I therefore remembered the first mishna in Kiddushin, that a man can acquire a wife in 3 ways, and also recognize that in a modern marriage all 3 ways are used.
Perhaps this proves that it is illogical to get married!
But perhaps it is a proof that there are times when it could be valid to acquire by one method and then re-acquire by another method in case there would be doubt by the first method, or any other reason?
And just like both by kiddushin and by yibum, there is a rabbinic enactment that the gift by a brother offering yibum excludes any other brothers, just like a kiddushin gift excludes the woman from accepting kiddushin from any other man...
That our poor person here might be first acquiring by his 4-amos, but fearing that other poor people in the area won't realize that he has done so, he now wishes to protect it, and lies on it, since its his, he wants to make sure noone else will try to grab it.
And that comes back to exactly what our mishna on 9b started with, that he tries, but fails, to keep someone else from taking a find that he tries to fall upon to keep from others.
2) acquiring straw for animal feed
The gemara in the previous mishna discussed how it would be a double migo if a non-poor-person wanted to acquire peah for a specific poor person.
If a person has an animal, but is otherwise very poor, or a person declares all his belongings but his trusty horse and wagon as ownerless (so that he can use it to haul the peah back to the poor person), could he be sufficiently poor to acquire peah?
Now to our case, if there is a person who meets the definition of a poor person and still owns a horse, can he acquire straw to feed the horse from the peah of someone else' field?
My chavrusa's opinion is that only food which is appropriate for a person to eat is covered by peah.
Therefore I unfortunately do have a source from last week's midrash on two cases where people in time of famine boiled straw and drank the soup. And therefore straw might be fit for a poor person to eat under the rules of peah?
3) acquiring straw for a mattress
What if a person wants to acquire straw to use as a mattress on which to lie down, and he is so tired that doesn't want to lift the hay, and wishes to lie down right there in the field.
Could this person gather straw without lifting it up and lie on it as his mattress having acquired it by his 4-amos?
This is assuming only the information on 9b, which assumes that 4-amos could work in someone else's field.
I ask because maybe this is another reason why someone could fall upon something he had the right to pick up and that his action could show that he had already acquired it by his 4-amos?
For me, I do have some experience when skiing of gathering soft snow and lying on it while awaiting others, and I suspect this is influencing my thoughts, and I am applying that to straw.
4) giving the benefit of the doubt to a simple person
Suppose there is a simple person who knows that a person is approximately 4-amos tall (per the 4-amos allotted miraculously in the Beis HaMikdash to prostrate upon) and has heard that someone can acquire by his 4-amos. Without giving any more thought if he thinks that the 4-amos of his which acquires is his height, he lies down upon his find?
How is he to know why his reasoning is invalid as we force him off it to give the peah to other poor people, or to the one who came and seized it out from under him?
5) what is the law of a mute person if he could not have spoken out ahead of time that he wished to acquire by his 4-amos? Maybe his lying upon it is his way of indicating that he had already acquired it?
Chaim
Dear Chaim, Sorry for the delay.
The Gemara on Bava Metzia 10 asks questions from Pe'ah and Metzi'ah. The Gemara first answers that falling on it shows that he doesn't want to use the Kinyan of 4 Amos. However the second answer says that 4 Amos doesn't work at all in someone else's field. The second answer is brought l'Halachah and not the first. According to the second answer falling on the grain doesn't show he's relinquishing 4 Amos. However, you have a right to ask according to the first answer, although not l'Halachah.
1) In your case, he definitely acquires with 4 Amos as he declared. Afterwards, falling on it to protect it doesn't change anything. Even if he falls on it now to be Koneh it, it means nothing - since he already acquired it through 4 Amos. However, without declaring he wants 4 Amos we assume that he's not using it since he wants to be Koneh through falling.
There is no acquiring here by 2 methods. We find by selling Chametz to a Goy that various methods of sale are used - but that's to make sure that at least one Kinyan is valid and we're not sure which one - but here after a legal Kinyan is done the rest is superfluous. Also, in a marriage, only Kesef is used. The Kesuvah is not a Shtar of Kidushin. Bi'ah afterwards is not needed or used for Kidushin.
The purpose of Ma'amar - money before Yibum - is not to exclude other brothers (that's only a derivative of what happens). It's to require mid'Rabanan preliminary connection before Bi'ah, but by Kidushin, it is the basic way of marrying her.
So there is no reason why he can't lie on it afterwards to protect it whether protection is needed or not. But normally according to the first answer, lying on it means he is actively declaring that he doesn't want 4 Amos.
2) He can keep his animal and wagon. A poor person is not required to sell his utensils before being called poor. (He must sell extra land but not his house. Sometimes he must get by with cheaper utensils - see Yoreh Deah 253:1.)
As your Chavrusa said Pe'ah is only with human food (Derech Emunah by Rav Chaim Kanievski, Matnos Aniyim 2:1). There is discussion whether food obligated in Ma'aser mid'Rabanan is obligated in Pe'ah mid'Rabanan. However, straw has no Ma'aser and no Pe'ah.
L'Halacha, an attempt to seize Pe'ah by falling on it or spreading a sheet on the grain or scattering gathered Pe'ah to try to acquire more grain causes a fine and we take it from him (Matnos Aniyim 2:18). Even when dropping grain by accident the fine exists (Rash Sirilio). But when placing grain on the ground, it's apparent that he's not trying to take more and no fine is applied (Mishnah Acharonah brought by Derech Emunah 2:153 and ft. 307).
3) If the straw is Hefker and he first used 4 Amos then when falling or sleeping on it later it won't ruin anything (according to the first answer without the fine l'Halachah).
As to section 4 and 5, its hard to decide: We already explained that falling normally shows that he doesn't want 4 Amos. By the simple person it might be different since he knows nothing maybe 4 Amos will work or maybe he wants only to be Koneh by falling. By the mute if he knows about 4 Amos then falling might show he's giving up 4 Amos.
Remember, according to the final answer falling does not show that he doesn't want his 4 Amos rights.
All the best
Reuven Weiner