Previous daf

1)

(a) The Rabbanan in our Mishnah do not consider freeing a slave a liability, since the owner could have stopped feeding him anyway, had he so wished. We try to prove from here that a master can force his slave to work without feeding him.
What would it mean in practical terms if he could? Does it mean that he would starve to death?

(b) Why is there in fact, no proof from here that he may?

(c) Then why can he not say the same to his wife?

(d) If the case of Get Ishah speaks when she is unable to sustain herself, then why can the case of Sh'tar Shichrur not be speaking about such a case too?

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa exempts a master from feeding a slave who had to run to a city of refuge.
Who receives what he produces?

(b) In this case too, we refute the apparent proof that a master can force his slave to work without feeding him, by establishing the Beraisa when the master said to the slave 'Use the proceeds of your work to sustain yourself'.
In that case, on what grounds will the master receive what the slave produces?

(c) Why is this not obvious?

(d) Why did the Tana choose to teach us this Halachah specifically in connection with a slave who has to run to a city of refuge?

(a) What does the Tana of the Beraisa say in the Seifa regarding a woman who has to run to a city of refuge? Who provides for her there?

(b) What can we extrapolate from there? How does this clash with the way we just explained the Reisha (in connection with a slave)?

(a) So we establish the Beraisa when the master and the husband instructed the wife and the slave respectively to use the proceeds of their work to sustain themselves.
Then why is the husband obligated to sustain her?

(b) But the Seifa (de'Seifa) goes on to describe what the Din will be if he instructs her to use the products of her hands to sustain herself.
Can we not infer from there that the Reisha speaks when he does not?

(c) Why is it not obvious that if she produces sufficient for her needs, her husband is entitled to instruct her to use what she produces to sustain herself?

(a) In another Beraisa, what does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel say about a slave during years of famine? What ultimatum can he issue his master?

(b) The Chachamim disagree.
What do they say?

(c) How do we propose to explain the basis of their Machlokes?

(a) We refute the above proposition however, partially on the basis of the ultimatum's wording.
What problem do we have ...

1. ... with the wording of the ultimatum?
2. ... with the case itself?

(b) How do we therefore establish Raban Shimon ben Gamliel? On what grounds do we grant the slave the power of ultimatum?

(c) What then is the basis of their Machlokes? Why does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel allow the slave the ultimatum, and the Chachamim not?

(d) On what grounds do the Chachamim maintain that people will take pity on a mere slave?

7)

(a) What does Rav say about a slave whose master declared all the work of his hands Hekdesh?

(b) How do we refute the proof from here that a master can make his slave work without sustaining him?

(c) Seeing as effectively, the slave belongs to Hekdesh, on what grounds is he permitted ...

1. ... to eat more than his basic needs, at the expense of Hekdesh?
2. ... to use what he produces (which is Hekdesh) to pay for the luxury foods that he is now eating?

(a) How do we resolve Rav's current ruling with his ruling 'ha'Makdish Yedei Avdo, Oso Eved Oseh ve'Ochel'?

(b) What does Rav mean when he adds 'de'I Lo Avda. Ma'an Palach Lei'?

(c) Why can we not establish Rav's first statement when the master does not sustain his slave, but he has the right to make him work without feeding him?

(d) What have we now proved, according to Rav?

(a) What does Rebbi Yochanan say about someone who cuts off the arm of his friend's slave?

(b) What does this prove?

(c) Why can we not refute this proof by establishing the case when the master is sustaining his slave?

(d) What do we learn from the Lashon used by Rebbi Yochanan 've'Oso ha'Eved *Nizon* min ha'Tzedakah'?

(a) Rebbi Yochanan says 'Nosen Shivto u'Refu'aso le'Rabo'.
Is it not obvious that the Sheves goes to the master?

(b) On what grounds does the Refu'ah go to the master (and not to pay for the slave's healing costs)?

(c) Who receives ...

1. ... the Nezek?
2. ... Tza'ar?

(d) On what grounds does the master receive the Tza'ar?

(a) What did Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa reply when Rebbi Elazar pointed out to him that it is an advantage for a slave to go free, and not a liability?

(b) The Beraisa concludes with the words 'Aval Ishah Chov Hu Lah'.
Who said this to whom?

(c) What are the two reasons for this?

(a) What did Rebbi Meir mean when he retorted to the Rabbanan's Kashya 'Mah Im Yirtzeh she'Lo Lazuno ... ', with 'u'Mah Ilu Eved Kohen she'Barach ve'Eishes Kohen she'Mardah al Ba'alah, ha'Lo Ochlin bi'Terumah'?

(b) And what did Rebbi Meir say in anticipation of the Kashya that the master could always throw him a Get Shichrur, invalidating him from Terumah anyway?

(c) Rebbi Meir's argument seems very sound.
How do the Rabbanan counter it? What do they mean when they say 'Mipnei she'Hu ke'Kinyano'?

(a) Rebbi Meir has a good explanation for the slave of a Kohen.
But on what grounds does he consider the Shichrur of the slave of a Yisrael?

(b) Why does he not consider the fact that, on the other hand, he will be free to marry a bas Yisrael?

(c) What do we mean when we say that, according to Rebbi Meir ...

1. ... 'Zila Lei'?
2. ... 'Shechicha Lei'?
3. ... 'P'ritza Lei'?

Next daf