Previous daf

1)

(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa learns from "Ha'anek Ta'anik *Lo*" - "Lo", 've'Lo le'Mocher Atzmo'.

(b) We reject the suggestion that Rebbi Elazar learns from there "Lo" 've'Lo le'Yorshav' - because, seeing as the Torah refers to the Eved Ivri as 'Sachir', it would be illogical to say that his heirs should not inherit it should he die.

(c) We conclude that his D'rashah from there is based on Rebbi Nasan, who says - that if Reuven owes Shimon money and Shimon owes Levi, we make Reuven pay Levi directly (known as 'Shibuda de'Rebbi Nasan').

(d) Rebbi Elazar now learns from "Ha'anek Ta'anik Lo" - "Lo", 've'Lo le'Ba'al Chovo' (teaching us that in this case, Rebbi Nasan's Din does not apply).

(a) The Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Elazar in this case - because they do not hold like Rebbi Nasan.

(b) What induces Rebbi Yitzchak in a Beraisa to explain "Ki Mishneh S'char Sachir Avadcha" to mean that the Eved Ivri's master gives him a Shifchah Cana'anis - is the Pasuk "Ki Tov Lo Imach", from which we Darshen 'Imach be'Ma'achal, Imach be'Mishteh' (which negates the literal meaning of the current Pasuk).

(a) The Rabbanan learn from the Pasuk "Im Adonav Yiten *Lo* Ishah" - "Lo", 've'Lo le'Mocher Atzmo'.

(b) Rebbi Elazar learns from there - "Lo", 'Ba'al Korcho'.

(c) The Rabbanan learn this from the Pasuk "Ki Mishneh S'char Sachir" - which implies that this is the right of the master, with or without the Eved Ivri's consent.

(d) Rebbi Elazar argues - that the Pasuk might well refer specifically when the Eved Ivri consents.

(a) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov explains the Pasuk in Behar "ve'Shav el Mishpachto ... " (to teach us that an Eved Ivri goes out with the advent of the Yovel). This Pasuk can refer neither to a Mocher Atzmo nor to a Nirtza, since both have already been mentioned ('Ad Sh'nas ha'Yovel Ya'avod Imach" and "ve'Shavtem Ish el Achuzaso" respectively).

(b) Consequently, the Pasuk can only be referring to a Machruhu Beis-Din.

(c) We try to prove from here that Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov is the Tana who does not hold of "Sachir" "Sachir" - because, if he did, why would he need an extra Pasuk for Machruhu Beis-Din? Why could he not learn it from Mocher Atzmo via "Sachir" "Sachir"?

(d) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak repudiates this suggestion however, because, even assuming that Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov learns the 'Gezeirah-Shavah', he would not learn Machruhu Beis-Din from Mocher Atzmo in this regard - since there is good reason to say that, the latter, having performed an Aveirah, would have to serve his full six-year term. (Note, that one can only ask a Pircha on a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' if only one of the words is redundant, but not if they both are).

(a) We establish "ve'Shavtem Ish el Achuzaso" by a Nirtza (to teach us that when the Yovel arrives, he goes free). Rava bar Shilo extrapolates from the Pasuk itself that it is speaking about a Nirtza - because the Torah uses the word "Ish", hinting at 'Retzi'ah' which does apply to a woman (as we learned earlier).

(b) Having taught us that ...

1. ... a Machruhu Beis-Din goes free in the Yovel, the Torah nevertheless needs to repeat the Din by a Nirtza - because we might otherwise have thought that we punish the latter to make him serve a full six-year term (even if Yovel occurs in the middle), for deliberately remaining after his initial term came to an end.
2. ... a Nirtza goes free in the Yovel, the Torah needs to repeat the Din by a Machruhu Beis-Din - because we would otherwise have thought that we punish the latter for having stolen by making him serve his full term.

(c) The Torah also finds it necessary to write both the Pasuk of "ve'Shavtem" (by Nirtza) and "va'Avado Le'olam". In spite of having written ...

1. ... "Le'olam" it needed to write "ve'Shavtem" - because we would otherwise have interpreted "Le'olam" literally, and he would never have gone free.
2. ... "ve'Shavtem" it needed to write "Le'olam" - because we would otherwise have thought that he works for another six-year period and then goes free.

6)

(a) The Torah writes in Behar (in connection with a Jew who sells himself to a Nochri "ve'Im Lo Yiga'el be'Eileh" - which refers to Ge'ulas K'rovim' (being redeemed by relatives).

(b) Rebbi in a Beraisa, extrapolates from there "be'Eileh Hu Nig'al, ve'Eino Nig'al be'Sheish". He learns a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Mocher Atzmo, who *cannot be redeemed by relatives*, yet he goes free after six years, then certainly a Nimkar le'Akum (someone who sold himself to a Nochri), who *can*, should go free after six years (if not for "be'Eileh").

(c) What leads us to initially believe that Rebbi is the Tana who does not hold of "Sachir" "Sachir" is - that, if he did, then why does he say that a Mocher Atzmo cannot be redeemed by relatives? Why does he not learn via the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Sachir" "Sachir" from a Nimkar le'Akum, that he can? (Note, that until now, we have been referring to learning a Mocher Atzmo from a Machruhu Beis-Din; not we are referring to learning it from a Nimkar le'Akum (where the Torah also writes "ki'S'chir Shanah be'Shanah Yihyeh Imo").

(d) Based on the Pasuk (written by a Nimkar le'Akum) "O Dodo O ben Dodo Yig'alenu", Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak rejects the proof from there - because the D'rashah "Yig'alenu", 'la'Zeh ve'Lo le'Acher' (precluding a Mocher Atzmo from being redeemed by relatives) overrides the 'Gezeirah-Shavah'.

(a) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili and Rebbi Akiva disagree with Rebbi. Rebbi Yossi Hagelili Darshens from "be'Eileh", 'be'Eileh le'Shichrur, ve'Sha'ar Kol Adam le'Shibud' - meaning that if relatives redeem the Eved Ivri from the Nochri he goes free, but if others redeem him, he has to work for them until the Yovel.

(b) Rebbi Akiva says the exact opposite (that he has to work for the relatives bur goes free if redeemed by others).

(c) We initially base their dispute on their respective interpretations of the Pasuk "ve'Im Lo Yiga'el be'Eileh, ve'Yatza bi'Sh'nas ha'Yovel", which Rebbi Yossi Hagelili interprets literally to mean - that if he is not redeemed by relatives (but by somebody else), then he goes free only in the Yovel.

(d) Rebbi Akiva Darshens the Pasuk "ve'Im Lo Yiga'el Ela be'Eileh, ve'Yazta bi'Sh'nas ha'Yovel", meaning that it is when he is redeemed by relatives that he must work until the Yovel. This interpretation is unacceptable however - because Rebbi Akiva's D'rashah twists the Pasuk to say what it doesn't.

(a) So we cite another source (though still connected with the D'rashah from "be'Eileh", as we shall soon see) to explain their Machlokes, based on the Pasuk "O Dodo ... Yig'alenu, O Hisigah Yado, ve'Nig'al". "O Dodo ... Yig'alenu" obviously refers to the redemption of relatives. The Pasuk ...

1. ... "O Hisigah Yado" refers to Ge'ulas Atzmo.
2. ... "ve'Nig'al" refers Ge'ulas Acheirim.

(b) Bearing in mind that the Torah places Ge'ulas Atzmo in the middle, we now attempt to interpret the Machlokes Tana'im in that Rebbi Yossi Hagelili Darshens backwards ('Lefanav'), comparing Ge'ulas Atzmo (where the Eved Ivri obviously goes free) to Ge'ulas K'rovim which precedes it; whereas Rebbi Akiva Darshens forwards ('le'Acharav'), comparing it to Ge'ulas Acheirim which is written after it.

(c) We nevertheless need "be'Eileh" - because we would otherwise Darshen both backwards and forwards, setting the Eved Ivri free both by Ge'ulas K'rovim and by Ge'ulas Acheirim.

(d) We reject this explanation too however - for the same reason that we rejected the previous one (because Rebbi Akiva is twisting the Pasuk).

(a) We finally base the Machlokes on a S'varos. The S'vara of ...

1. ... Rebbi Yossi Hagelili is that by Ge'ulas Acheirim, the Eved Ivri is more likely to have to work for them - because otherwise, what incentive will total strangers have to redeem him?
2. ... Rebbi Akiva is that by Ge'ulas Acheirim, this is more likely to be the case - because otherwise, whoever needs money will go and sell himself to a Nochri, in the knowledge that his good relatives will redeem him, and he will go free.

(b) Rebbi Akiva will explain - that "be'Eileh" (which until now, we have seen, supported Rebbi Yossi Hagelili's explanation) pertains, not to Ge'ulas K'rovim, as we thought until now, but to Acheirim, which are mentioned just before it (in the word "ve'Nig'al", as we just explained).

(c) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan restricts the above opinions to the two Tana'im concerned, but according to the Chachamim, he goes free both by Ge'ulas K'rovim and by Ge'ulas Acheirim. The Rabbanan is - Rebbi, who uses "be'Eileh" for "be'Eileh" 'Hu Nig'al, ve'Eino Nig'al be'Sheish'. Consequently, there is nothing to restrict the D'rashah from Ge'ulas Atzmo, and to say 'Mikra Nidrash Bein mi'Lefanav u'Vein mi'le'Acharav'.

(d) According to Rebbi, the Pasuk "ve'Yatza bi'Sh'nas ha'Yovel" - speaks when the Eved Ivri was not redeemed (and is referring to a Nochri who lives under our jurisdiction). It is coming to teach us that, under no circumstances, may one force him to relinquish his rights over the Eved Ivri before the Yovel.