Previous daf

1)

(a) The problem with the Beraisa, which begins by saying 'Chalah Shalosh, ve'Avad Shalosh, Ein Chayav Lehashlim', and then continues 'Chalah Kol Sheish Chayav Lehashlim' is - that the inference from the Reisha contradicts the inference from the Seifa.

(b) We resolve this problem - by explaining the Beraisa like this: 'Chalah Shalosh, ve'Avad Shalosh, Ein Chayav Lehashlim, Ha Chalah Arbah, Na'aseh ke'Mi she'Chalah Kol Sheish, ve'Chayav Lehashlim'.

(c) In view of this Beraisa, we establish the previous Beraisa, which implies that even if he was sick all six years, he goes free at the end of six years - when he was at least able to do needlework. Otherwise, he would have had to work for another six years.

(a) According to Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa, the Eved Ivri receives five Sela'im from each of the three species - sheep, wine and oil.

(b) According to Rebi Yehudah, he receives thirty Sela'im. Rebbi Shimon says - fifty Sela'im.

(c) Rebbi Meir found it necessasry to conclude with the words 'she'Hein Chameish-Esrei Sela'im' - to teach us that even if he did not give the Eved five Sela'im of each of these kinds, it did not matter, as long as he gave him a total of fifteen.

(a) Rebbi Meir learns a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Reikam" "Reikam". The source of the other "Reikam" is - by Pidyon ha'Ben (where the Torah writes "ve'Lo Yera'u Panai Reikam").

(b) He then requires five Sela'im from each of the species, and not the sum total of five - because of the order of the P'sukim " ... ve'Lo Seshalchenu Reikam. Ha'anek Ta'anik Lo mi'Tzoncha ... " (implying that he gives him the required sum in Tzon, in Goren and in Yekev).

(c) And he learns this 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from Bechor and not from Olas Re'iyah, which is only two Ma'ah Kesef (according to Beis Shamai) - because the Torah writes "Asher Berach'cha Hashem Elokecha", implying the larger of the two amount.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah learns "Nesinah" "Nesinah" from an ox which gored an Eved (Cana'ani). We ask why he does not learn "Nesinah" "Nesinah" from Erchin - in which case he would receive fifty Sela'im.

(b) We reject this suggestion however, on the basis of the principle 'Tafasta Merubeh Lo Tafasta' (we always learn from the smaller amount). The other reason for Rebbi Yehudah's choice is - because he prefers to learn Eved from Eved )Otherwise, "Asher Berach'cha" may have overridden the principle of 'Tafasta Merubeh ... ').

(c) We initially give the source of Rebbi Shimon as "Nesinah" "Nesinah" from Erchin. We ask why he does not learn from the least amount of Erchin - three Sela'im.

(d) We answer - that it is because of the Pasuk "Asher Berach'cha ... " (in the way that we explained earlier).

(a) We refute the previous source (of "Nesinah" "Nesinah" from Erchin to explain Rebbi Shimon) - on the grounds that, in that case, he should have learned "Nesinah" "Nesinah" from Eved (like Rebbi Yehudah, for the reasons quoted above).

(b) Rebbi Shimon's source is - "Michah" "Michah" (still from Erchin).

(c) The basis of the Machlokes Tana'im (why each Tana Darshens the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from a different word is - because that is how they received it from their Rebbes.

(a) The Torah needs to write "Tzon, Goren ve'Yekev" according to Rebbi Meir - to teach us that the total sum of Ha'anakah is fifteen Sela'im, as we explained earlier.

(b) This poses a Kashya on Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon, who do not connect the sum total of Ha'anakah with "Tzon, Goren ve'Yekev". According to them, then - why does the Torah need to mention them?

(c) We know that, according to Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon, Ha'anakah is not confined to "Tzon, Goren ve'Yekev" - because the Torah adds "Asher Berach'cha Hashem Elokecha", implying that one may may give him any commodities that fall in the category of B'rachah.

(a) According to Rebbi Shimon, the Torah specifies these three commodities in order to preclude money. According to Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov - they preclude mules (which do not proliferate).

(b) The reason that ...

1. ... Rebbi Shimon declines to learn like Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov is - because granted mules do not proliferate; they do however, grow.
2. ... Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov declines to learn like Rebbi Shimon is - because money can be invested.

(c) Having written ...

1. ... "Tzon", the Torah needs to insert "Goren" - to teach us that what grows from the ground is included no less than living species.
2. ... "Goren", the Torah need to insert "Tzon" - to teach us that living species is included no less than what grows from the ground.
3. ... "Tzon and Goren", the Torah needs to insert "Yekev" - to preclude either money or mules, as we just explained.

8)

(a) The Tana Kama learns from ...

1. ... "Ha'anek Ta'anik" - that the master is obligated to give the Eved Ivri Ha'anakah, even though he did not bring B'rachah to his house.
2. ... "Asher Berachecha Hashem Elokecha" - that he should give him the minimum Ha'anakah in any case, but should increase it, in accordance with the B'rachah.

(b) Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah learns from "Asher Berachecha Hashem Elokecha" - that if the master's house was not blessed on his account, he is not obligated to give him Ha'anakah.

(c) He explains the double expression "Ha'anek Ta'anik" - in accordance with the principle 'Dibrah Torah ki'Leshon B'nei Adam'.

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa discusses what happens to the Eved Ivri after his master's death. A Mocher Atzmo or a Machruhu Beis-Din continue to serve the son until his term ends. The Tana says that ...

1. ... he does not however, serve his daughter (or his brother).
2. ... an Amah Ivriyah and a Nirtza - serve neither the son nor the daughter (but go free).
3. ... a Nimkar le'Akum - does not the son either.

(b) The Tana of another Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... *va'Avadcha* Sheish Shanim" - that the Eved Ivri serves the master for six years, but not his heirs.
2. ... "Sheish Shanim Ya'avod" - that he must serve the full six-year term (i.e. in the event of his master's death, he continues to serve his son for the rest of his term).

(c) The ...

1. ... two advantages of a son over a brother are - that he can perform Yi'ud with his father's Amah Ivriyah and that, should he redeem his father's inherited field that his father declared Hekdesh, he retains it in the Yovel (i.e. it does not go to the Kohanim, which it would do if his brother or anyone else redeemed it)).
2. ... advantage of a brother over a son is - that he performs Yibum.

(d) The advantage that ...

1. ... a brother performs Yibum and not a son does not match the fact that a son makes Yi'ud and not a brother - because if there was a son, the brother would not perform Yibum in the first place.
2. ... a son has the same power as his father regarding S'dei Achuzah does not count to give a son two advantages over the brother's one - because in fact, we only know there that it is the son rather than the brother, from the same source as in our Sugya ('if there was a son, the brother would not perform Yibum').

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Af la'Amascha Ta'aseh Kein" that an Amah Ivriyah does not even serve her master's *son* upon his death. And from ...

1. ... the redundant word "Ta'aseh" we learn - that her master is obligated to give her Ha'anakah when she leaves.
2. ... the Pasuk "ve'Im Amor Yomar *ha'Eved*" we learn - that only an Eved Ivri can have his ear pierced (to continue working until the Yovel) but not an Amah Ivriyah.

(b) And we learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'Ratza Adonav es Ozno ba'Martze'a *va'Avado* le'Olam" - that, in the event of his master's death, a Nirtza does not even serve the son (but goes free).
2. ... "ve'Chishav Im Koneihu"- that, in the event of his master's death, a Nimkar le'Akum works for the Akum but not for his heirs.

(c) Rava extrapolates from this latter D'rashah (of Chizkiyah) - that the son of a Nochri inherits his father.

(a) The Mishnah in D'mai discusses two brothers, a Ger and a Nochri who inherit their Nochri father. In a case where the Ger strikes an agreement whereby his brother takes the idols and he, the money; his brother the wine, and he, the fruit, assuming this agreement is reached ...

1. ... before they divided their father's property, says the Tana - it is valid.
2. ... after they divided it - it is invalid.

(b) Rava extrapolates from there - that a Ger inherits his Nochri father only mid'Rabanan. If it were d'Oraysa, the heir would not be permitted to make such a stipulation at all (even before he had already received the property (seeing as, the moment his father dies, the property belongs to him, whether he has already taken it or not).

(c) The basis for the Isur is - benefiting from Avodah-Zarah.

(d) The Rabbanan issued this decree (declaring the Ger to be an heir) - because they were afraid that, otherwise (if the Ger's brother would inherit more than him, he might give up everything and go back to his former religion).

(a) The Tana of another Beraisa further bears out Rava's ruling - by restricting the above concession to a Ger and his brother who came to inherit, but not to a case where they were partners, in which case no stipulation is permitted.

(b) The Beraisa says that if, in the case where someone borrowed money from a Ger who converted together with his sons and the Ger died - the Chachamim are indifferent should the debtor return the debt to his heirs.

(c) We reconcile this with the Mishnah in Shevi'is, which says 'Ru'ach Chachamim Nochah Heimenu' - by establishing that Mishnah when (although the son was conceived when his father was still a Nochri) his father had already converted by the time he was born. In such a case the Chachamim would encourage him to pay the outstanding debt to the son, to avoid people erroneously inferring that one is not obligated to repay a debt to a Jew.

(d) Rava extrapolates from the Beraisa - that a Ger does not inherit a Nochri at all (even mid'Rabanan - otherwise, why would the Chachamim not be pleased with the debtor for paying the money to the Nochri's converted heir?)