Previous daf

1)

(a) What does the Tana Kama of the Beraisa learn from "Ha'anek Ta'anik *Lo*"?

(b) On what grounds do we reject the suggestion that Rebbi Elazar learns from there "Lo" 've'Lo le'Yorshav'?

(c) We conclude that his D'rashah from there is based on Rebbi Nasan's opinion.
What does Rebbi Nasan say regarding a case where Reuven owes Shimon money and Shimon owes Levi?

(d) What does Rebbi Elazar now learn from "Ha'anek Ta'anik Lo"?

(a) On what grounds do the Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Elazar in this case?

(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? Why can the Pasuk not be taken literally?

(a) What do the Rabbanan learn from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Im Adonav Yiten *Lo* Ishah"?

(b) What does Rebbi Elazar learn from there?

(c) How do the Rabbanan learn this from the Pasuk "Ki Mishneh S'char Sachir"?

(d) How does Rebbi Elazar counter this?

(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).
Why can the Pasuk refer neither to a Mocher Atzmo nor to a Nirtza?

(b) So what is the Pasuk referring to?

(c) How do we try to prove from here that Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov is the Tana who does not hold of "Sachir" "Sachir"?

(d) How does Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak repudiate this suggestion? Even assuming that he learns the 'Gezeirah-Shavah', why would Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov not learn Machruhu Beis-Din from Mocher Atzmo in this regard?

(a) We establish "ve'Shavtem Ish el Achuzaso" by a Nirtza (to teach us that when the Yovel arrives, he goes free).
How does Rava bar Shilo extrapolate from the Pasuk itself that it is speaking about a Nirtza?

(b) Having taught us that ...

1. ... a Machruhu Beis-Din goes free in the Yovel, why does the Torah to repeat the Din by a Nirtza?
2. ... a Nirtza goes free in the Yovel, why does the Torah to repeat the Din by a Machruhu Beis-Din?

(c) And why does the Torah find it necessary to write both the Pasuk of "ve'Shavtem" (by Nirtza) and "va'Avado Le'olam"? Having written ...

1. ... "Le'olam", why did it need to write "ve'Shavtem"?
2. ... "ve'Shavtem", why did it need to write "Le'olam"?

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".
What does "be'Eileh" refer to?

(b) Rebbi in a Beraisa, extrapolates from there "be'Eileh Hu Nig'al, ve'Eino Nig'al be'Sheish".
How does he learn a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Mocher Atzmo that, if not for "be'Eileh", he would go out after six years?

(c) What leads us to initially believe that Rebbi is the Tana who does not hold of "Sachir" "Sachir"?

(d) Based on the Pasuk (written by a Nimkar le'Akum) "O Dodo O ben Dodo Yig'alenu", how does Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak reject the proof from there?

(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'.
What does this mean?

(b) What does Rebbi Akiva say?

(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".
How does Rebbi Yossi Hagelili learn his opinion from here?

(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.
Why is this interpretation unacceptable?

(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.
To what does ...

1. ... "O Hisigah Yado" refer?
2. ... "ve'Nig'al" refer?

(b) Bearing in mind that the Torah places Ge'ulas Atzmo in the middle, how do we now attempt to interpret the Machlokes between Rebbi Yossi Hagelili and Rebbi Akiva?

(c) Then why do we need "be'Eileh"? How would we have learned without it?

(d) On what grounds do we reject this explanation too?

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

1. ... Rebbi Yossi Hagelili? Why does he think that by Ge'ulas Acheirim, the Eved Ivri is more likely to have to work for those who redeem him?
2. ... Rebbi Akiva? Why does he think that this is more likely to be the case by Ge'ulas K'rovim?

(b) How will Rebbi Akiva explain "be'Eileh", which until now, we have seen, supported Rebbi Yossi Hagelili's explanation?

(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.
Who is the Rabbanan? On what grounds do they argue with Rebbi Yossi Hagelili and Rebbi Akiva?

(d) How then, does Rebbi interpret the Pasuk "ve'Yatza bi'Sh'nas ha'Yovel"?

Next daf