Previous daf

1)

(a) We just learned from the Din by someone who sold a house in a walled city who (can redeem it immediately, yet he) cannot redeem it in halves that someone who declared his house Hekdesh (who can redeem it immediately), should also not be able to redeem it in halves (which is why the Pasuk needs to write "Im Ga'ol Yig'al"). What Pircha did Rav Acha B'rei de'Rava ask Rav Ashi on this Limud? What disadvantage does the former case have?

(b) Rav Acha Saba explained that, in fact, we learn the Din, not just from someone who sold a house in a walled city, but from a 'Mah ha'Tzad' from it and from someone who sold a S'dei Achuzah.
What advantage does someone who ...

1. ... sold a S'dei Achuzah have over someone who sold a house in a walled city?
2. ... sold a house in a walled city over someone who sold a S'dei Achuzah?

(c) All this assumes however, that between them, they have an advantage over someone who declared a S'dei Achuzah Hekdesh. The problem, Rav Zutra B'rei de'Rav Mari pointed out to Ravina, is that *he* also has an advantage over *them* (dispensing with the need for "Ga'ol Yig'al" to counter the combined Limud).
Which advantage?

(d) To answer this Kashya, Ravina brings a third case into the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh'.
Which case is it that, like someone who declared a S'dei Achuzah Hekdesh, can be redeemed in the second year, yet he cannot be redeemed in halves?

(a) Rav Huna bar Chinena asked Rav Sheishes whether a house in a walled city that someone sold can be redeemed by relatives from "Ge'ulaso Ge'ulaso". According to which Tana does this She'eilah pertain?

(b) What is the other side of the She'eilah? In which connection is "Ge'ulaso" (by Batei Arei Chomah) written?

(c) What did Rav Sheishes reply?

(a) The Beraisa explains the (superfluous) Pasuk "u've'Chol Eretz Achuzaschem Ge'ulah Titnu la'Aretz", 'Lerabos Batim ve'Eved Ivri'.
What sort of redemption is the Pasuk coming to include?

(b) Why is there no proof from here that relatives can redeem Batei Arei Chomah (a Kashya on Rav Sheishes)?

(c) But surely, we know this already from the Pasuk "u'Vatei ha'Chatzeirim ... al S'dei ha'Aretz Yechasheiv"? According to which Tana does this go?

(a) Seeing as there is no such thing as a Jew without relatives, how does Rebbi Yehoshua interpret the Pasuk in Behar "ve'Ish Ki Lo Yihyeh Lo Go'el"?

(b) How does Rebbi Eliezer explain the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'Ga'al es Mimkar Achiv", in conjunction with the Pasuk "u've'Chol ... Ge'ulah Titnu"?
2. ... "ve'Ish Ki Lo Yihyeh Lo Go'el"?

(c) What problem do the Rabbanan (asking Ravina [or Ravina asking Rav Ashi]) have with the above explanation of 'Lerabos Batim' from the very Pasuk which it comes to explain ("u've'Chol Eretz Achuzaschem Ge'ulah Titnu la'Aretz")?

(a) Another Beraisa learns from the two extra times that the Torah writes "Yig'alenu", 'Lerabos Kol ha'Ge'ulos'.
How do we initially explain this as a Kashya on Rav Sheishes? What is the Tana coming to include?

(b) We refute the Kashya by establishing the two inclusions as Batei Chatzeirim and S'dei Achuzah. However, seeing as the Torah has already included them ("Al S'dei ha'Aretz Yechasheiv"), we explain the Tana's inclusion from "Yig'alenu" like Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak.
What does Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak say (with regard to the She'eilah that we are about to discuss)?

(a) We ask whether an Eved Ivri who is sold to a Yisrael can be redeemed by relatives.
According to which Tana was this She'eilah not asked?

(b) Maybe we learn that he can be redeemed, from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Sachir" "Sachir".
What is the side to say that he cannot?

(c) We ask from the same Beraisa that we asked earlier "u've'Chol Eretz Achuzaschem Ge'ulah Titnu la'Aretz", 'Lerabos Batim ve'Eved Ivri', on the assumption that 'Eved Ivri' refers to a Nimkar le'Yisrael.
How do we ...

1. ... refute the Kashya?
2. ... reconcile this with the fact that we already know a Nimkar le'Akum from the Pasuk "O Dodo O ben Dodo Yig'alenu"?

(d) We ask the same Kashya that we asked above from the Beraisa which learns from the two extra times that the Torah writes "Yig'alenu", 'Lerabos Kol ha'Ge'ulos', assuming that the Tana is referring to Batei Arei Chomah and Eved Ivri ha'Nimkar le'Yisrael.
How ...

1. ... do we refute this Kashya?
2. ... does Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak reconcile this with the fact that we already know this from the Pasuk "Al S'dei ha'Aretz Yechasheiv"?

7)

(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'Ratza Adonav es Ozno ... "?
2. ... "va'Avo*da*"?
3. ... "Le'olam"?

(b) The Torah writes "ve'Lakachta es ha'Martzei'a".
What does Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa learn from "ha'Martzei'a"?

(c) He incorporates in this Halachah a Sul, a Sira, a Machat, a Makdei'ach and a Michtav.
A Sul is sharp peg, a Sira a thorn, and a Machat, a needle. What is ...

1. ... a Makdei'ach?
2. ... a Michtav?

(d) What does Rebbi learn from Martzei'a?

(a) In the same Beraisa, Rebbi Elazar quoting Yudan B'rivi rules that an Eved Ivri was pierced in the lobe of his ear. The Rabbanan disagree.
What do the Rabbanan say about piercing the ear of an Eved Ivri Kohen? How does this prove that they disagree with Yudan B'rivi?

(b) We learned in the above Beraisa that Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah permits the piercing of an Eved Ivri even using wooden implements, whereas Rebbi permits only implements made of metal.
What is the basis of their Machlokes?

(c) What does Rebbi learn from ...

1. ... a 'K'lal u'F'rat'?
2. ... the final K'lal?

(d) How does he apply this in our Sugya?

(a) What does Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah learn from ...

1. ... a 'Ribuy u'Miy'ut'?
2. ... the final Ribuy? What does the Miy'ut come to preclude in our Sugya?

(b) The above-mentioned Beraisa adds 'Davar Acher "Ha'Martzei'za", 'Lehavi ha'Martzei'a ha'Gadol'.
What is ha'Martzei'a ha'Gadol'?

(c) What is the basis for this D'rashah? How did Rava extrapolate this from the Pasuk in Vayishlach (in connection with the Gid ha'Nasheh) "Al Kaf ha'Yarech")?

(a) Which part of the ear needs to be wounded in order to render a Kohen a Ba'al Mum?

(b) The Rabbanan forbid an Eved Ivri Kohen to have his ear pierced.
Which Pasuk does Rabah bar Rav Shiloh quote according to them to explain why the Mitzvah of piercing the ear does not override the La'av of a Kohen becoming a Ba'al Mum?

(c) We ask whether the master may give his Eved Ivri Kohen a Shifchah Cana'anis, seeing as permitting a Shifchah Cana'anis is, in any case, a Chidush, why should a Kohen be any different.
What is the other Tzad of the She'eilah? Why might a Kohen be precluded from this 'concession'?

(d) Rav permits it, Shmuel forbids it. Rav Nachman asked Rav Anan (a Talmid of Shmuel) why he did not query his Rebbe.
What should he have asked him from the Chachamim of Yudan B'rivi? What did he mean when he said 'be'Iskumardi Italelisu'?

(a) Based on the same considerations, we also ask whether a Kohen is permitted to take a Yefas To'ar in battle. Here too, Rav and Shmuel argue. What are their respective opinions?

(b) In the first Lashon, their Machlokes is confined to Bi'ah Sh'niyah, but both agree that a Kohen is permitted to make Bi'ah Rishonah.
Why is that?

(c) Why does ...

1. ... Shmuel forbid Bi'ah Sh'niyah?
2. ... Rav then permit it?

(d) In the second Lashon, both agree that Bi'ah Sh'niyah is forbidden for the reason that Shmuel gave in the first Lashon, and Rav holds like Shmuel in the first Lashon.
Why does Shmuel's forbid even Bi'ah Rishonah?

(a) The Torah in Ki Seitzei writes "ve'Ra'isa ba'Shivyah Eishes Yefas To'ar".
What do we learn from ...

1. ... the word "Eishes"?
2. ... "Yefas To'ar"? Why does the Torah need to describe the woman in this way?

(b) What do Chazal mean when they say 'Mutav she'Yochlu Yisrael Basar Temusos Shechutos ve'Lo Yochlu Basar Temusos Neveilos'?

(c) What do we learn from ...

1. ... "ve'Chashakta"?
2. ... "Bah"?
3. ... "ve'Lakachta"?

(d) From where do we learn that a soldier is not permitted to ...

1. ... take two women, one for himself and one for his son?
2. ... afflict her on the battlefield? What does this mean (see Cheishek Shlomoh)?

Next daf