(Mishnah): If Reuven hit Shimon's Kena'ani slave, he is liable... (R. Yehudah says, Boshes does not apply to slaves).

Question: What is R. Yehudah's reason?

Answer: "When men will fight, a man with his brother" refers to people who have (according to Halachah) brothers. This excludes slaves.

Chachamim disagree. Since also a slave is commanded to keep Mitzvos, he is called a brother of a free man.

Question: According to R. Yehudah, Edim Zomemim who tried to kill a slave should not be killed. It says "like he plotted to do to his brother"!

Answer (Rava): "You will eradicate the evil from your midst" includes this case.

Question: Chachamim should say that a slave is qualified to be king (even though we must appoint a king from "your brothers")!

Counter-question: All agree that a convert is called your brother, but he may not be appointed king!

Answer (to both questions): "From the midst of your brothers" - connotes from the best (lineage) of your brothers.

Question: Chachamim should say that a slave is qualified to testify - "he testified falsely about his brother"!

Answer #1 (Ula): A Kal va'Chomer disqualifies slave from testimony;

Even women, who may marry a Yisrael, cannot testify. All the more so slaves, who cannot marry into Yisrael, may not testify!

Question: Circumcision does not apply to women. Perhaps slaves, to whom circumcision applies, can testify!

Answer: We see that minors cannot testify, even though they are fit for circumcision.

Question: Children are exempt from Mitzvos. Perhaps slaves, who are commanded to fulfill Mitzvos, can testify!

Answer: Women are commanded in the Mitzvos, yet they cannot testify! (This shows that this is not the criterion);

The stringent sides of women and children are dissimilar. We learn from the common side: they are not commanded about all the Mitzvos, and cannot testify. The same applies to slaves!

Question: Women and children are not men. We cannot learn to disqualify adult male slaves!

Answer: We learn from a robber (just like he cannot testify, also a slave).

Question: His sin disqualified him. We cannot learn to a slave!

Answer: We learn from the common side of a robber, and a woman or minor.

Answer #2 (Mar brei d'Ravina): "Fathers will not die due to children" - one is not sentenced to die through testimony of fathers who have no connection (lineage) to their children.

The verse cannot mean that a father will not die though testimony of his children. If so, it should have said 'fathers will not be put to death due to their children'!

Rather, it means like we said.

Question: If so, we should similarly learn from "children will not be put to death due to fathers" that one is not sentenced to die through testimony of children who have no lineage to their fathers, to disqualify converts (but this is false)!

Answer: No. Converts have no lineage to their parents, but they have lineage to their children. The verse excludes slaves, who have no lineage, not to their parents nor to their children.

Had the Torah wanted to disqualify converts, the verse would say 'children will not die due to their fathers', to teach that a father is not sentenced to die through testimony of his children;

''And children will not die due to fathers" would teach two laws:

Children are not sentenced to die through testimony of their fathers;

No one is sentenced to die through testimony of people who have no lineage to their fathers (converts);

We would then learn a Kal va'Chomer: if converts are disqualified, even though they have lineage to their children, all the more so slaves, who have no lineage to their parents or children, are disqualified!

Since the Torah did not write this. It must be that converts can testify, only slaves are disqualified.

Question: The Torah should have written 'and children will not be put to death due to their fathers.' Why did it write "and children will not be put to death due to fathers", which connotes that no one is sentenced to die through testimony of people who have no lineage to their fathers!

Answer: Since the verse starts "fathers will not be put to death due to children", the verse continues "and children will not be put to death due to fathers."

(Mishnah): One loses through encounters with a Cheresh, lunatic or child.

The mother of Rav Shmuel bar Aba of Hegronya wrote a document giving her Melug property to Rav Shmuel. After she died, R. Yirmiyah bar Aba ruled that Rav Shmuel gets the property.

Question (Rav Yehudah): Shmuel taught that if a woman sold her Melug property in her husband's lifetime, and she died, her husband takes the property from the buyer!

Answer (R. Yirmiyah): I ruled like a Mishnah!

(Mishnah): If Reuven wrote a document giving his property to his son after Reuven's death, the son may not sell the property, because it is under the father's Reshus. The father may not sell it, for he wrote a document giving it to his son.

If the father sold it, the sale stands until the father dies. If the son sold it, the buyer does not get it until the father dies.

Inference: When the father dies, the buyer gets it, even if the son died before the father, and the son never received the property.

Question: This is like Reish Lakish (and unlike R. Yochanan)!

(R. Yochanan): If the son sold the property and then died in the father's lifetime, the buyer never gets it;

(Reish Lakish): The buyer gets it (after the father dies).

Answer: The Mishnah says that if the son sold it, the buyer does not get it until the father dies. R. Yochanan explains that this is when the father died before the son, and the property passed to the son;

If the son died before the father, the property never passed to the son, so the buyer never gets it.

Inference: He holds that Kinyan Peros (the father owns the yield as long as he is alive) is like Kinyan ha'Guf (owning the land itself), so the son sold something that he does not own.

According to Reish Lakish, the Mishnah says that the buyer gets it when the father dies. This is even if the son died before the father, and the property never passed to the son.

Inference: He holds that Kinyan Peros is not like Kinyan ha'Guf. The son was considered the owner when he sold it, so the sale stands.

(Presumably,) both R. Yirmiyah bar Aba and Rav Yehudah hold like Reish Lakish (for the Halachah follows him)

R. Yirmiyah bar Aba said that Kinyan Peros cannot be like Kinyan ha'Guf, for if it were, when the son died before the father, the buyer would not never get the property, for the son never owned it.

Rebuttal (Rav Yehudah): Shmuel taught that the case (of the gift of Rav Shmuel's mother) is not like the Mishnah.

Question: Why is it different?

Answer #1 (Rav Yosef): Had the Mishnah said that Shimon wrote a document giving his property to his father after Shimon's death, we could indeed learn that Kinyan Peros is not like Kinyan ha'Guf;

However, in the Mishnah Reuven gave his property to his son. (Perhaps) the son's sale stands because he can inherit his father!

Objection (Abaye): Also a father can inherit his son!

Surely, one who gave his property to his father intended that his own children not inherit it. Likewise, one who gave his property to one son intended that his other children not inherit it! (The reason that the son's sale stands is not because he can inherit his father. He could inherit only part! Rather, we must say that Kinyan Peros is not like Kinyan ha'Guf.)

Answer #2 (Abaye): The case of Rav Shmuel's mother is different due to the enactment of Usha.

(R. Yosi bar Chanina): In Usha, they enacted that if a woman sells her Melug property and dies in her husband's lifetime, he takes the property from the buyer.