Rashi in daf 42a "dibur hamaschil"-Lo Yotzah explains that when someone frees his slave but leaves alittle piece of land over, he does'nt go free because it would be a problem of "palginan dibura". However on daf 8b rashi explains that when someone does the same thing the slave doesnt go free because since he left over land he also left over the slave. thank you 'kol hakavod"
Moshe Derhy, manhattan,NY
Rashi on 8b explains the view of the Chachamim with "mid'd'Nachis l'Shi'urah." This is more encompassing than "Lo Palginan Diburei," for it includes cases which would not be included in the reasoning of "Lo Palginan Diburei." One such case is where we know which land he left over, such that we do not need "Palginan" to make the Shtar valid, but, nevertheless, according to Rashi it is invalid. The same is true of a case where he owns only one field other than the Eved, so we know clearly that the "Kol Nichsei" relates to the Eved. Even though the case of "Shi'er Karka Kol Shehu" could be explained with "Lo Palginan Diburei" alone, Rashi wants to teach us the Halachah in the other cases. However, on 42a we are dealing only with the case of "Karka Kol Shehu" and thus we can suffice with the reasoning of "Lo Palginan Diburei."
D. Zupnik