Question: What do they argue about?

Answer: They argue about whether or not Reuven must compensate Shimon for damaging property on which Shimon had a lien;

Chachamim exempt him, and R. Shimon ben Gamliel obligates him.

Support: It was taught that Chachamim and R. Shimon ben Gamliel argue about whether or not one who damages collateral for a loan must pay the lender.

Answer #2 (to question 6:c, 40b - Ula): Shimon declared Tavi to be free;

Letter of the law, Tavi is not obligated in the Mitzvos (special to free men) at all. However, since he was called free, for Tikun ha'Olam it was enacted that Reuven free him, and Tavi obligates himself to pay his value to Reuven.

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, Shimon owes the money.

Question: What do they argue about?

Answer: They argue about damage that it not recognizable;

Chachamim hold that it is not considered damage (so one is exempt). R. Shimon ben Gamliel holds that it is considered damage (one is liable for it).

Question: Why didn't Ula answer like Rav?

Answer: You cannot say that Shimon is called the master (he never received the slave!)

Question: Why didn't Rav answer like Ula?

Answer: You cannot say that Shimon freed him. (Since he was not the master, his words had no effect!)

(Ami Shapir Na'eh): If Levi made his field an Apotiki (a property specially designated for collection of a loan) and it was flooded, the lender does not collect from other property.

Objection (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): This is wrong!

Answer: The case is, Levi specified that the loan can be collected only from this field.

Support (Beraisa): If Levi made his field an Apotiki, and it was flooded, the lender collects from other property. If Levi specified that the loan can be collected only from this field, it is not collected from other property.

(Beraisa): If Yehudah made his field an Apotiki to a creditor or to pay his wife's Kesuvah, they may collect from other property;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, the creditor may collect from other property, but his wife cannot, for women do not normally go to Beis Din to collect. (Therefore, we assume that the lien of the Kesuvah was levied only on the designated field.)

(Mishnah - Beis Hillel): A half-slave alternates. One day he serves his master, and the next day, he keeps his earnings;

Beis Shamai: That is good for his master, but not for the half-slave!

He cannot marry a Shifchah, for he is half-free. He cannot marry a Bas Yisrael, for he is half-slave;

Suggestion: He will never marry.

Rejection: "Lasheves Yetzarah" (the world was created for the sake of procreation)!

Rather, for Tikun ha'Olam, we force his master to free him, and the half-slave writes a document obligating himself to pay half his value to his master.

Beis Hillel retracted, and agreed to Beis Shamai.

(Gemara - Beraisa - Rebbi): If Reuven freed half of his slave, the slave becomes half-free;

Chachamim say, he remains a full slave.

Opinion #1 (Rabah): They argue about when Reuven gave a Get of (half) freedom.

Rebbi holds that "she was not redeemed, her Get of freedom was not given to her" equates a Get of freedom to (redemption) money;

Just like money can fully or partially redeem a slave, also a Get of freedom.

Chachamim learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "Lah-Lah" from divorce;

Just like a woman cannot be half-divorced, a slave cannot be half-freed.

All agree that money can partially free her.

Suggestion: Rebbi and Chachamim argue about whether it is better to learn from a Hekesh (we equate matters written next to each other) or a Gezeirah Shavah.

Rejection: No. All agree that usually, a Gezeirah Shavah is better;

Here is different. A woman cannot be divorced through money (which can partially free a slave), so we do not learn from divorce that a Get of freedom cannot work half-way.

Opinion #2 (Rav Yosef): They argue about a slave who was half-redeemed through money;

Rebbi holds that "redeemed, she was not redeemed" teaches that she was partially redeemed;

Chachamim say, the Torah speaks like people do (so we need not expound the doubled verb).

All agree that a Get of half-freedom does not work at all.

Question (against Rav Yosef - Beraisa - Rebbi): If one half-freed his slave through a Get, it works;

Chachamim say, it does not.

Rav Yosef is refuted. (He said that all agree that a Get does not work half-way.)

Suggestion: (Rav Yosef said that they argue about whether or not money can half-redeem.) The Beraisa also refutes him regarding this!

They argue about a Get. This implies that all agree that money works!

Rejection: No, they argue about both.

The Beraisa discusses a Get to show the extremity of Rebbi, that even a Get works half-way.

Question: Rather, they should argue about money, to show the extremity of Chachamim, that even money does not work half-way!

Answer: The Tana prefers to teach the extremity of the lenient opinion.

(Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps "she was redeemed" totally!

Rejection: "She was not redeemed."

Suggestion: Perhaps "she was not redeemed" at all!

Rejection: "She was redeemed."

Resolution: She was partially redeemed, with money or something of value;

Suggestion: Perhaps freedom can be only through money!

Rejection: It says "or her freedom was not given Lah (to her)", and "he will write Lah (for her) a Sefer of divorce." A Gezeirah Shavah "Lah-Lah" teaches that one can free a slave through a document.

Question: We learned that money can partially redeem, and a Get can totally free a slave. What is the source that a Get can free half-way?

Answer: "She was redeemed... her freedom" equates freedom through money and a through a document. Either can work fully or partially.

After Rav Yosef was refuted (about one matter), he will say that this Beraisa is like Rebbi (but Chachamim hold that even money cannot half-redeem.)

Question: According to Rabah, the Reisha is like all the Tana'im, but the Seifa is only like Rebbi!

Answer #1 (Rabah): Yes, that is the structure of the Beraisa.

Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): Rebbi taught the entire Beraisa. Chachamim agree to his first law, and argue with his second law.