Answer (Rav Sheshes): The case is, the slave fled, and Yovel came (before he returned);

One might have thought that since Yovel frees him, it is as if the master sent him, and he receives gifts. The Beraisa teaches that this is not so. He is fined, and gets no gifts.

The Beraisa said that even if a slave was ill, "in the seventh year he will leave."

Inference: This is even if he was ill all six years.

Question (Beraisa): If he was sick for three years and worked for three years, he need not work any more. If he was sick all six years, he must complete his term of service.

Answer (Rav Sheshes): He goes free (even if he was sick all six years) as long as he was doing some work during his illness (e.g. sewing).

Question: The Reisha said that if he was sick for three years and worked for three years, he need not work any more. This implies that had he been sick for four years, he would have to complete the time missed;

The Seifa said that if he was sick all six years, he must complete his term. This implies that if he was sick for four years, he is exempt!

Answer: The Beraisa means that if he was sick for four years, it is as if he was sick all six years, and he must complete his term.

(Beraisa - R. Meir): The slave receives a gift of five Sela'im worth of each category (flock, grain and wine), 15 Sela'im in all;

Rebbi Yehudah says, he receives 30 Sela'im, just like the payment for a (Kena'ani) slave killed regarding a Mu'ad (an animal established to gore);

R. Shimon says, he gets 50 Sela'im, like the highest Erech (a pledge to Hekdesh based on a person's age and gender).

Question: Why did R. Meir need to say that the total gift is 15? (Since he gets five of each category, clearly he gets 15!)

Answer: He teaches that as long as the slave receives 15, we do not care if exactly five was from each category.

Question: What is R. Meir's source (that he gets five of each category)?

Answer: He learns from a Gezeirah Shavah "Reikam-Reikam" from Pidyon ha'Ben (redemption of a firstborn son).

Just like Pidyon ha'Ben is five Sela'im, also the gift is five Sela'im of each category.

Question: Perhaps the total value is five Sela'im!

Answer: Had it said "Reikam" after the categories, we would indeed say so!

Rather, "Reikam" is said before, to teach that five Sela'im applies to each of them.

Question: Why don't we learn from "Reikam" written regarding Olas Re'iyah (a Korban that every man must bring on each festival, which need not be worth so much)!

Answer: "That Hash-m blessed you" shows that one gives the larger amount.

Question: Why does Rebbi Yehudah prefer to learn from the payment for a slave who was gored?

Answer: He learns from a Gezeirah Shavah "Nesinah-Nesinah".

Question: Why does he not learn the Gezeirah Shavah (on the same words) from Erchin (Rashba - of people; Tosfos Rid - redemption of a Hekdesh field right after Yovel), and say that the gift is 50?

Answer #1: If there are two ways to learn, we learn the smaller Chidush.

Answer #2: It is more reasonable to learn a law about a slave from a law about a slave.

Question: Why does R. Shimon prefer to learn 50, from Erchin?

Answer #1: He learns from a Gezeirah Shavah "Nesinah-Nesinah".

Question: Why does he not learn the smallest Erech? (Tosfos Rid - this is redemption of a Hekdesh field right after Yovel, slightly more than one Sela; Rashba - it is five Sela'im. I do not know why we would not learn from the Erech of a small girl, which is only three Sela'im.)

Answer: "That Hash-m blessed you" shows that we give the largest amount.

Objection: Why don't we learn the Gezeirah Shavah (Nesinah-Nesinah) from a gored slave, and say that the gift is 30?

If there are two ways to learn, we always learn the smaller Chidush;

Also, it is more reasonable to learn about a slave from a law about a slave!

Answer #2: Rather, he learns a Gezeirah Shavah "Michah-Michah" from Erchin (of people).

Question: According to R. Meir, we understand why the Torah wrote three categories (to teach that we give five Sela'im from each);

According to Rebbi Yehudah and R. Shimon, why was this needed?

Answer (Beraisa - R. Shimon): One might have thought that the gift can be only from flock, grain, and wine. "That Hash-m blessed you" teaches that other things may be given.

Question: If so, why did the Torah specify flock, grain and wine?

Answer: Just like these increase (reproduce), the gift must be something that reproduces. This excludes money;

R. Eliezer ben Yakov says, this excludes mules.

R. Shimon includes mules, for they grow larger.

R. Eliezer ben Yakov includes money, for it may be invested profitably.

All three categories needed to be written;

Had the Torah written only "flock", one might have thought that only animals may be given, but not vegetation. It says "grain" to include vegetation;

Had the Torah written only "grain", one might have thought that only vegetation may be given, but not animals. It says "flock" to include animals;

R. Shimon holds that "wine" excludes money. R. Eliezer ben Yakov holds that it excludes mules (Rashi. Tosfos - R. Shimon holds that it includes mules, and R. Eliezer ben Yakov holds that it includes money.)

(Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps "that Hash-m blessed you" exempt a master from giving gifts if he was not blessed (did not prosper) while the slave worked for him!

Rejection: "Ha'anik (give a gift) Ta'anik", even if he was not blessed.

Question: If so, why does it say "that Hash-m blessed you"?

Answer: If he was blessed, he should give (more than the minimum,) according to the Berachah.

R. Eliezer ben Azaryah says, if the master was not blessed, he is exempt.

He does not expound "Ha'anik Ta'anik." The Torah speaks the way people speak.

(Beraisa): If the master dies, an Eved Ivri serves the son, but not the daughter;

An Amah, a Nirtza, or one sold to a Nochri goes free.

Question: What is the source that an Eved Ivri serves the son, but not the daughter?

Answer (Beraisa): "He will serve you six years" - you, but not an heir (i.e. the daughter).

Suggestion: Perhaps it means that he will not serve any heir!

Rejection: It says "he will serve (without saying 'you') six years" to teach that he serves an heir (the son).

Question: Why do we say that the heir he serves is the son? Perhaps it is the brother!

Answer: It is more reasonable that it is the son, for he is in place of his father for Yi'ud (to marry the father's Amah), and to redeem a field his father made Hekdesh.

Objection; It is more reasonable that it is the brother, for one is in place of his brother to do Yibum!

Answer: Yibum applies only when there is no son. (This shows that a son is a better replacement (for his father) than a brother is.)

Question: Why is such an answer needed? Even if the brother were better regarding Yibum, the son is better in two respects!

Answer: We cannot count redemption of the field, for the verse did not specify who is in place of his father. If the brother were indeed better regarding Yibum, we would not know who is better regarding the field!

(Beraisa): An Amah does not serve the son or daughter.

Question: What is the source for this?

Answer (R. Pada): "You will do so even to your Amah" equates an Amah to a Nirtza;

Just like a Nirtza does not serve either child, also an Amah.

Question: We learn something else from this verse!

(Beraisa): "You will do so even to your Amah" - she also receives gifts when she leaves.

Suggestion: Perhaps it rather teaches that she can become Nirtza'as!

Rejection: "If the (male) slave will say (that he wants to become a Nirtza)", and not an Amah.

Answer: Had the verse come only to teach about not serving an heir, it would say "even to your Amah";

It adds "you will do so" to additionally teach that she receives gifts.

(Beraisa): A Nirtza or a slave sold to a Nochri does not serve the son or daughter.

We learn about a Nirtza from "...he will serve him forever", but he will not serve his son or daughter.

Question: What is the source for a slave sold to a Nochri?

Answer (Chizkiyah): "He will calculate (the redemption) with the one who bought him", not with the buyer's heirs.

(Rava): The Torah needed to teach that a Nochri does not inherit his father's slave. This shows that a Nochri inherits his father mid'Oraisa;

A convert does not inherit his father mid'Oraisa, only mid'Rabanan;

(Mishnah): If a convert and a Nochri (his brother) inherited their father (a Nochri), the convert may tell his brother 'take the idols, and I will take the money. Take the wine used for idolatry, and I will take produce.'

If the convert already received the idolatry or wine, he may not trade it.

If a convert inherited mid'Oraisa, even before he receives them, they would be (half) his. It would be forbidden to trade them, for this is benefit from idolatry!

Conclusion: Rather, he inherits mid'Rabanan. This is a decree, lest he revert to being a Nochri if he would not inherit.

Support (Beraisa): One can say 'take the idols, and I will take the money' when splitting an inheritance. A partner with a Nochri may not say this.

A Nochri or a convert do not inherit a convert, not mid'Oraisa nor mid'Rabanan.

(Mishnah): If Reuven borrowed money from Yisro, a convert whose children converted with him, and Yisro died, Reuven should not return the money to Yisro's children. Chachamim are upset if he does.

Contradiction (Beraisa): If he returns to them, Chachamim are pleased!

Answer: If their mother converted before the birth (but they were conceived before their father converted), it is good to return the money. If their mother was a Nochris when they were born, it is bad to return the money (Rashi; Ri in Tosfos learns differently).