(R. Chiya bar Avin): "I gave Mount Se'ir as an inheritance to Esav" teaches that mid'Oraisa, a Nochri inherits his father.

Objection: That proof is inconclusive. Perhaps a Yisrael Mumar inherits, but a Nochri does not!

Correction: Rather, we learn from "I gave Ar for an inheritance to the descendants of Lot".

Question: Why does R. Chiya bar Avin not learn like Rava?

Answer: It does not say 'he will calculate with the one who bought him, not with the buyer's heirs.' (Perhaps the buyer has no heirs!)

Question: Why does Rava not learn like R. Chiya bar Avin?

Answer: Perhaps a Nochri normally does not inherit. Hash-m made Lot an exception, due to the honor of Avraham.

(Beraisa): Some things apply only to a (male) Eved Ivri, and others apply only to an Amah:

An Eved Ivri leaves after six years, in Yovel, or when the master dies. This is not true about an Amah;

An Amah leaves when she brings Simanim, and she cannot be sold more than once, and we redeem her against his will. These are not true about an Eved Ivri.

Contradiction (Mishnah): In addition to what frees a male slave, an Amah goes free also when she brings Simanim.

Answer (Rav Sheshes): Our Beraisa says that what frees a male slave does not free an Amah. It discusses when Yi'ud was done (the master married her).

Objection: If so, obviously she does not go out like a male slave. She needs a Get!

Answer: One might have thought that her initial status (that she leaves after six years or Yovel) remains. The Beraisa teaches that this is not so.

Question: If Yi'ud was done, she does not go out through Simanim!

Answer: The Beraisa teaches that if Yi'ud was not done, she goes out also through Simanim.

(Beraisa): She cannot be sold more than once...(these are not true about a male slave).

Inference: A male slave can be resold!

Contradiction (Beraisa): "(He will be sold) for his theft" - and not to pay the double (extra) payment that a thief must pay, nor for the fine that Edim Zomemim (witnesses who testified about what they were not present to see) pay;

"For his theft" - once he is sold, you cannot sell him again.

Version #1 (Rashi) Answer #1 (Rava): He can be sold only once to pay for one theft, but can be resold to pay for more thefts.

Objection (Abaye): "For his theft" can include more than one theft!

Answer #2 (Abaye): Rather, he can be sold only once for thefts in one sentencing, but he can be resold if he is judged another time for theft.

Version #2 (Tosfos) Answer #1 (Rava): He can be resold to pay for one theft, but not to pay for more than one theft.

Objection (Abaye): "For his theft" connotes all thefts (from one person)!

Answer #2 (Abaye): Rather, he can be resold only for thefts from one person, but not for thefts from others. (end of Version #2)

(Beraisa): If he stole 1000, and he is worth 500 (to be sold for a slave), he is sold twice. If he stole 500, and he is worth 1000, he is not sold at all;

R. Eliezer says, if he stole his value, he is sold. If not, he is not sold.

(Rava): R. Eliezer can refute the Chachamim!

Chachamim say that if he stole 500, and he is worth 1000, he is not sold at all. This is because he must be sold entirely to pay for his theft, not half sold;

Also if he stole 1000, and he is worth 500, he must be sold for all his theft, not for half of it!

(Beraisa): We redeem her against his will.

(Rava): This means against the master's will.

Objection (Abaye): Do you hold that we force the master to free her, even though he only receives a document in which she obligates herself to pay her redemption when she will get the money?!

It is absurd that we would force someone holding a pearl (something valuable, an Amah) to give it up for a (currently) worthless shard (the document)!

(Abaye): Rather, we force her father to redeem her (if he has the money), due to disgrace to the family.

Question: If so, we should also force an Eved Ivri's relatives to redeem him for this reason!

Answer: This will not help. He will sell himself again.

Question: Likewise, if we force an Amah's father to redeem her, he will sell her again!

Answer: The Beraisa is like R. Shimon (who holds that he cannot resell her).

(Beraisa): A man can Mekadesh his daughter, and (after she is widowed or divorced) Mekadesh her again. He can sell her to be a slave, and (after she goes free) resell her. He can Mekadesh her after selling her; but he cannot sell her after he was Mekadesh her;

R. Shimon says, just like he cannot sell her after he was Mekadesh her, he cannot sell her after selling her once.

These Tana'im argue like the following Tana'im.

(Beraisa - R. Akiva): "B'Vigdo Vah" - once he (her master) spread his Beged (cloak) over her (for Yi'ud), her father cannot sell her (this is like Chachamim);

R. Elazar says, "B'Vagdo Vah" - once he (her father) Bagad (betrayed her, by selling her), he cannot sell her (again, like R. Shimon. This is like Rashi. Tosfos switches the opinions of R. Akiva and R. Eliezer.)

Question: What do they argue about?

Answer: R. Eliezer holds that (when a word in the Torah is pronounced unlike it is written) we primarily follow the way it is written. R. Akiva holds that we follow the way it is pronounced. R. Shimon holds that we follow both (therefore, she cannot be sold after Kidushin or after being sold).

Question (Rabah bar Avuha): Does Yi'ud make Kidushin or Nisu'in?

This determines whether the master inherits her and becomes Tamei to engage in her burial, and whether he can annul her vows by himself.

Answer #1 (Beraisa): "B'Vigdo Vah" - once he spread his cloak over her, her father cannot sell her.

Inference: He cannot sell her, but he can be Mekadesh her!

If Yi'ud makes Nisu'in, once she had Nisu'in, her father has no jurisdiction over her!

Conclusion: Rather, Yi'ud makes only Kidushin.

Rejection (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): No, the Beraisa discusses regular Kidushin. It means that once her father handed her over to someone obligated to feed her, clothe her and fulfill Onah (Bi'ah at regular intervals, i.e. he was Mekadesh her), her father cannot sell her.

Answer #2 (Beraisa): A man cannot sell his daughter to relatives;

R. Eliezer says, he can.

Both agree that one can sell (his daughter, even if she is) a widow to a Kohen Gadol, or a divorcee or Chalutzah to a regular Kohen.

Question: How did she become a widow (while a minor)?

If she was Mekadesh herself, she would not be called a widow (her Kidushin was void)!

Answer: Rather, her father was Mekadesh her.

Question: One cannot sell his daughter after he was Mekadesh her!

Answer (Rav Amram): She became a widow through Yi'ud, according to Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who says that the money paid for an Amah was not given for Kidushin. (Therefore, it is as if her father was not Mekadesh her.)

If Yi'ud makes Nisu'in, after Nisu'in her father has no jurisdiction over her!

Question: It is difficult even if we say that Yi'ud makes Kidushin! The Beraisa says that both agree that he can sell her;

One cannot sell his daughter after he was Mekadesh her!

Answer: We must distinguish. A man cannot sell his daughter after he was Mekadesh her, but he can sell her after she was Mekadesh herself (through Yi'ud)!

We can likewise distinguish, and say that a girl leaves her father's jurisdiction after he married her off (Nisu'in), but not after she married herself off (through Yi'ud, if Yi'ud makes Nisu'in)!

Rejection: This reasoning is wrong! We can distinguish when he is Mekadesh her from when she is Mekadesh herself, but there cannot be a distinction in Nisu'in (since Nisu'in is entering the husband's Reshus. Perforce, she leaves the father's jurisdiction.)

Question: Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak holds that even Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah agrees that the money paid for an Amah was given for Kidushin (if the master will do Yi'ud). How can he explain the Beraisa?

Answer: The Beraisa is like R. Eliezer (Rashi; Tosfos - R. Akiva), who says that a man cannot sell his daughter twice, but he can sell her after he was Mekadesh her.