Answer: Beraisa #1 is like Chachamim who argue with R. Shimon (and do not learn new Halachos from our understanding of the Mitzvos).

(Beraisa #2): One may borrow to redeem (a house). One may partially redeem it.

Contradiction (Beraisa #3): One may not borrow to redeem (a house), one may not partially redeem it.

Answer: Beraisa #2 is like R. Shimon, and Beraisa #3 is like Chachamim.

Question (Rav Acha Brei d'Rava): Beraisa #1 needed a verse to override a Kal va'Chomer. The Kal va'Chomer can be refuted!

One who sells his house does not have permanent rights of redemption. One cannot learn (that he cannot borrow to redeem it, or partially redeem it) to one who was Makdish his field, who has permanent redemption rights!

Answer (Rav Acha Sava): (If not for the verse,) we would have learned from a Tzad ha'Shavah:

One who sold his field has permanent redemption rights, yet he may not borrow to redeem it, or partially redeem it. The same applies to one who was Makdish his field.

Question: You cannot learn from one who sold his field, for he cannot redeem it in the first two years, whereas one who was Makdish his field can!

Answer: We learn from one who sold a house that the law does not depend on rights of immediate redemption.

The Tzad ha'Shavah of (what is common to) one who sold a house and a field is that they may be redeemed, but one may not borrow to redeem or redeem partially. The same applies to one who was Makdish his field.

Question (Mar Zutra): One cannot learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah! One who sold a house or a field cannot redeem it in the second year. We cannot learn from them to one who was Makdish his field, who can redeem in the second year!

Answer (Ravina): One can learn from a Tzad ha'Shavah that also includes a slave sold to a Nochri, for he can be redeemed in the second year, but he may not borrow to redeem or redeem partially.

Question (Rav Huna bar Chinena): If one sold a house in a walled city, can his relatives redeem it (against the will of the buyer)?

Do we learn a Gezeirah Shavah "Ge'ulaso-Ge'ulaso" from one who sold an inherited field? It may not be partially redeemed, but may be redeemed through relatives. The same applies to a house;

Or, perhaps the Gezeirah Shavah only teaches about partial redemption?

Answer (Rav Sheshes): It may not be redeemed through relatives.

Question (Beraisa): "In all, give redemption (through relatives)" includes houses and Avadim Ivriyim.

Suggestion: This refers to houses in walled cities.

Answer: No, it refers to houses in courtyards.

Question: We already learn about houses in courtyards from "it will be treated like fields"!

Answer: "In all there will be redemption" obligates the relatives to redeem it. The Beraisa is like R. Eliezer:

(Beraisa - R. Yehoshua): "He will redeem what his brother sold" is optional;

Question: Perhaps it is obligatory!

Answer: "A man who will not have a redeemer" cannot mean that he has no relatives. Every Yisrael has relatives! Rather, it means that his relatives do not want to redeem.

R. Eliezer says, "he will redeem what his brother sold" is obligatory;

Question: Perhaps it is optional!

Answer: "In all, there will be redemption" makes it obligatory.

Question (Ravina): If "in all, there will be redemption" includes houses in walled cities, we understand why it says "in all". (We could not learn from fields, which can be redeemed after two years.)

But if it refers to houses of courtyards, why does it say "in all"? (Since it already says "it will be treated like fields", it would have sufficed to say 'give redemption to the land'!)

This is left difficult.

Question (Abaye - Beraisa): (Regarding an Eved Ivri sold to a Nochri,) it says three times "Yig'alenu (he will redeem him)" to equate all redemptions (there is a Mitzvah for relatives to redeem them).

Suggestion: The other redemptions are a house in a walled city and an Eved Ivri (sold to a Yisrael).

Answer: No, they are houses of courtyards and inherited fields.

Question: We already know about houses in courtyards from "it will be treated like the field"!

Answer: "Yig'alenu" teaches that the closest relatives have first priority to redeem, like Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak taught (regarding the following).

Question: Is an Eved Ivri sold to a Yisrael redeemed through relatives?

We do not ask according to Rebbi (15b). He said that he is not redeemed through relatives.

We ask according to Chachamim. Do we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "Sachir-Sachir", or do we expound "you will redeem him (one sold to a Nochri)", and not another (one sold to a Yisrael)"?

Answer #1: "In all, there will be redemption (through relatives)" includes houses and Eved Ivriyim.

Suggestion: This refers to houses in walled cities and an Eved Ivri sold to a Yisrael.

Rejection: No, it refers to a slave sold to a Nochri.

Question: It explicitly says about one sold to a Nochri "or his uncle or his cousin will redeem him"!

Answer: "In all, there will be redemption" makes it obligatory to redeem him, even according to R. Yehoshua.

Answer #2 (Beraisa): The Torah says three times "Yig'alenu" to teach that all redemptions have the same order.

Suggestion: The other redemptions are a house in a walled city and an Eved Ivri.

Rejection: No. It refers to houses of courtyards and inherited fields.

Question: We already know about houses in courtyards from "like the field they will be considered!

Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): "Yig'alenu" teaches that the closest relatives have first priority to redeem.

(Mishnah): A Nirtza is acquired by boring his ear.

We learn from "his master will bore through his ear with the awl"

(Mishnah): He acquires (his freedom) in Yovel or when the master dies.

We learn from "He will serve him", not the son or daughter; "forever" - until Yovel.

(Beraisa - Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah) Question: It says "awl". What is the source to include a sharp piece of wood, a thorn, a drill, or a stylus (an etching tool)?

Answer: "And you will take" includes anything that can be taken in the hand;

Rebbi says, we include only metal instruments, just like an awl is of metal;

Also, "the awl" comes to include the great awl.

(R. Elazar): Yudan holds that we only pierce the ear in the flesh (not the cartilage);

Chachamim say, a Kohen cannot become a Nirtza, for this would blemish him.

They must argue with Yudan. A hole in the flesh is not a blemish!

Rather, we pierce higher in the ear.

Question: What do Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi argue about?

Answer: Rebbi expounds Klalim and Peratim (generalities and specific terms). "You will take" is a Klal. "An awl" is a Prat; "in his ear and in the door" is a Klal;

The Klal u'Frat u'Chlal includes everything similar to the Prat, i.e. metal tools.

Rebbi Yosi expounds Ribuyim and Mi'utim (inclusions and exclusions). "You will take" is a Ribuy; "an awl" is a Mi'ut; "in his ear and in the door" is a Ribuy;

The first Ribuy includes everything. The Mi'ut excludes a potion (e.g. acid).

Question: How does the Beraisa expound "the awl" to include the great awl?

Answer: This is like Rava taught.

(Rava): "(We may not eat the Gid ha'Nasheh in) the thigh" - the special thigh (the right one );

Also here, the awl refers to the special (great) awl.

(Beraisa - R. Elazar): Yudan holds that we pierce the ear only in the flesh (not the cartilage);

Chachamim say, a Kohen cannot become a Nirtza, for this would blemish him.

Question: We should say that he can be Nirtza, and he will be blemished!

Answer (Rabah bar Rav Shilo): "He will return to his family" - to the status quo of his family. (Kohanim serve in the Mikdash.)

Question: Can a master mate a Kohen slave with a Shifchah?

It is a Chidush (exceptional law) that an Eved Ivri may have Bi'ah with a Shifchah. This Chidush applies to a Kohen as well;

Or, since the Torah gives extra Mitzvos to Kohanim, it is not lenient for them regarding a Shifchah.

Answer #1 (Rav): It is permitted.

Answer #2 (Shmuel): It is forbidden.

Question (Rav Nachman - Beraisa - Chachamim): A Kohen cannot become a Nirtza, for this would blemish him.

According to Shmuel, even without this he cannot become a Nirtza, for he cannot say "I love my master and my wife (Shifchah"! This would apply even to a blemished Kohen.)

There is no answer for this question.

Question: Can a Kohen take a Yefas To'ar (a beautiful Nochris in war)?

It is a Chidush that a Yisrael can take her (Rashi - and force her to convert; Tosfos - and have Bi'ah with her before she converts). This Chidush applies to a Kohen as well;

Or, since the Torah gives extra Mitzvos to Kohanim, it is not lenient for them regarding this.

Answer #1 (Rav): It is permitted.

Answer #2 (Shmuel): It is forbidden.

Version #1: All agree that he is permitted one Bi'ah with her. The Torah permitted her only because the temptation is too great to overcome (for Kohanim as well);

They argue about keeping her like a wife.

Rav permits. Once he is permitted one Bi'ah with her, she is totally permitted.

Shmuel forbids. A Kohen may not marry a convert.

Version #2: All forbid keeping her for a wife, for she is a convert;

They argue about having Bi'ah with her once.

Rav permits. The Torah permitted her only because the temptation is too great;

Shmuel forbids. Since "you will take her into your house" does not apply to a Kohen, neither does "and you will see among the captives (...and take her)". (end of Version #2)