Contradiction: Elsewhere, the opinions of R. Meir and Chachamim are reversed!

(Beraisa): A woman who redeems Ma'aser Sheni must always add a fifth of the value;

R. Meir says, she can redeem it without adding a fifth.

Question: What is the case?

Suggestion: She redeems her husband's Ma'aser with his money.

Rejection: If so, she is his Shali'ach. All would agree that she adds a fifth!

Answer #1: Rather, she redeems his (Rashi; Tosfos - her) Ma'aser with her money.

Rejection: If so, all would agree that she does not add a fifth - "a man (will add a fifth)", not his wife (Rashi; Tosfos - not a woman)!

Answer #2: Rather, someone gave her money and said 'acquire this money only in order to redeem the Ma'aser';

(R. Meir says that the Tenai works, therefore, she does not add a fifth. Chachamim say that the money belongs to her husband. She is just his Shali'ach, so she adds a fifth.) This is the opposite of their opinions about a slave!

Answer #1 (Abaye): The text is wrong. Their opinions must be switched (in the Beraisa).

Answer #2 (Rava): The text is correct. The case is, she inherited the Ma'aser from her father (and redeemed it with her husband's money);

R. Meir holds that Ma'aser Sheni is like Hekdesh (it is not one's property. The owner merely is allowed to eat it.) Therefore, her husband does not acquire it. (No fifth is added, since he does not redeem his Ma'aser.)

Chachamim hold that one owns his Ma'aser Sheni. Her husband acquires it (like any property that his wife inherits);

A fifth is added, since she is his Shali'ach to redeem his Ma'aser.

(Beraisa): (If the master knocks out) an eye, tooth or extremal limb (that does not grow back) of his slave, he goes free.

Question: Granted, the Torah explicitly says that he goes free for an eye or tooth. What is the source for the other extremal limbs?

Answer #1: We learn from an eye and tooth. Just like these are exposed blemishes that will not grow back, the same applies to all such blemishes.

Question: We should say that "eye" and "tooth" are Shnei Kesuvim (two verses that teach the same principle, one of which could have been learned from the other verse). We do not learn other cases from Shnei Kesuvim! (If we could learn from them, there would be no need for both of them.)

Answer: It needed to write "eye" and "tooth." We could not learn either from the other:

Had the Torah written only "tooth", one might have thought that even baby teeth are included. Therefore, it wrote "eye" (to teach that one goes free only for limbs that do not grow replacements).

Had the Torah written only "eye", one might have thought that only things that one is born with are included, but not teeth. Therefore, it wrote "tooth".

Question: We should say that "if he will hit" is a Klal, and "tooth or eye" is a Prat;

From a Klal u'Frat, we only learn the Prat a tooth or eye!

Answer #1: "He will send him free" is a Klal. From a Klal u'Frat u'Chlal, we learn everything similar to the Peratim;

A tooth or eye that is knocked out is a visible blemish that will not heal. We include all such damage.

Objection: The Peratim are visible blemishes that will not heal in which the limb ceases to perform its function. We should include only such cases. Why does a Beraisa teach otherwise?

(Beraisa): If the master pulled the slave's beard and dislocated the bone, the slave goes free (even though the bone has no use)!

Answer #2: Rather, "he will send him free" is a Ribuy (we expound through the method of Ribuyim and Mi'utim, and include (almost) everything).

Question: If so, the slave should go free even if he was hit on the hand and it dried up, even if it will heal!

(Beraisa): (In such a case) the slave does not go free.

Answer: The Mi'utim "eye" and "tooth" exclude this case.

(Beraisa - R. Shimon, R. Eliezer, R. Akiva): For any of the blows that free the slave, a Get of freedom is needed;

R. Meir and R. Tarfon say, a Get is not needed;

The arbitrators say, a Get is not needed when he strikes an eye or tooth, because the Torah said that he goes free;

A Get is needed if a different limb is stricken, since this is a fine of Chachamim.

Objection: It is mid'Oraisa. It was expounded from verses!

Correction: Rather, a Get is needed since it is (not explicit, rather) expounded by Chachamim.

Question: What is the reason for those who require a Get?

Answer: They learn a Gezeirah Shavah "Shilu'ach-Shilu'ach" from divorce. Just like a document is needed there, also here;

The others say that the Torah did not write 'he will send him free', rather "free, he will send him" to teach that he is free immediately (without a Get. Riva - the arbitrators say that this Derashah applies only to an eye or tooth. For other limbs, we learn from divorce that a Get is required. R. Tam - the Get is mid'Rabanan, lest people believe that he is still a slave.)

(Beraisa): If the master hit him on the eye and blinded it, or on the ear and deafened it, he goes free;

If he hit (a wall) near the organ and it ceased functioning (from fright), he does not go free.

Inference (R. Shemen): One is exempt for damage caused through noise.

Question: Rami bar Yechezkel taught that if Reuven's chicken cackled inside a jar and the sound broke it, Reuven must pay the full damage. (This is like Sumchus, who obligates full damage for Tzeroros, i.e. when an animal damaged through an intermediary.)

(Rav Yosef): If a horse or donkey whinnied and broke Kelim, the owner pays half damage. (This is like Chachamim, who obligate half damage for Tzeroros.)

Answer (Rav Ashi): It is different when a person was damaged. He caused the damage to himself (by his fright).

(Beraisa): If Reuven scared Shimon, Beis Din cannot make him pay, but he is accountable b'Yedei Shamayim;

If he was Toke'a (blew a Shofar in, or hit him near) his ear and deafened him, he is exempt. If he was holding him when he did this, he is liable.

(Beraisa #1): If a master hit his slave's eye and weakened it, or his tooth and loosened it, if the limb no longer works, the slave goes free.

(Beraisa #2): If a master hit his slave's weak eye and blinded it, or his loose tooth and knocked it out, if the limb was usable until now, the slave goes free. If not, he does not.

It was necessary to teach both cases;

Had we learned only the first case, we would think that he goes free only when a healthy limb was damaged, but not if the limb was already impaired;

Had we learned only the second case, we would think that he goes free only when a limb was rendered totally useless.

(Beraisa): If a slave asked his master (a doctor) to paint his eye or dig around his tooth, and in doing so, he blinded the eye or knocked out the tooth, the slave goes free;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, "and he will destroy" - he is only free if the master intended for destruction.

Chachamim learn R. Eliezer's law from this verse.

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer): If a master stuck his hand into his Shifchah's womb and blinded her fetus, he is exempt, for he did not intend to harm it.

R. Shimon ben Gamliel agrees that the master must intend for the limb that was stricken, since the Torah added "and he will destroy it".

Chachamim do not expound "it".

(Rav Sheshes): If a master knocked out an eye that was already blind, the slave goes free, because he caused the slave to be lacking a limb.

Support (Beraisa): Animal Korbanos must be unblemished and (in some cases) male. There are no such restrictions regarding bird offerings;

Suggestion: Perhaps a bird is acceptable even if its wings dried, its leg was cut off, or its eye was gouged out!

Rejection: "From the birds" teaches that not all birds are acceptable. (This shows that a missing eye is worse than a blinded eye.)

(R. Chiya bar Ashi): If a master knocked out an extra finger, the slave goes free.

(Rav Huna): This applies only if it was in line with the other fingers. (Rashi (Bechoros) - in this case it is considered a limb. However, it seems that the Rambam disagrees - Kesef Mishneh Hilchos Bi'as Makdish 8:11.)