1)

(a)Ula learns from the Pasuk "Im Acheres Yikach Lo Ishah" that an Eved Ivri can be acquired with a Shtar because the Torah is comparing the Amah Ivriyah to a second woman whom he subsequently marries.

(b)This goes well with the opinion of Rav Huna, who holds that, like by Kidushin, it is the master (the purchaser) who writes the Shtar (like by regular Kidushin), but not with that of Rav Chisda in whose opinion it is the father (the seller) who writes it (like by other sales).

(c)Rav Acha bar Yakov therefore learns it from "Lo Setzei k'Tzeis ha'Avadim (Kena'anim)" from which we extrapolate 'Aval Nikneis Hi k'Kinyan Avadim' (with a Shtar).

(d)We know ...

1. ... that this Pasuk is not referring to Chazakah because we already preclude Avadim Ivrim from Chazakah from the Pasuk in Behar "v'Hisnachaltem Osam li'V'neichem Achareichem", from which we extrapolate ("Osam" 'ba'Chazakah, v'Lo Acheirim ba'Chazakah').

2. ... to preclude Chazakah from the Pasuk in Behar, and include Shtar from the Pasuk in Mishpatim (and not the other way round) because 'Shtar' has the advantage of acquiring a woman when it comes to Gitin.

2)

(a)The fact that Chazakah acquires the property of a Ger (which a Shtar does not) will not balance the advantage of Shtar by Get (that we just cited) because we are talking about Ishus (the Yi'ud of an Amah ha'Ivriyah), and whereas acquiring the property of a Ger has nothing to do with Ishus, a Get does).

(b)Alternatively, we answer the previous Kashya by saying that this much we can learn from "Acheres" meaning that even though, according to Rav Chisda, we cannot actually learn the Shtar of an Amah Ivriyah from that of Acheres (as we explained), we can use the comparison as an indication to learn Shtar from "Lo Setzei k'Tzeis ha'Avadim" rather than Chazakah.

(c)Rav Huna (who learns Shtar from "Acheres") learns from the Pasuk "Lo Setzei k'Tzeis ha'Avadim" that an Amah Ivriyah does not go out with the loss of a limb (like an Eved Kena'ani does).

(d)Rav Chisda learn this from the extra word "k'Tzeis", seeing as it would have sufficed to have written "Lo Setzei ka'Avadim".

3)

(a)When the Tana of our Mishnah rules that an Eved Ivri goes free after six years he means six years from the day that he begins work, and not until the Shemitah arrives.

(b)The source for the Halachah that he goes free ...

1. ... after six years is the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Shesh Shanim Ya'avod".

2. ... with the advent of the Yovel is the Pasuk in Behar "Ad Shenas ha'Yovel Ya'avod Imach".

3. ... with Gira'on Kesef (paying the master for the outstanding period until the termination of the six years) is the Pasuk there "mi'Kesef Miknaso".

(c)Our Mishnah includes Kesef in the list of things that set the Eved Ivri free. The Beraisa adds Shaveh Kesef and Shtar. We learn that Shaveh Kesef is like Kesef from the Pasuk there (in connection with a Yisrael who is sold to a Nochri)- "Yashiv Ge'ulaso".

(d)'Shtar' cannot possibly mean that the Eved Ivri writes as credit-note on his assessed value because it would be inconceivable to expect anyone to give away 'a jewel for a currently worthless piece of paper'.

4)

(a)'Shtar' is in fact a document of freedom (a Shtar Shichrur) that his master writes him (like one writes for an Eved Kena'ani when setting him free).

(b)It will not suffice to permit the Eved Ivri to go free in front of two or three people, says Rava because, to a certain degree, the master acquires the body of the Eved Ivri (like he acquires the body of an Eved Kena'ani).

(c)He further extrapolates from there that a master cannot simply forego all claims to his Eved Ivri's work (which he could do if his rights in him were confined to a Kinyan Mamon).

5)

(a)Reish Lakish maintains that an Amah Ivriyah also goes free with the death of her father, which he learns from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Simanim which take her out of her master's domain but not out of the domain of her father (whose rights extend for another half year, until she becomes a Bogeres). In that case, Misas ha'Av, which takes her out of her father's domain (since she does not continue to serve his heirs), should certainly take her out of her master's domain.

(b)Initially, Reish Lakish accounts for the fact that the our Mishnah lists the one advantage of an Amah Ivriyah over an Ivri, that she goes free with Simanim, but fails to add 'Misas ha'Av' by virtue of the fact that he also omits 'Misas' ha'Adon (and a Tana is entitled to leave out two or more cases from a Mishnah or Beraisa).

(c)We counter this however, justifying the Tana's omission of 'Misas ha'Av', even if he does not hold like Reish Lakish (and it is the only case that he omits) because there is a case where 'Misas ha'Av' sets free an Eved Ivri too (in the case of a Nirtza, who does not even serve his master's son).

(d)Reish Lakish then answers that the Tana only inserted cases which have fixed limits, but not cases that do not. And the reason that in spite of this, he inserts Simanim, is because even though they can come at any time after twelve, they cannot come beforehand (as we shall now see), in which case, they still belong in the category of things that have fixed limits.

6)

(a)The Beraisa rules that Simanei Gadlus that are produced by ...

1. ... a nine-year old boy are nothing more than a wart.

2. ... a thirteen-year old boy are valid Simanim that he is a Gadol.

(b)If Simanim appear after the age of nine and remain until after the boy turned twelve, the Tana Kama considers it a Shuma (a wart). Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah considers it a Siman Gadlus.

(c)Rav Sheshes queries Reish Lakish from Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa, who lists four cases where an Eved Ivri receives Ha'anakah the provisions with which his master provides him when he leaves.

(d)He lists three by an Ivri and three by an Ivriyah. By ...

1. ... an Ivri he omits Simanim, and by ...

2. ... an Ivriyah Retzi'ah.

7)

(a)The problem that Rav Sheshes has with Reish Lakish from this Beraisa is that he lists the three cases which cover both an Ivri and an Ivriyah as Shanim, Yovel and Misas ha'Adon, in which case the problem arises why the Tana fails to also insert Misas ha'Av by Amah Ivriyah.

(b)We conclude however, that Rebbi Shimon may well not include Misas Adon (because it has no fixed time). The three cases that he does mention are Shanim, Yovel and Yovel shel Retzi'ah.

(c)We prove this answer from the Tana's statement 've'I Atah Yachol Lomar Arba'ah b'Echad Meihem ... ' because if the two cases of Yovel would be counted as one, and the fourth case would be Misas ha'Adon, then all four cases (including one of the cases of Yovel) would pertain to a woman no less than to a man.

(d)Rav Amram asks from another Beraisa, which lists Shanim, Yovel, Misas ha'Adon and the Simanim of an Amah Ivriyah as those who receive Ha'anakah. This finally proves Reish Lakish wrong seeing as it specifically mentions Misas ha'Adon, so on what grounds (according to Reish Lakish) does it omit Misas ha'Av?

8)

(a)We refute Misas ha'Av, despite the fact that Reish Lakish based it on a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Simanim, because there is a Pircha on the 'Kal va'Chomer' namely, that one cannot learn that Misas ha'Av, an external change, should set an Amah free, from Simanim, which is an intrinsic change that takes place in the body of the girl.

9)

(a)According to one Beraisa, the Ha'anakah of an Amah Ivriyah, as well as whatever she finds, belongs to herself; whereas according another Beraisa, it goes to her father, despite the fact that whatever she finds and picks up is done at the expense of her master because to compensate that, her father is obligated to pay the master for any work-loss involved.

(b)We ...

1. ... initially try to reinstate Reish Lakish on the basis of this Machlokes Tana'im by establishing the first Beraisa when she went free as a result of her father's death (a proof for Reish Lakish), and the second Beraisa, when she left her master's domain when she brought Simanim.

2. ... reject this proof however, explaining the Machlokes by establishing both Beraisos by Simanim; and the reason that, according to the Tana of the first Beraisa, Ha'anakah and what she finds go to her and not to her father is because the Beraisa speaks when he is no longer alive.

(c)The first Beraisa actually states 'Anak Eved Ivri l'Atzmo, v'Anak Amah ha'Ivriyah l'Atzmah'. The Chidush ...

1. ... of the latter statement is that (based on the Beraisa "v'Hisnachaltem Osam li'Veneichem Achareichem", "Osam li'Veneichem", 've'Lo B'noseichem li'Veneichem'), her brothers do not receive it.

2. ... of the former, seeing as there does not seem to be anybody else to whom it might go, is indeed non-existent, according to Rav Yosef, who said 'Yud Karas ka'Chazina Hacha' (i.e. the Tana has transformed a little 'Yud' into a big city making a mountain out of a molehill).

(d)Abaye, citing Rav Sheshes, answers the Kashya by establishing Tuta'i as the author of the Beraisa. Tuta'i says "Lo", 've'Lo l'Ba'al Chovo' (to preclude it from the Din of Rebbi Nasan, as we learned above on the previous Daf).

10)

(a)The Tana Kama of the Beraisa we quoted above holds that Yotzei b'Shanim, Yovel, Misas ha'Adon and an Amah with Simanim, receive Ha'anakah, but not a Bore'ach or one who goes out with Gira'on Kesef. According to Rebbi Meir one who goes free with Gira'on Kesef receives Ha'anakah.

(b)The Pasuk " ... u'va'Shanah ha'Shevi'is Yeitzei la'Chofshi Chinam" is speaking about a Yotzei b'Shesh. The Tana Kama learns that ...

1. ... the other three also receive Ha'anakah from the continuation of the Pasuk "v'*Chi Seshalchenu* Chofshi me'Imach" (which is otherwise superfluous).

2. ... Borei'ach and Yotzei b'Gira'on Kesef do not from "mi''Imach", implying that when the Adon sends them out they receive Ha'anakah, but not when they go free under their own steam (as these two cases do).

(c)Despite the fact that Rebbi Meir agrees with the Tana Kama regarding the above Derashos, he argue in the case of Gira'on Kesef on the grounds that when all's said and done, it is only when the master accepts the money and sends the Eved Ivri away that the latter goes free.

11)

(a)We know that ...

1. ... a Borei'ach is obligated to complete his six-year period from the Pasuk "Ki Sikneh Eved Ivri, Shesh Shanim Ya'avod

2. ... if he was sick, this is not necessary from the continuation of the Pasuk "u'va'Shevi'is Yeitzei la'Chofshi Chinam".

(b)Rav Sheshes reconciles this with the Machlokes Tana'im whether a Borei'ach receives Ha'anakah or not, implying that he is not obligated to complete the outstanding debt by establishing it when the Yovel arrived after he ran away, before he had a chance to make up for the missing time.

(c)We might otherwise have thought that, even though he initially ran away before completing his term since, in the end, the Yovel arrived, this is included in "v'Yazta mi'Imach".