1)

(a)One Beraisa states 'Mochrah l'Aviv, v'Ein Mochrah li'Veno'; the second Beraisa 'Ein Mochrah Lo l'Aviv, v'Lo li'Veno'.

(b)The author of the second Beraisa is the Rabanan (who hold 'Ein Mochrah li'Kerovim').

(c)We reconcile the first Beraisa too, with the Rabanan on the grounds that, even though the master cannot perform Yi'ud with his granddaughter, his son (the girl's uncle) can, and the Rabanan concede that the sale is valid as long as Yi'ud is possible.

2)

(a)When the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, commenting on the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Im b'Gapo Yavo, b'Gapo Yeitzei", says 'be'Gufo Nichnas, b'Gufo Yeitzei' he means that the Eved Ivri goes free with his entire body, and not for the removal of one the twenty-four limbs (like an Eved Kena'ani does).

(b)We do not already know this from the Pasuk "Lo Setzei k'Tzeis ha'Avadim" since that could mean that in the event that her master removed a limb, she goes out but, unlike an Eved Kena'ani, she is also compensated for the limb.

(c)Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov explains "b'Gufo" like the Tana Kama, but he interprets it to mean that if he came in single, he goes out single (without being permitted to live with a Shifchah Kena'anis for the duration of his stay).

3)

(a)With regard to a Nimkar l'Akum whose value changed during his years of service, we learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "mi'Kesef Miknaso that, if his value went up from one Manah to two hundred Zuz, he only needs to refund the difference at the (original) lower price.

2. ... "Kefi Shanav" that, if his value went down from two hundred Zuz to one Manah, he still only needs to refund the difference at the current (lower) price.

(b)We learn from "Sachir" "Sachir" that the same applies to a Nimkar l'Yisrael. We might have thought that it does not, and that we do not learn Nimkar l'Yisrael from Nimkar l'Akum with a 'Binyan Av' because the latter has a distinct advantage, inasmuch as he can be redeemed by relatives, which the former.

(c)When Abaye was in particularly high spirits, he would claim to be like ben Azai in the main streets of Teverya who was exceptionally sharp, and who used to announce the there that everyone was no more than a garlic peel compared to him, except for 'this bald man' ...

(d)... Rebbi Akiva.

4)

(a)A certain Talmid-Chacham, who had a problem with the two previous Derashos, took Abaye up on his claim and asked him why the Tana Darshened the two Pesukim to the Eved Ivri's advantage (to pay the lesser amount), when he could just as well have learned the exact opposite ("mi'Kesef Miknaso" when the price went down, and "Kefi Shanav" when it went up), to make him pay the higher amount.

(b)Abaye answered him from a Beraisa, which discusses the Pasuk in Re'eh "Ki Tov Lo Imach", from which the Tana extrapolates 'Imach b'Ma'achal, Imach b'Mishteh' (that the master should feed the Eved Ivri the same food and drink as he himself eats), and that the same applies to his sleeping conditions).

(c)When he concludes 'Kol ha'Koneh Eved Ivri, k'Koneh Adon l'Atzmo' he is referring to a situation where he only has one cushion, he has no choice but to give it to the Eved Ivri (see Tosfos).

(d)We refute Abaye's proof on the grounds that the Pasuk speaks exclusively with regard to food and drink and the like, so that the Eved Ivri should not feel prejudiced against, but when it comes to redemption, we might have thought that, since he was sold on account of his sins, he deserves to be penalized, and we will be strict with him.

(e)Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina in a Beraisa rules that someone who dealt with Avkah shel Shevi'is (did business with Shemitah produce, a relatively minor transgression, because it is only an Aseh), is heading for a series of punishments, as we shall now proceed to explain.

5)

(a)Based on the sequence of Pesukim of Pesukim in Behar, the punishment that follows having to sell ...

1. ... one's movables, should he not do Teshuvah is having to sell his (inherited) fields.

2. ... one's fields, is having to sell one's house.

(b)We attribute the change from 'Lo Hirgish', the first two times, to 'Lo Ba'as l'Yado' the third time, to a statement by Rav Huna. 'Lo Hirgish' implies that he might not have realized that he had sinned, and that the punishment came because he failed to do so whereas 'Lo Ba'as l'Yado' means that the punishment was bound to come, because there was no chance that he would realize that he sinned.

(c)Rav Huna said 'Keivan she'Avar Adam Aveirah v'Shanah Bah, Na'asis Lo k'Heter'.

(d)The initial text 'Hutrah Lo' is startling inasmuch as however many times a person sins, the sin does not become permitted.

6)

(a)The next punishment listed in the Pasuk is that of being forced to borrow on interest. The Tana (note, that Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina was actually an Amora) first adds the case of selling his daughter (which is not actually mentioned in the Torah in this context at all) because it is logical that a person is better off selling off his daughter, where his debt is automatically paid off little by little, as the six years progress, than borrowing on interest, where the debt will increase with time, should he fail to pay it off.

(b)The final set of punishments deal with various cases of a man selling himself of which there are four: to a fellow Jew, to a Ger Toshav, to a Nochri and to Avodas-Kochavim itself (which indicates that it wishes to be lenient in this regard, when it writes "Acharei Nimkar, Ge'ulah Tih'yeh Lo, Echad me'Echav Yig'alenu", as Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael points out).

(c)"le'Eiker" means to Avodas-Kochavim itself, not to worship it (Chas ve'Shalom), but to chop wood and to perform other similar tasks for its needs.

(d)In any event, we see that Nimkar le'Akum is the result of his sins. Abaye tries to re-establish his explanation (to be lenient with regard to his redemption price, like we are lenient with him regarding food and drink) by pointing out that the Torah itself brings him back into the fold (to be lenient with him) when it permits his redemption ("Acharei Nimkar, Ge'ulah Tih'yeh Lo").

7)

(a)We query Rava's comparison to Tana d'Bei Rebbi Yishmael on the grounds that on the one hand, the Torah permits the Nimkar l'Akum to be redeemed, to prevent him from being influenced by the Nochri society, but on the other, it is possible that the Torah will nevertheless penalize him for having sinned, by making him pay the higher price.

(b)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak (or Rav Nachman, see Maharshal) finally explains the Tana who is lenient with the Eved Ivri regarding his redemption, based on the two Pesukim "Im Od Rabos ba'Shanim" meaning that his price increased during the years (on which the Pasuk concludes "mi'Kesef Miknaso"); v'Im Me'at Nish'ar ba'Shanim "; "v'Im Me'at Nish'ar ba'Shanim" that his price decreased (on which the Pasuk concludes "K'fi Shanav").

(c)The simple meaning of the Pasuk is that more or less than six years remain, in which case it is explained just as it is written.

(d)We reject ...

1. ... it however, in that this cannot be correct, since an Eved Ivri is set to work for six years, no more and no less (see Rashash).

2. ... the suggestion that if the majority of years remain, then he pays "mi'Kesef Miknaso", whereas if only a minority of years remain, he pays "K'fi Shanav" because the Torah would then have written (not "im Od Rabos ba'Shanim ... v'Im Me'at Nish'ar ba'Shanim", but) "Im Od Nish'ar Shanim ... v'Im Me'at Nish'ar Shanim".

(e)Rav Yosef declared that Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak (or Rav Nachman) had Darshened the Pesukim like Moshe on Sinai.

8)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Behar (in connection with a Sdei Achuzah) "u'Matza Kedei Ge'ulaso" that one cannot redeem half of a Sdei Achuzah that one declared Hekdesh (either all or nothing).

(b)Rav Huna bar Chinena asked Rav Sheshes whether the same will apply to a Nimkar l'Akum (to redeem himself for half the amount of years) from "Ge'ulaso" "Ge'ulaso" or whether we will only learn from there l'Kula (as will be explained shortly) but not l'Chumra (because the Torah has indicated that it is lenient with regard to the redemption of a Nimkar l'Akum, as we just concluded). Note, that Tosfos defines "Ge'ulaso" "Ge'ulaso" (not as a 'Gezeirah-Shavah', but merely as an indication, similar to a 'Binyan Av').

(c)Rav Sheshes replied with the Pasuk "v'Nimkar bi'Geneivaso" which we Darshened earlier "v'Nimkar" 'Kulo v'Lo Chetzyo'. In that case, here too, where the Torah writes "Nig'Al" we ought to Darshen "Nig'Al" 'Kulo v'Lo Chetzyo'.

(d)Abaye did not accept Rav Sheshes Derashah He remained doubtful as to whether a Nimkar la'Akum can be redeemed in part or not.

9)

(a)Assuming that a Nimkar l'Akum can be redeemed in part, says Abaye, that can lead to a Kula and to a Kula. A Kula in a case where he sold himself for a hundred Zuz, and after he paid fifty for half his redemption, his price rose to two hundred. Assuming that he can redeem himself in halves, he will only need to pay a hundred to redeem the other half (and not the hundred and fifty that he would have had to pay if he could not).

(b)The problem with this is from the Pasuk "mi'Kesef Miknaso" from which we Darshened above that, when the Eved Ivri's price increases, we only contend with his sale price, and not with his current one.

(c)To resolve this problem" we re-establish Abaye's case to where he was sold for two hundred Zuz, went down in price to one hundred (which is when he redeemed half of himself), and then went up again to two hundred (in which case, whether we follow the Pasuk 'mi'Kesef Miknaso' or that of 'K'fi Shanav', his value will be two hundred Zuz).

(d)The case l'Chumra according to Abaye, speaks where he was sold for two hundred Zuz and paid one hundred Zuz before his price dropped to one hundred. If he is able to redeem himself in halves, then he still owes the Nochri another fifty Zuz; but if not, then the Nochri simply keeps the hundred, which is a deposit by him, and the Eved Ivri owes him nothing.

10)

(a)Someone who sells a house in a walled city can redeem it up to one year.

(b)Rav Huna bar Chinena asked Rav Sheshes whether we learn from "Ge'ulaso" "Ge'ulaso" from Sdei Achuzah that someone who sells a house in a walled city cannot redeem it in parts or whether, when the Torah writes "Kedei Ge'ulaso", one cannot redeem it in parts, but where it does not, one can (See Tosfos "Ge'ulaso" "Ge'ulaso", to which we referred earlier).

(c)Rav Sheshes replied with a Derashah of Rebbi Shimon, who learned from the Pasuk in Behar "Im Ga'ol Yig'Al" that one may borrow and redeem a house in a walled city that one sold, and that one may redeem it in parts.

(d)Rebbi Shimon's reasoning (derived from the differences between someone who sells a Sdei Achuzah and someone who declares it Hekdesh) is that whenever the Torah is strict at one end, it is lenient at the other, always leaving the owner a chance to cut his losses.

11)

(a)If someone sells a Sdei Achuzah, it returns to him in the Yovel, but he cannot redeem it in halves. According to Rebbi Shimon, the equivalent Din in the case of ...

1. ... someone who declares a Sdei Achuzah Hekdesh is that it goes to the Kohanim in the Yovel, and that he can (therefore) redeem it in halves.

2. ... someone who sells a house in a walled city is also that he only has one year to redeem it, and that he can therefore redeem it in halves.

12)

(a)The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Behar"Im Ga'ol Yig'Al" that someone who declares Hekdesh a Sdei Achuzah may redeem it in halves.

(b)According to this Tana, we would otherwise have said that if someone who sells a Sdei Achuzah, who, despite the fact that when the Yovel arrives, it returns to him, yet he cannot redeem it in halves, then someone who declares it Hekdesh, in which case it goes to Hekdesh when the Yovel arrives, should certainly not be able to redeem it in halves.

(c)The Tana queries the 'Kal va'Chomer' however inasmuch as someone who sells a Sdei Achuzah has the added disadvantage of not being able to redeem it for two years (whereas someone who declares it Hekdesh can redeem it immediately).

(d)He counters this Pircha however, from the Din by someone who sells a house in a walled city who can redeem it immediately, yet he cannot redeem it in halves (reinstating the need for the Pasuk "Im Ga'ol Yig'Al", and at the same time posing a Kashya on Rav Sheshes, who quoted Rebbi Shimon as saying that one can).

13)

(a)To answer the Kashya on Rav Sheshes, we establish the author of the Beraisa as the Rabanan (whereas Rav Sheshes stated his ruling strictly according to Rebbi Shimon). The basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Shimon and the Rabanan is whether one Darshens the reasons for Mitzvos and Halachos, to apply them in other situations according to those reasons (Rebbi Shimon ['Darish Ta'ameih di'Kra]) or not (the Rabanan).