Clarification: If he has not been redeemed, he subjugates him up until the Yovel, and one is not permitted to coerce him (to set him free).

Question: Surely we already know this from the Pasuk in Vayikra (25) "And he shall reckon with his purchaser from the year that he was sold to him until the Yovel"?

Refuted Answer: Which cannot be talking about a Nochri who is not under our jurisdiction - since he will not listen to you?

Answer: From there alone, we would have thought that it is indeed talking about a Nochri who is not under our jurisdiction - and the Pasuk is coming to teach us that we inform him of the Din, in the hope that he will accept upon himself the Din Torah ...

Answer (cont.): But a Nochri who is under our jurisdiction, we would not give him anything ...

Answer (cont.): Therefore this Pasuk, which is superfluous, as there are many "Yovel" written in the Parshah ...

Answer (concl.): Teaches us that even if one is able to take him out against the Nochri's will, one may not do so, and that he does not go out unless he pays him money.

Implied Question: And even though the Torah has written "And he shall reckon with his purchaser ... ", from which we Darshen that he must be exact with the purchaser, and not arbitrate with him, even when he is not under our jurisdiction ...

Answer: Nevertheless, one is sometimes able to cheat and to trick him in the Din and in the reckoning.

Question: If it is speaking about a Nochri who is under our jurisdiction, why do we need Yovel (according to the opinion that stealing from a Nochri is permitted - See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim), and why reckon with him at all?

Answer: Here, where the Nochri trusts him and paid him money in order to acquire him, the Pasuk teaches us that one should be particular (because of Chilul Hash-m - Tosfos ha'Rosh).

Implied Question: The Gemara declines to rather mention 'Because it brings in' ...

Reason: Which is more similar ...

Answer: Because by Get it (Sh'tar) is written explicitly.

Question: Why does the Gemara ask this question, and not 'Let him declare him Hefker?'?

Support: Since even an Eved Cana'ani whose body is acquired, goes out with Hefker, according to Shmuel who rules, in Perek ha'Shole'ach (Gitin, Daf 38a) - 'If someone declares his Eved Hefker, he goes free and does not require a Get Shichrur'? So why do we need a Get?

Refuted Answer: And even according to the opinion (there, Amud Beis) that does require a Get Shichrur ...

Refutation: That is only in order to remove the Isur, to permit him to marry a bas Yisrael ...

Question (cont.): But why should an Eved Ivri, who is permitted anyway, require a Sh'tar?

Answer: That is indeed the case ...

Answer (cont.): And the Gemara is not asking why we need a Sh'tar, since he can send him out with Hefker? ...

Answer (cont.): Since it is obvious that there are other ways, besides Sh'tar, of releasing him.

Answer (cont.): And what the Gemara is asking is - Even if one does come to send him out with a Sh'tar, why is the Sh'tar needed, seeing as the equivalent wording that is written in the Sh'tar - 'Harei At ben Chorin' or 'Harei at le'Atzmech' ...

Answer (cont.): As the Mishnah states in 'ha'Megaresh' (Ibid., Daf 85b) That very same Lashon he could just as well say to him by heart ...

Reason: Since the Gemara currently thinks that one only rrequires Mechilah, like one simply foregoes a debt.

Conclusion: And the Gemara concludes that one acquires the body of the Eved Ivri, and that the Lashon that is written in the Sh'tar will not be effective by heart.

Inference: Since the Mishnah does not reckon 'Sh'tar', it implies that the Tana holds that 'One does not acquire the body of an Eved Ivri.

Question: How can R ava, who says that he does, argue with the Mishnah?

Refuted Answer: Nor can one answer that Rava extrapolates it from a Beraisa, with which he does not concur ...

Refutation: Since the Gemara, later in the Perek (Daf 28a), discussing the question 'What is the extent of Gilgul Shevu'ah?', concludes that 'Rava follows his reasoning, that 'Eved Ivri Gufo Kanuy'.

Answer: The Mishnah also holds 'Gufo Kanuy' ...

Question: Nevertheless it does not mention Sh'tar ...

Answer: Because the Tana only reckons Yetzi'os that go out against the master's will, whereas a Sh'tar he gives willingly.

Clarification: Whereas if his body was not acquired, Mechilah would be effective.

Inference: We can extrapolate from here that Mechilah does not require a Kinyan.

Refutation: One can however refute this - in that since he has possession of his body, there is no greater Kinyan than that.

Question: Let Chupah prove otherwise, since it take out of the jurisdiction of the father but not of the jurisdiction of the master? ...

Proof: Because, if it took out of the master's jurisdiction, nobody would acquire his friend's daughter, seeing as the father can take her in and out at will?

Answer: Whereas Chupah only takes out of the father's jurisdiction with his consent, which is why it does not take out of the master's jurisdiction, death, takes out of his jurisdiction against his will.

Authentic Source: The Gemara, it seems, extrapolates this from the statement 'And you will not find four by any of them', implying the Tana is making a point of explaining them in detail ...

R efuted Source: And one cannot say that he learns it from the statement 'There are four who receive Ha'anakah' ...

Refutation: Because the Gemara says in the second Perek of Sotah (Daf 16a) that 'It learns and omits', despite the fact that the Tana mentions a number ...

Reference: In connection with the statemen 'In three places the Halachah uproots the Pasuk' (See Masores ha'Shas).

Question: Why can we not use this to learn a Kal va'Chomer - 'If Simanim, which even though the body has changed, do not take her out of her father's jurisdiction. evertheless take her out of that of her master ...

Question (cont.): Misah, which take her out of her father's jurisdiction, even though her body has not changed, should certainly take her out of her master's'?

Answer: To be sure by her master, it is appropriate to say that the change in her body causes her to go out, seeing as it is not the girl that he purchased ...

Answer (cont.): But by her master, the reason of body change is not applicable, since he is her father after the change just as he was before it.

Question: And why not make a Kal va'Chomer from Shanim and Yovel together - which do not take her out of her father's jurisdiction, but do take her out of her master's, the death of her father, which does take her out of her father's jurisdiction, should certainly ...

Refuted Answer: And if one will ask 'Whereas Shanim and Yovel take out by an Eved Ivri, the death of the father does not' ...

Refutation: We can counter that with Simanim.

Answer: One can refute that with 'Simanim is different inasmuch as the body has changed'.

Question: Let us then learn from a combination of both - What will one ask 'Simanim is different, in that the body has changed? Learn from Shanim and Yovel. ...

Question (cont.): Shanim and Yovel take out by an Eved Ivri? Learn from Simanim ...

Question (cont.): And so the Din goes from one to the other ... What they have in common is the fact that elsewhere they take out ...

Question (concl.): Shanim and Yovel by an Eved Ivri, an Simanim take a man out of Katnus - and they take out here, I too, will say that Miysas Av ... '?

Answer: One can refute this with the argument that 'The combined pair take out from Avdus, Whereas we do not find that Miysas Av does'.

Implied Question: Even though that is what we are trying to learn ...

Answer: Nevertheless, as long as we have not actually learned it, it is a valid Pircha.

Question: Why not learn a Kal va'Chomer from Miysas ha'Adon, which does not take out of her father's jurisdiction - inasmuch as, should the master die whilst she is still a Ketanah, she reverts to his jurisdiction until she becomes a Bogeres

Question (cont.): Yet it takes her out of the jurisdiction of the master; Miysas Av, which does take her out of her father's jurisdiction, should certainly ... '?

Answer: 'Whereas Miysas Adon takes her out by a Nirtza (one who has had his ear pierced), Miysas ha'Av does not'.

Question: ha'Rav R. Yehudah from Korbeil asks why we need the Pasuk "ve'Hisnachaltem" to teach us that a father cannot pass on his daughter's rights to his sons ...

Question (cont.): Why is it not obvious? Since from where does the Gemara in Kesuvos (Daf 46b) learn that what she produces goes to the father? From "le'Amah", and the Amah herself he cannot pass on to his son ...

Source: As the Gemara states further on (on Daf 17b) - 'An Amah serves neither the son nor the daughter'.

Answer: That is speaking about a Gedolah, whom we learn from "le'Amah", whereas a Ketanah we learn, not from "le'Amah", but from a S'vara - Now that he can sell her (the work of her hands ... )'.

Answer (concl): And that is why we need "ve'Hisnachaltem".