Question: From where is it learned that if the slave was sick during his six years of servitude that he does not need to make up that time afterwards?

Answer: The pasuk states, "and in the seventh, he shall leave for free, without payment''. (As long as the seventh year arrives, he goes free, even if he had not completed his service.)

Question: I might think that this is also true even if he had escaped for a period of time...?

Answer: The pasuk states, "six years he shall work''.

Question: Why include sickness and exclude when he escaped?

Answer: We include sickness since at that time he was in the control of his master and we exclude when he escaped since he was not the master's control. Alternatively, we exclude when he escaped since he wilfully did not work; we include when he was sick since he was not able to work.

R. Bun bar Chiya citing Rav Hoshiya: Certainly if he was sick and then he escaped (and during the entire time he was sick), he does not need to make up the time; but does he need to make up the time if he first escaped and then became sick? (Can the master claim that had the slave been in his home, he would not have become sick? Or can the slave claim that he would have been sick and he would not have been able to work even if he had not escaped?)

Answer (R. Chiya bar Ada): The Mishnah (in Maseches Kesuvos) teaches - if a wife rebels against her husband by refusing to have relations, they write for her a 'letter of rebellion' for her Kesubah (i.e. to reduce it by 7 dinar each week that she rebels).

Beraisa (R. Chiya): A Nidah, a sick woman, a betrothed woman and widow waiting to do yibum could all receive a letter of rebellion.

What is the case here? If she refused relations whilst she is a Nidah, it was the Torah that prevented it?!

Conclusion of proof: Rather, she rebelled before she became a Nidah and then later became a Nidah. If she is not able to rebel when she is a Nidah, why does she deserve this document?! Nevertheless, we say that it is her mazal that is preventing her from returning to her husband. Here also, if the slave escaped and then became sick, he must make up the time as the master can say that he would not have become sick had he remained with the master.

R. Chinana: Even in the first case when he became sick and then escaped, he should still make up the time, as the master can say that had the slave remained with him, he would have healed quickly.

The Mishnah taught: He acquires himself with "years'' (having served six years of slavery).

Beraisa #1: He is sold for less than six years but not more than six years.

Beraisa#2: He is not sold for less than nor more than six years.

Reasoning of Beraisa #1 (R. Yirmiyah): We find a precedent for being sold for less than six years as sometimes a slave could be sold two or three years before Yovel and he leaves in Yovel.

The Mishnah taught: (A slave acquires himself upon the arrival of) Yovel; as the pasuk states (Vayikra 25, 40-41) , "...and in Yovel...he shall leave''. (Note: This "pasuk'' is in fact an amalgamation of two separate words from consecutive pesukim.)

The Mishnah also taught: ...and through the reduction of redemption money (giraon kesef). We learn this from the pesukim that state (Vayikra 25, 51-52), "If there are still many years (he shall pay his redemption accordingly)...and if there are few years (left until Yovel...according to his years he shall pay his redemption)''.

Question: Do we not know that if there are many there are not few, and vice-versa? (i.e. Why must the pasuk make any mention of many years and few years - let the pasuk just state that he pays according to the number of years that remain?!)

Answer (R. Hila): Sometimes the years are more than the payment and sometimes they are less...

Example: If he was sold for 600 zuz - 100 zuz per year of work, and the slave increased in value and became worth 200 zuz per year; what is the source to say that he makes the calculation based on 100 zuz per year? The pasuk states (ibid, 51), "...from the money of his purchase''.

If he was sold for 1200 zuz - 200 zuz per year of work, and the slave decreased in value and became worth 100 zuz per year; what is the source to say that he makes the calculation based on 100 zuz per year? The pasuk states (ibid, 52), "...according to his years he shall repay his redemption''.

Question: We learn from the requirement of a family member to redeem a slave sold to a gentile, that the Torah wishes to make it easy to redeem. If som From where is it learned that if he is sold to a Jew, that when he is redeemed, he has the upper hand (meaning that the price is reduced as much as possible)?

Answer: There is a Gezeirah Shavah using the word 'sachir'. (When the Torah discusses selling to a gentile, the pasuk states (Vaiykra 25, 53), "like a laborer (sachir) hired for the year. When discussing selling to a Jew, the pasuk states (ibid 25, 40), "like a laborer (sachir)...he shall be with you''. Just as for the first sachir (owned by a gentile), he has the upper hand; so too for the sachir owned by a Jew.

Rebbi: Why is the word "yigalenu'' used three times in the pesukim about selling to a gentile (once in pasuk 48 and twice in pasuk 49)? To teach that all redemptions (sold to a gentile/sold himself to a Jew/Beis Din sold him to a Jew) must follow this method.

The pasuk (about one who was sold to a gentile) states (pasuk 54), "If he has not been redeemed in these ways (i.e. by one of his relatives)...'' R.Yosi Haglili says - through these (relatives) he goes free but through others, he remains in servitude (until Yovel) to those that redeemed him.

R. Akiva: Through these he remains in servitude and through others he goes free.

R. Abahu citing R. Yochanan: These two tanaim both expounded the same pasuk...

R. Yosi Haglili: "If he has not been redeemed in these ways'', but rather through others, he leaves into servitude.

R. Akiva: "If he has only been redeemed in these ways'' he must complete his servitude, but if others redeemed him, he goes free.

The Chachamim's view (R. Yasa citing R Yochanan): Either way he goes free.

Support (Beraisa): (In reference to a person who sold himself into slavery due to poverty,) "If his hand afforded'' - his own hand; "and he found enough for his redemption'' - if others redeemed him.

R. Yaakov bar Acha citing R. Yochanan: When we say that he leaves into servitude, it means that he must complete the remaining years of the six year period that he had not yet served (rather than starting a new six year period of servitude).

Question (Beraisa): 'After he is redeemed, he must serve the same period as he would have served if he had remained in the possession of the gentile; after that, he leaves'. This seems unlike R. Yochanan who implied that he must only serve six years, as if he had originally been sold to a Jew...?

Answer (R. Aba Mari): The Beraisa should not say 'he serves and leaves' but rather, 'he completes and leaves'.

Beraisa continues: If relatives redeem him from his first master, they can enslave him. If others redeemed him from the gentile and then his relatives redeem him from that person, they cannot enslave him.

R. Yasa citing R.Yochanan: This Beraisa follows the opinion that relatives must redeem him to freedom but others redeem him to servitude.

Question (Shmuel bar Aba to R. Yasa): The pasuk here (a Jewish slave sold to a gentile) states (Vayikra 25, 27), "and he shall calculate'' and here (when the Kohen evaluates an ancestral field consecrated to the Temple - see earlier 12- 5) (o)) the pasuk also states (Vayikra 27, 18), "and he shall calculate''. Here (giraon kesef) you calculate months and years but here (consecrated fields) you only calculate years?

Answer (R. Yasa): The Torah compares a slave to a hired laborer - just as a laborer calculates months and years and then he leaves his job, so too a slave.

In reference to a Jewish maidservant, the pasuk says (Shemos 21, 11), "...and she shall leave free of charge'' - his occurs when she transforms from being a na'arah to being a bogeres (6 months after becoming a na'arah).

The pasuk continues, "...without payment'' - it is not money, but rather producing physical signs of adulthood that takes her out i.e. na'arus (usually at age 12).

Question: Why mention leaving upon reaching bagrus when she has already left at na'arus?

Answer: If only one phrase was used, one would assume that it was referring to bagrus; since she had left her father's control and entered into her master's control, we can compare the two - just as she leaves her father's control at bagrus, so too for leaving her master's control; therefore, the Torah had to write both phrases.

Alternatively, "...without payment'' teaches that when she leaves her master, he does not receive money; but when she leaves her father's control, he does receive money. This teaches that only until she reaches bagrus does her father receive the money for her marriage.