R. Yosi bei R. Yehuda: The pasuk states (Shemos 21, 8), "(if her master) did not designate her for himself, he shall (help her to achieve) redemption'' - this teaches that he cannot designate her in marriage unless there is ti me left before the end of her servitude, meaning either that the acquisition money was reduced to no less than the value of a Perutah or that there is still time for her to earn a Perutah, thereby allowing redemption).

Chachamim: He may designate her even until sunset (of the last day of her servitude - they hold that she is betrothed with the original money that was received for her - even if at this point there is nothing left).

R. Chiya bar Ada: All agree that if there is less than a Perutah left, a Jewish slave cannot be redeemed (with giraon kesef- reduction of money).

Question: (a) sounds correct. Why do the Chachamim not agree?

Answer (R. Yosi bei R. Yehuda): The Chachamim's reasoning is that there is no money left and she cannot earn anything. So with what can he now designate her?

R. Zeira: With words.

Beraisa (R. Hoshiya): How does he designate her? He says to her in front of two people, "Behold you are designated to me''.

According to R. YB''Y he gives the money for the designation at the end.

According to the Chachamim, her father gave the money at the beginning.

Question: Where would there be a practical difference between the two opinions?

Answer: Her earnings. According to R. YB''Y, her earnings will go to her husband. According to the Chachamim, her earnings from the sale until the designation go to her father.

Rejection: Even according to the Chachamim, her earnings go to her husband - it is as if he said, "Behold you are betrothed to me on condition that your earnings are mine''.

Another practical difference: If the master was married to the maidservant's sister and the sister died...

According to R. YB''Y, he does not need to give other betrothal money. According to Chachamim, he must give other money.

Rejection: Even according to the R. YB''Y he must give other money - as all agree that betrothal does not take effect with a relative (such as his wife's sister).

According to R. Y''BY, all of these cases of designation are fully comparable to regular betrothal. (Therefore, just as if a man gives his sister money for betrothal, she is not betrothed but she keeps the money as a gift; so too for designation...)

R. Avun: R. YB''Y follows the opinion of R. Shimon ben Elazar in the Beraisa...

Beraisa: If a man says to a woman, "(You are betrothed to me) with my deposit that you possess''- if she then discovered that it was stolen or lost, as long as a Perutah amount still remains, she is betrothed.

But if a man says to a woman, "(You are betrothed to me) with the money that I lent you''- if she then discovered that it was stolen or lost, even if a Perutah does not still remain, she is betrothed.

R. Shimon ben Elazar citing R. Meir: A deposit is the same as a loan - a Perutah must remain for her to be betrothed.

Just as R. SB''E equated a deposit with a loan, so R. YB''Y equated designation with a loan (meaning that a Perutah must remain for the designation to take effect).

The pasuk states (Shemos 21, 9), "And if he shall designate her to his son'' - but he cannot designate her to his brother.

A Kal Vechomer should prove that he can also designate her to his brother...

If a son cannot replace his father by performing chalitzah and yibum but he can be designated his father's maidservant; his brother, who does take his place to perform chalitzah and yibum, should certainly be able to be designated his brother's maidservant?!

Rejection: No. A son replaces his father as owner of their ancestral field, but a brother does not. (Since we find a stringency in the son that is absent in the brother, the Kal Vechomer is disproven.)

The pasuk states, "And if he shall designate her to his son'' - his son but not his grandson.

Question (Shmuel bar Aba to R. Zeira): Why in the matter of inheritance is the grandson like the son, but not here?

Response (R. Zeira): I will serve Kunditun (wine mixed with honey and pepper) to whoever can answer this question!

Answer (R. Tanchum): Even in the matter of ancestral fields, the Torah treats a brother and other relatives like a son (if he died without children - his brother or another relative inherits him), including his grandson. Here (yiud), neither a brother nor other relatives are like a son, so a grandson is also not like a son.

Question (Rabbanan of Kisarin): In the matter of (a Kohen) becoming impure (to his relatives), a brother and other relatives are like a son, but a grandson is not like a son!

The Kunditun that R. Zeira would have served to R. Tanchum is gone!

Beraisa: "...if he shall designate her to his son''- there must be consent.

R.Yochanan: Even without consent, the son can perform yi'ud.

R. Yaakov bar Acha: The ruling of the Beraisa (j) is valid - it follows the opinion of R. Yosi bei R. Yehuda (see earlier 1)(g) 1.that he gives the money for the designation at the end, meaning that he did not originally consent to the designation and must consent to it at the end.)

R. Shmuel bar Avudama: Even according to R. YBY, the Beraisa seems to be referring to the consent of the son. However, yiud can be done even with the master's son who is still a child and a child cannot give consent. Therefore, the Beraisa cannot require the consent of the son.

R. Yochanan: The master may designate her to his son, even if he is a child, and there is no need for consent.

R. Shimon ben Lakish: He may only designate her to his adult son and there must be consent.

Beraisa: A nine year old boy can make his wife a widow, so that she cannot marry a Kohen Gadol, and if he divorced her, or his wife performed Chalitzah with one of his brothers, she can no longer marry a Kohen.

According to R''Y who allows yiud with the master's young son, we therefore find that the Torah allows a boy to marry. If so, the above Beraisa refers to marrying his father's maidservant through yiud, thereby disqualifying her from marrying a Kohen Gadol if he dies and from marrying a regular Kohen if he divorces her or if she performed Chalitzah.

Question: But according to R. SB''L, since a child cannot do yiud, the Beraisa must be referring to a Rabbinic marriage. If so, she should be exempt from chalitzah and yibum.

Proof (Mishnah in 10th Perek of Yevamos): If he (a 9 year old boy) married and died, his wife is exempt from chalitzah and yibum...?

Answer (R. Avun): R. SB''L follows the opinion of R. Yosi bei R. Yehuda in the Beraisa...

Beraisa: If a boy between the ages of 9 and 12 brought 2 pubic hairs as a sign of adulthood, they are assumed to have come from a wart and he is not considered to be an adult.

R. Yosi bei R. Yehuda: They are viewed as signs of adulthood.

R. Yaakov bei R. Bun citing R. Yosi ben Chaninah: R. YB''Y's opinion only applies when the hairs continued to be there after he turned twelve.

Question (R. Yosi): If the hairs continued to be there after he turned twelve, is he considered a man from when they grew or from when he turned twelve?

Answer (R. Avun): Certainly from when they grew.

R. Avun established that R. SB''Y followed the opinion of R. Yosi bei R. Yehuda.

Question: Why did R. Yosi not agree to this? (Furthermore, it is clear that R.YB''Y holds that a child who brought 2 hairs is considered an adult - otherwise R. SB''L will have a difficulty with the Beraisa...?)

Answer (R. Mana): R. Yosi's doubt is in fact according to the opinion of R. Yochanan...If the hairs continued to be there after he turned twelve, is he considered a man from when they grew or from when he turned twelve?

Conclusion of question: According to R.Yochanan, we can explain the case of a widow that he performed yiud with her and then died. But how could there be a case of a divorcee, if R. Yochanan said that we are referring to a child - how could a child give a get?

Answer: He only had relations with her when he was a child and after he became an adult, he gave her a get.

Question: What about the case of chalitzah in the Beraisa? (The Gemara is assuming that the Beraisa means that if the child performed chalitzah, the yevamah becomes a chalutzah. This is a question against R. Yochanan, as the chalitzah of a child actually does not achieve anything!)

Answer: The case is when he had relations with her and later died and one of his brothers performed chalitzah with her. It is in this way that she becomes a chalitzah.

Question: If the Beraisa is referring to yiud, why must the boy be aged nine; even if he was younger the same law should apply?

Answer (R. Shmuel bar Avudama): That is correct, but the other laws there only apply to a 9 year old.

R. Yehuda ben Pazi citing R. Yehoshua ben Levi: R. Yosi bei R. Yehuda learned from Achaz that a 9 year old boy can have a child.

Proof (Beraisa): Achaz had a child when he was 9; Haran had a child when he was 6; Calev had a child when he was 10.

This follows the view that Calev ben Chetzron was Calev ben Yefuneh.