Refuted Explanation: One cannot say here 'What does Rotzeh mean - at the time of Shechitah.

Refuted Explanation (cont.): Because it was alright to say this above, where it came to teach us that in the event that she did not choose at the time of Shechitah she cannot eat at all, despite the fact that we thought that she instinctively prefers to follow her husband.

Refuted Explanation (concl.): But here, if she wants at the time of Shechitah, what will the be coming to teach us?

Clarification: This is because 'Seh le'Beis Avos' is not d'Oraysa.

Support: And this is what Rebbi Zeira himself holds in Perek Ein bein ha'Mudar (Nedarim, Daf 36.).

Question: How can one then feed the Pesach to someone who has not been designated to eat it ...

Question (cont.): Granted, 'Beis-Din are not obligated to stop a Katan from eating Neveilos', nevertheless to feed him with one's hands is forbidden, as we learned in Perek Cheiresh (Yevamos, Daf 114.)

Answer: The Ri explains that we learn (the Isur) case there from "Lo Sochlum", in which case it is only Asur if it is similar to Sheratzim and Neveilos (which are intrinsically forbidden), but in a case like ours, which involves Chinuch Mitzvah, it is permitted.

Clarification: In the first Perek of Bava Metzi'a (Daf 12:) in connection with a Metzi'ah, there is an opinion which interprets 'Katan', not literally, but even as a Gadol who eats at his father's table.

Proof: Here however, it can only mean literally, a Katan, seeing as the Gemara says 'whether it is with his will or against it. Now the Gemara will shortly explain that 'against his will' means where he says 'No!'

Conclusion: And as far as Gedolim is concerned, it is obvious that they have the right to object, even if they are eating at their father's table.

Clarification: This teaches us even if he did so S'tam, since there is no bigger objection than actually Shechting one's own Pesach.

Refuted Explanation: One cannot explains 'de'Kapdi' to mean that each master does not want to give the other one pleasure ...

Refuted Explanation (cont.): And therefore he cannot even eat from his portion, since it is impossible not to give his friend's portion benefit simultaneously.

Refutation #1: Because if so, when each one Shechts for him, is he stupid, that he thinks that his part of the Eved will benefit from his Pesach and not his friend's part?

Refutation #1 (cont.): Since presumably it speaks where his master Shechted on his behalf, similar to the Reisha 'Yasom she'Shachtu alav ... '?

Refutation #2: Furthermore, why can the Chatzi Eved .... not eat from his own Pesach, even according to the Mishnah Rishonah, since he wants to give his Eved the benefit of what he has in him, in order that the Eved should be Yotzei the Korban Pesach?

Correct Explanation: Therefore the explanation is like that of Rashi, who explains that each master is particular that his portion in the Eved should not benefit from his friend's Korban. Nevertheless he Shechts on the understanding that his friend will not mind if his portion in the Eved benefits from his Korban Pesach.

Correct Explanation (cont.): And this explains why the Chatzi Eved cannot eat even from his own Pesach, according to the Mishnah Rishonah.

Question: Let the Asei of "P'ru u'Revu" (Bereishis 9) come and override the La'v of "Lo Yih'yeh Kadeish" (Devarim 23)?

Answer: Because by her, there is no Mitzvah, since she can live with an Eved.

Answer #2: Moreover the La'v has already been transgressed at the beginning of the Bi'ah, whereas he only fulfils the Asei at the end.

Question: Let him sell himself as an Eved Ivri, in which case he will permitted to live with a Shfchah?

Answer: It speaks at a time when the Yovel is not in force, in which case the Din of Eved Ivri does apply either.

Answer #2: Furthermore, says the Ri, It is forbidden to sell oneself as an Eved Ivri, as the Gemara explains in the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 22:)

Question: Let him marry a woman who is half a Shifchah and half set-free?

Answer: The part of him that is an Eved will be having relations with the part of her that is free (and vice-versa).

Question: Let him marry a Mamzeres, since a Mamzer is permitted to marry a Shifchah, as Rebbi Tarfon said in Perk ha'Omer (Ibid 69.) 'Mamzerim can become permitted ...

Question (cont.): How is that? A Mamzer can marry a Shifchah'. And he is permitted even to the part of her that is free. Since Charuri (Meshuchrarim) and Mamzerim are permitted to marry one another?

Answer: If Kidushin takes effect on a Chatzi Eved, then the part of him that is an Eved will be intimate with the part of the woman that is an Eishes Ish, and if it doesn't, then his Bi'ah is a Bi'as Z'nus.

Conclusion: And in 'ha'Shole'ach' in Gitin (Daf 43.) the Gemara is not sure whether Kidushin takes effect or not.

Answer #2: Moreover, says Rabeinu Tam, it is not a good Takanah to increase Mamzerim.

Question: Why can he not marry a Nesinah, since Charurim and Nesinim are permitted to intermarry?

Answer: It may well be that even though a Mamzer may marry a Shifchah, a Nasin may not ...

Reason: Because a Mamzer is permitted to a Shifchah due to the fact that he already has a status of "Kadeish" by virtue of the fact that he is born from an Isur where Kidushin did not take effect. Consequently, he is not subject to "Lo Yih'yeh Kadeish".

Implied Question: When the Gemara says in Yesh Mutaros (Yevamos Daf 85:) that a Mamzeres and a Nesinah talks a Yisrael into it' ...

Answer: That is because he is able to render his children Kasher if his son marries a Shifchah.

Implied Question: Even though a Nasin is forbidden to marry a Shifchah ...

Answer: The man doesn't care about the Isur, seeing as he married a Nesinah.

Implied Question: In the case of half a Shifchah one does not force her master unless she is being sexually abused.

Answer: That is because even once she has been set free, she may well not fulfil (the Mitzvah of "Lasheves Yetzarah") since she is not commanded to do so.

Question: Why does one force (in the case of an Eved) since when do we tell a man to sin in order that his friend should merit, seeing as someone who sets free an Eved transgresses an Asei?

Answer: An important Mitzvah like "Lo Sohu Bera'ah, Lasheves Yetzarah" is different ...

Precedent: Like Te Gemara answers in B'rachos, in connection with Rebbi Eliezer who set free his Eved (in order to make up a Minyan) 'A communal Mitzvah is different!'

Clarification: Rashi explains that the Beraisa holds 'Ein B'reirah'.

Refuted Answer: One cannot however, answer that our Mishnah holds 'Yesh B'reirah' ...

Refutation: Because if it did, it ought to have ruled that he may eat from which one he wants.

Question: Why does the Gemara not answer that the Beraisa speaks where he was designated on two Pesachim at the same time, in which case he is certainly not permitted to eat from them both, whereas the Mishnah speaks where they designated for him one after the other, where he has in mind to eat from the first one?

Answer: The Mishnah is referring to 'the first one' to be Shechted, even though he was designated on it last.

Clarification: Who have many side dishes, and do not therefore care whether it is a kid-goat or a lamb, whether it is fat or thin.

Clarification: According to the opinion in Kidushin (Daf 23:) that his master acquires it unless one gives the Eved the money on the express condition that he will purchase his freedom with it, it speaks here where he is given the money on condition that he will be Yotzei the Mitzvah of Pesach with it.

Clarification: And it is not so quickly Pasul, seeing as the P'sul does not lie in the actual Korban.