1)

(a)The Dayanim of Pumbedisa authorized a creditor to claim an Eved from Yesomim. When Rav Chana bar Bizna did the same thing in Neharda'a Rav Nachman threatened him that, unless he retracted, he would claim his mansion from him (to compensate the Yesomim).

(b)Rava queried Rav Nachman's ruling on the grounds that Ula, Rebbi Elazar and the Dayanim of Neharda'a all agreed with the Dayanim of Pumbedisa.

(c)Rav Nachman answered with a Beraisa cited by Avimi 'Pruzbul Chal Al ha'Karka ... Metaltelin Niknin Im Karka'. And the Tana adds ...

1. ... that one cannot write a Pruzbul on Avadim.

2. ... that one cannot acquire Metaltelin together with Avadim.

(d)The basis of these two rulings is that 'Avadim Ki'Metalteli Dami'.

2)

(a)Another Beraisa rules that someone wishing to purchase ...

1. ... Avadim and Karka, who makes a Kinyan on the Karka only does not acquire the Avadim.

2. ... Avadim and Metaltelin, who makes a Kinyan on the Avadim only does not acquire the Metaltelin.

(b)We initially resolve this Beraisa with another Beraisa 'Hichzik ba'Avadim, Kanah Metaltelin' by establishing that the former holds 'Avadim Ki'Metaltelin Dami', and the latter, 'Avadim k'Mekarka'i Dami'.

(c)Rav Ika Brei d'Rav Ami maintains that both Beraisos hold 'Avadim Ki'Mekarkai Dami', and the reason that the former gives Avadim the Din of Metaltelin, is because Karka needs to be like "the fortified cities in Yehudah", which are static.

(d)The significance of "Arei Metzuros bi'Yehudah" in this context is the fact that we learn the Din of acquiring Metaltelin together with Karka from the Pasuk in Divrei ha'Yamim "Va'yiten la'Hem Avihem Matanos Rabos l'Kesef ... Im Arei Metzuros bi'Yehudah".

3)

(a)In a second Lashon, Rav Ika Brei d'Rav Ami holds that both Beraisos hold 'Avadim Ki'Metalteli Dami'. And he explains the latter Beraisa ('Hichzik ba'Avadim, Kanah Metaltelin') there where the Avadim are actually carrying the Metaltelin.

(b)And he acquires the Metaltelin with a Kinyan Chatzer.

(c)We object to this however on the grounds that a roving Chatzer cannot acquire.

(d)Bearing in mind Rav's principle that when a moving object cannot acquire, the fact that it is static will make no difference, Rav Ika Brei d'R 'vav Ami finally establishes the Beraisa where the Eved is bound (see also Tosfos DH k'Hilchesa').

4)

(a)In light of what we learned earlier 'Hichzik b'Karka, Lo Kanah Avadim', we will establish another Beraisa 'Hichzik b'Karka, Kanah Avadim' when the Avadim are actually standing on the Karka ...

(b)... implying that the earlier Beraisa is speaking when the Avadim are not standing on the Karka.

(c)This poses a Kashya on the Lashon of Rav Ika Brei d'Rav Ami that holds 'Avadim Ki'Mekarka'i Dami' because one can acquire two pieces of Karka with one Kinyan, even though they are far apart, like Shmuel taught with regard to someone who purchased ten fields in ten different countries.

(d)The Kashya will be equally applicable according to the Lashon of Rav Ika Brei d'Rav Ami which holds 'Avdi Ki'Metalteli Dami' because we rule in Kidushin that in order to acquire Metaltelin through a Kinyan on the Karka, they do not actually need to be lying on the Karka.

5)

(a)We answer both Kashyos in one stroke by differentiating between both Metaltelin that moves and Metaltelin that is static, and Karka that moves and Karka that is static.

6)

(a)We extrapolate from the Lashon in our Mishnah 'Nechasim she'Ein la'Hem Me'ilah' that the Tana is nevertheless talking about Kodshim, and that the regular Din of Nezikin applies in the event that one damages someone's Shelamim) from the fact that the Tana does not simply say 'Nichsei Hedyot'.

(b)We are talking about Kodshim Kalim (e.g. Shelamim), according to Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili, who considers them to be the personal property of the owner.

(c)He extrapolates this from the Pasuk in Vayikra "u'Ma'alah Ma'Al ba'Hashem", implying that one is obligated to bring an Asham Gezeilos for denying having stolen something personal belonging to one's friend and swearing falsely that he was innocent, even though it belongs partially to Hash-m (i.e. a Korban) (though one is exempt from swearing on pure Kodshei Shamayim).

(d)We reconcile the Mishnah in Kidushin 'ha'Mekadesh b'Chelko bein b'Kodshei Kodashim, bein b'Kodshim Kalim, Einah Mekudeshes' with Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili by establishing it after Shechitah, when even he concedes that the Kohanim acquire the chest and the right calf, and the Yisrael, the rest of the animal, from the Divine table.

7)

(a)The Mishnah in Temurah permits selling a live unblemished Bechor. Assuming that the Tana is referring to a Bechor nowadays (which is unfit to be brought as a Korban) the purchaser can do nothing with it until it obtains a blemish.

(b)The Tana permits selling it specifically when it is alive. He can do nothing with a Tam Shachut other than bury it.

(c)However he permits a Ba'al Mum to be sold both when it is alive and after it has been Shechted.

(d)'u'Mekadshin Bo Es ha'Ishah' pertains specifically to Kohanim.

8)

(a)We have already cited Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah, who establishes the Reisha nowadays, when the Bechor cannot be brought as a Korban. Rava queried Rav Nachman from Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili, who considers live Kodshim Kalim to be the property of the owner (so why did Rav Nachman need to say that).

(b)To answer Rava's Kashya, Ravina establishes the Mishnah in Temurah by a Bechor in Eretz Yisrael, and Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili, by a Bechor in Chutz la'Aretz, like Rebbi Shimon, who says that a Bechor Tam in Chutz la'Aretz during the time of the Beis ha'Mikdash ...

1. ... l'Chatchilah may not be brought, but is sent out to graze until it obtains a blemish.

2. ... b'Di'eved, if it was sent to Eretz Yisrael it is brought on the Mizbe'ach.

(c)Based on the understanding that Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili considers live Kodshim Kalim the property of the owner, the problem with Ravina now is why he did not establish the Mishnah in Temurah like the Rabanan, and Rabbi Yosi ha'Glili even by a Bechor in Eretz Yisrael?

(d)He declined to give this answer because, in fact, even Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili will agree with the Rabanan that a Bechor in Eretz Yisrael (like all of the twenty-four Matnos Kehunah), is not the Kohen's private property, but is acquired from the table of Hash-m.

9)

(a)Ravina has no choice but to establish the Beraisa of "u'Ma'alah Ma'Al ba'Hashem" (Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili) by Bechor, rather than by Shelamim (even though this creates a problem) because it is clear from the Seifa that that is the Beraisa is talking about Bechor, as we shall now see.