1)

(a)Rebbi Zeira ... Amar Rebbi said that an Eved who married a bas Chorin in front of his master goes free.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan was not happy with this Chidush, due to a ruling that he quoted regarding someone who wrote a Shtar Erusin betrothing his Shifchah to himself. Rebbi Meir ruled there 'Mekudeshes; the Chachamim say 'Einah Mekudeshes'.

(c)Based on a statement of Rabah bar Rav Shilo regarding an Eved who laid Tefilin in front of his Master, we reconcile Rebbi with the Chachamim of Rebbi Meir by establishing the former when it was the master who betrothed the bas Chorin to the Eved.

2)

(a)To explain why it is that marrying his Eved to a bas Chorin is a sign that he has set him free, whereas his own betrothal to his Shifchah is not Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak establishes the latter where he expressly said 'Tzei'i Bo v'Hiskadshi Bo' ...

(b)... and the reason that she is not Mekudeshes according to the Chachamim is because on the one hand, his words indicate that he wants the Shtar to serve as a Get Shichrur, whilst on the other hand, the Lashon written on the Shtar ('Harei At Mekudeshes Li ...') implies that it is a Shtar Kidushin, and not a Shtar Shichrur.

(c)Rebbi, on the other hand, maintains that the Lashon on the Shtar includes her freedom, without which she would not be fit for Kidushin to take effect.

(d)It would have been different had the master just said 'Hiskadshi Bo' because we would have taken for granted that the master would not do an Isur, and that he must have therefore set her free beforehand, in which case, even the Rabanan would agree that she is betrothed.

3)

(a)The Beraisa rules that if a master ...

1. ... borrows from his slave or if he appoints him an agent over his property, or if he ...

2. ... sees him laying Tefilin or being called up to the Torah and does not protest it is not a sign of freedom.

(b)Rabah bar Rav Shilo reconciles Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who says 'Eved she'Hini'ach Tefilin bi'Fnei Rabo, Yeitzei l'Cheirus' with the Beraisa by establishing the former when it is the master who puts the Tefilin on the Eved's arm and on his head, whereas the Tana is speaking when somebody else does.

4)

(a)When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he quoted Rebbi Yochanan as saying that if a dying man said 'Plonis Shifchasi Al Yishta'bdu Bah l'Achar Mosi' Beis-Din force the heirs to set her free and to write a Get Shichrur.

(b)When Rebbi Yochanan repeated this, Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi raised the objection 'Rebbi, I Atah Modeh she'Banehah Avadim'?

(c)According to them, the dying man merely meant to say that they should not ease her work load.

(d)When Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah came from Eretz Yisrael, he had a different version of Rebbi Yochanan's statement. He quoted Rebbi Yochanan as saying, that, if a dying man said 'Plonis Shifchasi Koras Ru'ach As'sah Li, Ye'aseh Lah Koras Ru'ach' then, based on the principle 'Mitzvah Lekayeim Divrei ha'Mes', Beis-Din will force the heirs to set her free, if that is what gives her satisfaction.

5)

(a)We have already cited Ameimar who says that 'ha'Mafkir Avdo, Oso Eved Ein Lo Takanah' because the master no longer possesses a Kinyan Mamon in him, and it is not possible to set free the Kinyan Isur alone.

(b)Ameimar then explains Rebbi Yochanan and Rav, whom we cited above as saying that an Eved whose master declares him Hefker or Hekdesh goes out to freedom, and requires a Get Shichrur to mean 'Tzarich v'Ein Lo' (he needs a Get Shichrur, but it is not possible to give him one).

(c)The alternative version of Ameimar's ruling is 'ha'Mafkir Avdo u'Mes, Ein Lo Takanah', because one cannot pass on to one's heirs something that is Isur only and not Mamon, but had the master not died, he would have been permitted to write a Get Shichrur.

(d)Rav Ashi asks on Ameimar from Rav Dimi, whom we just saw requires a Get Shichrur in the case of 'Plonis Shifchasi Al Yishta'bdu Bah l'Achar Mosi'. We reject the answer that Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi anyway refute Rebbi Yochanan's statement on the grounds that that is only because he did not use a Lashon Shichrur, but if he had, then the heirs would have been permitted to write a Get Shichrur.

6)

(a)Ameimar answered the Kashya from Rav Dimi by refuting his version of Rebbi Yochanan's statement and accepting that of Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah ('Mi she'Amar b'Sha'as Misaso Plonis Shifchasi Koras Ru'ach As'sah Li ... ').

(b)What happened to the town of slaves that was sold to Nochrim was that all the owners died.

(c)When the Avadim came to ask Ravina what to do he instructed them to approach the original owners and ask them for a Shtar Shichrur.

(d)When the Rabanan queried ...

1. ... his instructions from Ameimar he replied that he followed the opinion of Rav Dimi.

2. ... his reply on the grounds that Rav Dimi was proved wrong he replied that that was only because there they failed to use a Lashon Shichrur, as we explained above, but if they did, then even the heirs can still write a Get Shichrur ...

(e)... and that is the Halachah).

7)

(a)In the story of the two partners who jointly owned an Eved Kena'ani, the second partner was afraid when the first partner set free his portion in the Eved that Beis-Din would force him to set the other half free as well (in keeping with the Mishnah Acharonah later in the Perek).

(b)When, in the knowledge that Ketanim are not subject to coercion, knowing that the child was fond of money, the Rabanan penalized him in the following way. After appointing an agent to assess his market value, they gave the Eved a small sum of money to offer him in exchange for a Get Shichrur, enabling him to go free.

(c)The purpose of the Apotropos was in order to assess the value of the Eved, of which he had to pay for half to the Katan.

(d)The Shtar was valid despite the fact that he was only a Katan on the basis of the Halachah 'ha'Pe'utos Mikchan Mecher ... bi'Metaltelin' (if a child is smart enough to fix business deals, then those deals are valid as long as they are confined to Metaltelin).

8)

(a)The Tana of a Beraisa says that if someone declares ...

1. ... 'I set Ploni Avdi free' or 'Ploni Avdi has been set free' he goes free.

2. ... 'I will set Ploni Avdi free', according to Rebbi he goes free.

(b)Rebbi only makes sense according to Rebbi Yochanan's interpretation of the Beraisa that the above was written in a document which the master handed to the Eved.

(c)The Chachamim disagree with Rebbi and say 'Lo Kanah' because any Lashon in the future is a promise at best, but not a transaction.

(d)In all of these cases an appropriate Kinyan would be more effective than a Shtar with the exception of a Shechiv-Mera, whose words are considered as being documented and handed over.

9)

(a)Another Beraisa rules that if someone declares ...

1. ... 'I have given Sadeh Plonis to so-and-so' or 'Sadeh Plonis is given to so-and-so' the latter acquires the field.

2. ... 'I will give Sadeh Plonis to so-and-so', according to Rebbi Meir he acquires the field, too.

(b)The Chachamim argue, as they did in the previous case, and Rebbi Yochanan establishes that Beraisa too, by a Shtar. It is not possible to explain Rebbi Yochanan (in both statements) to mean that the transaction was made verbally but that the previous owner becomes obligated to write a Shtar because of the very last case according to Rebbi Meir. How can a field possibly change hands on the basis of mere words?

(c)It would however, be possible to do so in the case of the Eved according to Rebbi because an Eved can acquire himself through the master's statement (like we find in the case of 'ha'Mafkir Avdo).

10)

(a)Another Beraisa rules that if someone declares that he ...

1. ... set Ploni Avdi free, but the Eved himself denies it we nevertheless assume that he was Makneh him to himself through a third person.

2. ... set him free with a Shtar, and he denies it the Eved is believed (and he remains an Eved).

(b)The basic difference between the two cases is that in the former case, the recipient is likely not to have known about the gift, we therefore believe the master (because of the principle 'Hoda'as Ba'Al Din k'Me'ah Edim Dami'), whereas in the Seifa, where it is impossible for him not to have known, then we believe him based on the same principle (and the original status quo remains intact).

(c)Likewise, the same Tana rules that if someone declares that he ...

1. ... gave Sadeh Plonis to so-and-so, but so-and-so denies it we assume that he was Makneh the field through a third person.

2. ... wrote it in a Shtar and gave it to him, the 'beneficiary' is believed (and the field remains in the possession of the original owner).

(d)It seems obvious that in the latter case the original owner continues to eat the Peiros of the field, as Rav Chisda says. When Rabah says that the fruit is placed in the hands of a trustee (which presumably means that it is sold and the money placed with him) until Mashi'ach comes he is speaking when the original beneficiary is no longer alive, and it is the heirs who claim that their father did not receive the field. There, it is possible that the father did in fact, receive it, only the heirs are unaware of it.

11)

(a)An Aputiki is a piece of land (for example) which the debtor specifies as payment of his debt should he fail to pay from another source.

(b)Our Mishnah states that strictly speaking, if the master made an Eved an Aputiki and then set him free, the Eved has no obligations. According to Rav, the Tana is referring to the first master setting him free, and he goes free due to a statement by Rava, who said that Hekdesh, Chametz and Shichrur remove the Shi'abud (the right of claim).

(c)The case of ...

1. ... Hekdesh is when someone declares Hekdesh an ox that he had designated as an Aputiki .

2. ... Chametz is when a Nochri lent a Yisrael money against his Chametz, which he retained in his possession. After Pesach, the Chametz is forbidden (because the Isur of Chametz overrides the Shi'abud).

3. ... Shichrur is when he designated his Eved an Aputiki and then set him free.

(d)In the first case, Rava is speaking specifically about Kedushas ha'Guf. In the equivalent case by Kedushas Damim the owner would be obligated to pay a small amount of money to Hekdesh to redeem the ox.