1)

(a)Rabah establishes the Machlokes Tana'im (Rebbi and the Rabanan, whether it is possible to set half an Eved free), in a case where the owner retains the other half of the Eved (but if he sells it, even the Rabanan will agree that the Shichrur is valid) provided the sale took place before the Shichrur, but not vice-versa.

(b)The Tana of one Beraisa says that if someone writes all his property to his two Avadim they share the property and set each other free.

(c)Rav Yosef presumes to reconcile this Beraisa with another Beraisa which, in a similar case, rules that the two Avadim do not even acquire themselves by establishing the first Beraisa like Rebbi, and the second, like the Rabanan.

(d)This poses a Kashya on Rabah since he just explained that as long as the master does not retain any part of his Eved, even the Rabanan will concede that the Shichrur is valid.

2)

(a)We refute Rav Yosef's Kashya, by establishing both Beraisos according to the Rabanan. Nevertheless, the second Beraisa rules that they do not acquire themselves because the Tana is speaking when the master specifically wrote 'Chatzi' in one Shtar and 'Chatzi' in the other.

(b)He could even be speaking in a case where he gave the two Shtaros to the two Avadim simultaneously, only because when he wrote in each Shtar 'Chatzi', he may have been giving the same half-Eved to each Eved, in which case he has retained part of the Eved.

(c)Rabah will explain ...

1. ... the first Beraisa (where the master wrote 'Kulo' in each Shtar) when he handed the two Shtaros simultaneously.

2. ... the Seifa of the latter Beraisa, which presents the case of 'Chatzi Chatzi', not as an independent case (implying that the Reisha speaks when he wrote 'Kulo'), but to explain the Reisha.

3)

(a)It might even be logical to interpret the Seifa as an extension of the Reisha, rather than as a separate entity (in which case the Beraisa would rebound on Rav Yosef, posing a Kashya on him) because otherwise, having taught us that by 'Kulo' the Shichrur is invalid, why did he find it necessary to add the case of 'Chatzi Chatzi'?

(b)Rav Yosef replies however that the Tana might deliberately have added the case of 'Chatzi Chatzi', in order to imply that the Reisha speaks by 'Kulo', and still the Shichrur is not valid.

(c)An alternative answer to Rav Yosef's initial Kashya on Rabah is that the second Beraisa speaks when the master wrote the two gifts on one Shtar. We learn from Get Ishah that such a gift is not valid because the Torah writes "v'Chasav Lah" 've'Lo Lah v'la'Chavertah'.

(d)We then explain the Seifa 've'Im Amar Chatzi Chatzi, Lo Kanah' by adding to the Beraisa 'Bameh Devarim Amurim, bi'Shtar Echad, Aval bi'Shnei Shtaros Kanu, v'Im Amar Chatzi Chatzi, Af bi'Shnei Shtaros Lo Kanu'.

4)

(a)We reject a third suggestion, establishing the second Beraisa when he did not hand them the Shtaros simultaneously, but one after the other (even though both Beraisos speak when he wrote 'Kulo') because that would explain why the second Eved will not acquire anything, but there is no reason for the first Eved not to.

(b)Rav Ashi extrapolates that the Shtar is invalid from the Lashon written in the Shtar: 'ha'Omer, Kol Nechasai Nesunin li'Ploni u'Ploni Avadai' implying that the Avadim do not go free because he did not intend to set them free.

(c)When he wrote the Shtar he (mistakenly) intended them to acquire his property even without acquiring themselves.

5)

(a)In the Mishnah in Pe'ah, Rebbi Shimon, commenting on the Tana Kama's statement 'ha'Kosev Kol Nechasav l'Avdo, Yeitzei l'Cheirus. Shiyer Karka Kol she'Hu, Lo Yeitzei l'Cheirus', writes 'Le'olam Hu ben Chorin ad she'Yomar Kol Nechasai Nesunin li'Ploni Avdi Chutz me'Echad me'Ribu she'Bahen'. If the master left over some land, the Eved goes free, as long as he did not say 'Chutz me'Echad me'Ribu she'Bahen' based on the principle 'Palginan Dibura' (even though the Eved does not acquire the property, he does acquire himself, as we explained in the first Perek).

(b)Rafram learns from there that, when a master refers to his Eved as such, he is not necessarily referring to his current status, but that he might be referring to his past status (meaning his erstwhile Eved, even though he is no longer an Eved).

6)

(a)If, according to Beis Hillel in our Mishnah (who initially holds that an Eved who is half free serves his master one day, and himself the next), an ox gores this Eved and wounds him whoever's day it is receives the damages.

(b)Nevertheless, we do not say that, by the same token, the Eved may 'marry' a Shifchah on the day that he serves his master, and a bas Yisrael on the day that he serves himself because Mamon can be divided in two (one day for the master one for himself), whereas Isur cannot.

(c)The Tana of a Beraisa rules that if a goring ox gores a half-Eved and half-ben-Chorin and kills him the master receives half the fine, and the Chatzi ben-Chorin's heirs, half the Kofer.

7)

(a)If a goring ox gores and kills ...

1. ... an Eved the owner must pay thirty Shekalim to the master.

2. ... a free man he pays Kofer (whatever he is worth, were he to be sold on the slave market) to the man's heirs.

(b)The Din here is different than in the previous case (where the ox only damaged the Chatzi-Eved, Chatzi ben Chorin), where the payment depends on the day that the accident occurred because here, the Keren (the principle) has been destroyed (and both owners suffer a total loss).

8)

(a)The case of damages where the Keren has not been destroyed would be where for example, he was struck on his hand, which temporarily withered, but later returned to its previous state.

(b)According to Abaye, the Mazik then pays both ...

1. ... Sheves Gedolah (the depreciation of the Eved [Nezek]), and ...

2. ... Sheves Ketanah the daily work-loss (the wages he would receive as a guard in a cucumber-field if he were not bed-ridden due to the wound).

(c)According to Rava, he pays only Sheves Ketanah, a problem on the case that we learned earlier 'Nagcho Shor, Yom shel Rabo, l'Rabo ... ' since one only pays Sheves Ketanah for the damage that one inflicted personally, but not for that of one's animal.

9)

(a)Rava therefore amends the case from 'Nagcho Shor', to 'Nagcho Adam'. Alternatively, we leave the original case intact, and Rava is not perturbed by it because it is only a statement of Amora'im, with whom he has the authority to argue.

(b)We ask whether, if an ox gores a freed Eved who still requires a Get Shichrur, the Mazik is obligated to pay thirty Shekalim Kenas or not. The two sides of the She'eilah, based on the Pasuk "Kesef Sheloshim Shekalim Yiten la'Adonav" are that, on the one hand, strictly speaking, he is no longer the Eved's master, but on the other, his initial status remains as long as he has not given him a Get Shichrur.

(c)We try to resolve the She'eilah from the Beraisa quoted above, obligating the owner of a goring ox that killed an Eved to pay half the Kenas to the master on the assumption that this Beraisa speaks after the Mishnah Acharonah, where Hillel conceded to Beis Shamai that a Chatzi Eved va'Chatzi ben Chorin needs to be set free and requires a Get Shichrur (proving that the Tzad Avdus remains until the master gives the Eved a Get Shichrur).

(d)We refute this proof however by establishing the Beraisa according to the Mishnah Rishonah, in which case, it is not necessary to set him free.

10)

(a)The Beraisa says that someone who knocked out his Eved's tooth and then blinded him must set him free for his tooth, and pay for his eye.

(b)Thinking that 'Shen v'Ayin' requires a Get Shichrur, we prove that nevertheless he is no longer considered his master, because if he were, then considering that others pay him for having knocked out his Eved's eye, it makes no sense to say that he has to pay the Eved for doing so.

(c)We refute this proof by establishing the Beraisa like Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Tarfon who hold that Shen v'Ayin does not require a Get Shichrur.

(d)Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Elazar hold that Shen v'Ayin does require a Get Shichrur. Rebbi Akiva quoting ha'Machri'in Lifnei Chachamim, makes a compromise. According to him Shen v'Ayin, which the Torah writes specifically, does not require a Get Shichrur, whereas the other twenty-four limbs, which are only learned from a Derashah, do.

11)

(a)The twenty-four additional limbs that, if severed by the master, send an Eved out to Cheirus are the tips of: the ten fingers, the ten toes, the nose, the two ears and the Milah.

(b)These limbs are not subject to Tum'as Tzara'as because the Kohen cannot see any of them at one time (but needs to move his head to do so) according to the requirements of the Torah's, which it writes in Tazri'a "l'Chol Mar'eh Einei ha'Kohen".

(c)We ask whether a freed Eved who still requires a Get Shichrur is permitted to eat Terumah. Based on the Pasuk, which refers to an Eved as "Kinyan Kaspo", the two sides of the She'eilah are that, on the one hand, strictly speaking, the Eved is no longer 'Kinyan Kaspo', but on the other, his initial status remains as long as his master has not given him a Get Shichrur.

12)

(a)The Mishnah in Yevamos says that if the child of a Kohenes became mixed-up with the child of her Eved ...

1. ... they may both eat Terumah -

2. ... they are entitled to receive one portion of Terumah at the granary between them, provided they both go together.

3. ... each one is obligated to set the other one free when he becomes a Gadol.

(b)We ...

1. ... try to prove our current She'eilah from there because here we have a case where each of the two men require a Get Shichrur, yet they are permitted to eat Terumah.

2. ... refute the proof however on the grounds that, whereas, in the case of our She'eilah, the Eved who requires a Get Shichrur is no longer the Kinyan Kaspo of the master (as we explained), in the case of the Mishnah, whichever is the Eved, is definitely the Kinyan Kaspo of the Kohenes.

(c)The proof of this lies in the fact that if Eliyahu were to come and identify them, then whichever one he would identify as the Eved, would revert to being the full-fledged Eved of the Kohenes.

13)

(a)We ask whether, if a master sold his Eved solely for the Kenas (i.e. in the event that he is gored to death by a goring ox) the sale is valid. The She'eilah will apply even according to ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir, who holds that it is possible to be Makneh something that is not yet in the world because maybe that is only with regard to the fruit of a date-palm (and suchlike), which is bound to grow; perhaps he will not say it in our case, where firstly, the Eved may well not be gored by a goring ox, and even if he is, maybe the owner will admit responsibility, in which case he will be exempt from paying.

2. ... the Rabanan, who hold that one cannot because maybe that is only with regard to the fruit of a date-palm, but in this case where all the ingredients (the ox and the gored Eved) are there, maybe they will concede to Rebbi Meir that 'Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba Le'olam'.