1)

(a)We just learned from the Din by someone who sold a house in a walled city, who (can redeem it immediately, yet he) cannot redeem it in halves, that someone who declares his house Hekdesh (who can redeem it immediately), should also not be able to redeem it in halves (which is why the Pasuk needs to write "Im Ga'ol Yig'al"). Rav Acha Brei d'Rava asked Rav Ashi on this Limud however that we cannot learn the latter from the former which has the distinct disadvantage in that it cannot be redeemed after the first year (whereas the latter can be redeemed any time until the Yovel, provided the treasurer did not sell it to a third party).

(b)Rav Acha Saba explained that, in fact, we learn the Din, not just from someone who sold a house in a walled city, but from a 'Mah ha'Tzad' from it and from someone who sold a Sdei Achuzah. The advantage that someone who ...

1. ... sells a Sdei Achuzah has over someone who sells a house in a walled city is that he can continue to redeem it, even after the first year, right until the Yovel.

2. ... sells a house in a walled city over someone who sells a Sdei Achuzah is that he can redeem it during the first year, whereas the latter can only redeem it after two years.

(c)All this assumes however, that between them, they have an advantage over someone who declares a Sdei Achuzah Hekdesh. The problem, Rav Zutra Brei d'Rav Mari pointed out to Ravina, is that he also has an advantage over them (dispensing with the need for "Ga'ol Yig'al" to counter the combined Limud) inasmuch as he can redeem the field during the second year, which neither of them can.

(d)To answer this Kashya, Ravina brings a third case into the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' namely, that of a Nimkar l'Akum, who, like someone who declared a Sdei Achuzah Hekdesh, can be redeemed in the second year, yet he cannot be redeemed in halves (like Rav Sheshes learned above from "v'Nig'al Kulo", 've'Lo Chetzyo').

2)

(a)Rav Huna bar Chinena asked Rav Sheshes whether a house in a walled city that someone sold can be redeemed by relatives from "Ge'ulaso Ge'ulaso". The She'eilah is confined to the opinion of the Rabanan, who learn from this 'Gezeirah-Shavah' that by Batei Arei Chomah, Eino Loveh v'Go'el, v'Go'el la'Chatza'in'.

(b)The other side of the She'eilah is that "Ge'ulaso" by Batei Arei Chomah is written specifically in connection with the Din of 'Eino Loveh v'Go'el, v'Go'el la'Chatza'in' ("u'Matza Kedei Ge'ulaso"), by not in connection with Kerovim.

(c)Rav Sheshes replied that it cannot be redeemed by relatives.

3)

(a)The Beraisa explains the (superfluous) Pasuk "u've'Chol Eretz Achuzaschem Ge'ulah Titnu la'Aretz", 'Lerabos Batim v'Eved Ivri' with regard to the redemption of relatives.

(b)There is no proof from here that relatives can redeem Batei Arei Chomah (a Kashya on Rav Sheshes) because 'Batim' refers, not to Batei Arei Chomah, but to Batei ha'Chatzeirim (houses in open cities).

(c)What we know from the Pasuk "u'Vatei ha'Chatzeirim ... Al Sdei ha'Aretz Yechasheiv" is that relatives are permitted to redeem them against the will of the purchaser. The correct Pasuk comes to teach us that they are obligated to do so (if they have the means).

4)

(a)Seeing as there is no such thing as a Yisrael without relatives, Rebbi Yehoshua interprets the Pasuk "v'Ish Ki Lo Yiheyeh Lo Go'el" to mean that there are relatives, but they do not want to redeem the field.

(b)Rebbi Eliezer explains the Pasuk ...

1. ... "v'Ga'al Es Mimkar Achiv", in conjunction with the Pasuk "u've'Chol ... Ge'ulah Titnu" to mean that the relatives are obligated to redeem the field.

2. ... "v'Ish Ki Lo Yiheyeh Lo Go'El" to mean that relatives are not able to redeem it.

(c)The problem the Rabanan (asking Ravina [or Ravina asking Rav Ashi]) have with the above explanation of 'Lerabos Batim' from the very Pasuk which it comes to explain ("u've'Chol Eretz Achuzaschem Ge'ulah Titnu la'Aretz") is that, unless 'Batim' means Batei Arei Chomah, the word "u've'Chol" will be superfluous (seeing as it does not come to include any new case, only to obligate one that is already written).

5)

(a)Another Beraisa learns from the two extra times that the Torah writes "Yig'alenu", 'Lerabos Kol ha'Ge'ulos'. Initially, we explain that this comes to include Batei Arei Chomah and Eved Ivri regarding Ge'ulas Kerovim (a Kashya on Rav Sheshes).

(b)We refute the Kashya by establishing the two inclusions as Batei Chatzeirim and Sdei Achuzah. However, seeing as the Torah has already included them ("Al Sdei ha'Aretz Yechasheiv"), we explain the Tana's inclusion from "Yig'alenu" like Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak (with regard to the She'eilah that we are about to discuss) who explains that the Tana is coming to include, not just that the relatives are obligated to redeem the property, but that the obligation follows the order of the hierarchy (in keeping with the Pasuk "O Dodo O ben Dodo Yig'alenu").

6)

(a)We ask whether an Eved Ivri who is sold to a Yisrael can be redeemed by relatives. This She'eilah was not asked according to Rebbi, who has already taught 'Mi she'Eino Nig'al b'Eleh Nig'al b'Shesh' (and 'be'Eleh" refers to relatives).

(b)Maybe we learn that he can be redeemed from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Sachir" "Sachir". The side to say that he cannot is the Pasuk (in connection with a Nimkar l'Akum) "Yig'alenu", implying 'la'Zeh, v'Lo l'Acher' ('to a Nimkar l'Akum, but not to a Nimkar l'Yisrael').

(c)We query this however, from the same Beraisa that we asked earlier "u've'Chol Eretz Achuzaschem Ge'ulah Titnu la'Aretz", 'Lerabos Batim v'Eved Ivri', on the assumption that 'Eved Ivri' refers to a Nimkar l'Yisrael. We ...

1. ... refute the Kashya by establishing it by a Nimkar l'Akum.

2. ... reconcile this with the fact that we already know this from the Pasuk "O Dodo O ben Dodo Yig'alenu" by establishing the former as an obligation, according to Rebbi Yehoshua (as we explained earlier).

(d)We ask the same Kashya that we asked above from the Beraisa which learns from the two extra times that the Torah writes "Yig'alenu", 'Lerabos Kol ha'Ge'ulos', assuming that the Tana is referring to Batei Arei Chomah and Eved Ivri ha'Nimkar l'Yisrael.

1. We refute this Kashya however by establishing it by Batei ha'Chatzeirim and Sdei Achuzah.

2. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak reconciles this with the fact that we already know Batei ha'Chatzeirim from the Pasuk "Al Sdei ha'Aretz Yechasheiv" by establishing the former Pasuk with regard to the order of hierarchy (as we explained earlier).

7)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "v'Ratza Adonav Es Ozno ... " that it is the piercing of the ear which acquires a Nirtza.

2. ... "va'Ava*do*" that a Nirtza serves his master, but not his master's son in the event of his death.

3. ... "Le'olam" that he serves until the Yovel.

(b)The Torah writes "v'Lakachta Es ha'Martzei'a" which Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah explains to mean that one may bore the Nirtza's ear with anything that one takes in the hand (meaning whatever needs to be worked manually).

(c)He incorporates in this Halachah Sul, Sira, Machat, Makdei'ach and Michtav. Sul is sharp peg, Sira a thorn, Machat, a needle ...

1. ... Makdei'ch an awl, and ....

2. ... Michtav a sharp-pointed pen.

(d)Rebbi learn from "ha'Martzei'a" that one may only use any metal implement to bore the Eved-Ivri's ear.

8)

(a)In the same Beraisa, Rebbi Elazar quoting Yudan b'Rivi rules that the Eved Ivri is pierced in the lobe of his ear. The Rabanan say that an Eved Ivri Kohen may not have his ear pierced, because it renders him a Ba'al Mum, which would not be the case, if the piercing took place in the lobe, as Yudan b'Rivi claims.

(b)We learned in the above Beraisa that Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah permits the piercing of an Eved Ivri even using wooden implements, whereas Rebbi permits only implements made of metal. The basis of their Machlokes is whether throughout the Torah, we Darshen 'Klal u'F'rat u'Ch'lal' (Rebbi), or 'Ribuy, u'Miy'ut v'Ribuy' (Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah).

(c)Rebbi learns from ...

1. ... a 'Klal u'F'rat' 'Ein bi'Chelal Ela Mah she'bi'F'rat'.

2. ... the final Klal to include whatever is similar to the Prat.

(d)He applies this in our Sugya inasmuch as "v'Lakachta Es ha'Martzei'a" ('Klal u'F'rat') require the use of an awl to pierce the Eved Ivri's ear, and "b'Ozno u'va'De'les" (the final 'Prat') comes to include all sharp metal implements (that are similar to an awl).

9)

(a)Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah learns from ...

1. ... a 'Ribuy u'Miy'ut' to include whatever is similar to the Miy'ut (like Rebbi learns from a 'Klal u'F'rat u'Ch'lal').

2. ... the final Ribuy to include everything, and the Miy'ut then precludes something that is completely dissimilar to the Miy'ut ...

(b)... ointment, in our case (because, unlike an awl, it pierces by itself, rather than through the force of the piercer).

(c)The above-mentioned Beraisa adds 'Davar Acher "Ha'Martzei'za", 'Lehavi ha'Martzei'a ha'Gadol' (a large awl which cuts rather than bores [see Tosfos ha'Rosh]). Note, the Ritva erases the word 'Lehavi'. In his opinion, 'Martzei'a ha'Gadol' (which pierces a large hole) is merely a description of 'Martzei'a.

(d)The basis for this Derashah is the 'Hey' in ha'Martzei'a, which denotes something special (the most important one), like the 'Hey' in the Pasuk in Vayishlach "Al Kaf ha'Yarech" (in connection with the Gid ha'Nasheh), denoting the spoon of the right (generally the stronger) thigh.

10)

(a)The part of the ear that needs to be wounded in order to render a Kohen a Ba'al Mum is the grizzle (not the lobe).

(b)The Rabanan forbid an Eved Ivri Kohen to have his ear pierced. The Pasuk that Rabah bar Rav Shilo quoted according to them, to explain why the Mitzvah of piercing the ear does not override the Lav of a Kohen becoming a Ba'al Mum is the Pasuk in Behar "v'Shav El Mishpachto", 'be'Muchzak she'be'Mishpachto' (meaning that at the end of his term, the Eved Ivri must not be disqualified from returning to his previous family Chazakah [i.e. the Avodah]).

(c)We ask whether the master may give his Eved Ivri Kohen a Shifchah Kena'anis, seeing as permitting a Shifchah Kena'anis is a Chidush, why should a Kohen be any different. On the other hand, a Kohen may well be precluded from this 'concession' because, due to his extra Kedushah, the Torah has given Kohanin additional Mitzvos (particularly in the area of forbidden marriages), a good reason to be Machmir in this case.

(d)Rav permits it, Shmuel forbids it. Rav Nachman asked Rav Anan (a Talmid of Shmuel) why he did not query his Rebbi from the Chachamim of Yudan B'rivi, who forbade an Eved Ivri Kohen to have his ear pierced because it will render him a Ba'al Mum. Now if he would be forbidden to live with a Shifchah Kena'anis, then we would not need a Pasuk to preclude him from having his ear pierced. The fact that he cannot say "Ahavto Es Ishti v'Es Banai" (which is crucial to the ear-piercing ceremony) would automatically preclude it.

11)

(a)Based on the same considerations, we also ask whether a Kohen is permitted to take a Yefas To'ar in battle. Here too Rav permits, whereas Shmuel forbids.

(b)In the first Lashon, their Machlokes is confined to Bi'ah Sheniyah (being intimate the second time), but both agree that a Kohen is permitted to make Bi'ah Rishonah because the whole point of this concession is to answer to the Yetzer ha'Ra (meaning that if the Torah would not permit her, he would take her anyway).

(c)And the reason that ...

1. ... Shmuel forbids Bi'ah Sheniyah is because after the Bi'ah, he is obligated to convert her, and a Kohen is forbidden to marry a Giyores.

2. ... Rav nevertheless permits it because of the principle 'Ho'il v'Hutrah Hutrah' ('once something becomes permitted, it remains permitted').

(d)In the second Lashon, both agree that Bi'ah Sheniyah is forbidden for the reason that Shmuel gave in the first Lashon, and Rav holds like Shmuel in the first Lashon. Shmuel forbids even Bi'ah Rishonah because the Torah writes "v'Ra'isa ba'Shivyah" (permitting Bi'ah Rishonah), and then "va'Haveisah El Toch Beisecha" (marrying her Bi'ah Sheniyah). Presumably, says Shmuel, whoever is permitted to perform the latter, is permitted to perform the former, and vice-versa.

12)

(a)The Torah writes in Ki Setzei "v'Ra'isa ba'Shivyah Eshes Yefas To'ar". We learn from ...

1. ... the word "Eshes" that the concession of Yefas To'ar extends even to a married woman.

2. ... "Yefas To'ar" that the Torah is not giving a blanket Heter to take a gentile woman in wartime, but is only allowing it in order to counteract the Yetzer ha'Ra (as we explained earlier).

(b)When Chazal say 'Mutav she'Yochlu Yisrael Basar Temusos Shechutos v'Lo Yochlu Basar Temusos Neveilos', they mean that it is preferable to eat an animal that was Shechted just as it is about to die (even though it is considered disgusting to eat), rather than to eat a Neveilah (that died without being Shechted) and the Mashal is self-explanatory.

(c)We learn from ...

1. ... "v'Chashakta"- that the woman is permitted even though she is not intrinsically beautiful.

2. ... "Bah" that a soldier may only take one woman and not two.

3. ... "v'Lakachta" that Kidushin takes effect, despite the fact that she was converted against her will, even though such a Kidushin (indeed such a Gerus) would normally not be binding.

(d)We learn that a soldier is not permitted to ...

1. ... take two women, one for himself and one for his son from the word "Lecha".

2. ... afflict her on the battlefield from the word "va'Haveisah", meaning that he may not be intimate with her in the field, but must take her into his house (Cheishek Shlomo. See also Tosfos). Note, the Beraisa appears to clash with the previous Sugya, which established "va'Haveisah ... " by the second Bi'ah.