What is the word "Ve'hischaltem osam li'Veneichem ... " coming to preclude?
Kidushin, 16a #1: Bearing in mind that the Kinyan under discussion is a Chazakah, the Torah is confining precluding Avadim Ivrim from being acquired by Kinyan Chazakah. 1
Kidushin, 16a #2: "Osam li'Veneichem", 've'Lo Benoseichem li'Veneichem" - to preclude passing on a father's rights in his daughter to his sons, including the Ha'anakah the gifts that fall due when she goes free after having been sold as an Amah Ivriyah (in the event that her father is no longer alive 2 (and by the same token, it precludes the work that a daughter produces after her father dies, which does not go to her brothers - even though they are sustaining her - Kesuvos, 43a
Bava Basra, 110b: It precludes dauh=ghters from inheriting - where there are sons. 3
Yerushalmi Kesuvos, 4:1: See previous answer. By the same token again, it precludes the K'nas that a husband who slandered his wife is obligated to pay her father, from going to her brothers if her father is no longer alive - provided Beis-Din did not pronounce her husband Chayav he died. 4
See Torah Teminah, note 230 and see 25:46:0.4:1***.
See Torah Temimah, note 231.
See Torah Temimah, note 235.
See Torah Temimah (citing the Yerushalmi, Ibid.) and notes 233 & 234.
Why does the Torah write "Vehisnachaltem osam li'Veneichem" (in the reflexive) and not "Vehisnachaltem ... "?
Rashi #1: The Pasuk means 'Take possession of your slaves on behalf of your children.'
Rashi #2 (in the Beraisa of R. Yishmael): We learn, via a Gezeirah Shavah "Vehisnachaltem" "Vehisnachaltem es ha'Aretz" implies that one acquires the body of an Eved Cana'ani permanently - like land. 1
Rashi in Shevu'os, 36b, learns it from "Ve'Hisnachaltem Osam la'Reshes Achuzah",
Why does the Torah write "li'Veneichem Achareichem" and not "le'Zar'achem Achareichem"?
Bava Basra, 110b: To teach us that where there are sons and daughters, the sons inherit but not the daughters. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 235.
Why does the Torah insert the (otherwise superfluous) word "li'Veneichem Achareichem"?
Sifra: To teach us that whoever has a Chazakah that he is the son of his father, is considered a son in all regards.
Why does the Torah add the (otherwise superfluous) word "li'Veneichem Achareichem"?
Sifra: To teach us that once someone is established as being the son of his father, he is a son in all regards. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 236.
Why does the Torah use the expression "la'Reshes Achuzah" in connection with Avadim Cana'anim?
Megilah, 23b: To compare an Eved Cana'ani to a Sadeh Achuzah (to teach us, inter alia, 1 that, like a Sadeh Achuzah, they are acquired either via Kesef, Sh'tar or Chazakah 2 ? Kidushin, 22b 3 - and to preclude acquiring a Shifchah Cana'anis via Bi'ah - Yerushalmi Kidushin, 1:1).
Yerushalmi Gitin, 4:9: To compare Sadeh Achuzah to Avadim Cana'anim, inasmuch as, just as Avadim you can acquire from them but they cannot acquire from you ? Refer 25:44:151:1 - so too, you can acquire land from them but they cannot acquire land from you - to teach us that a Nochri cannot acquire land in Eretz Yisrael to exempt it from Ma'asros. 4
What are the ramifications of "le'Olam bahem Ta'avodu"?
Gitin, 38b: It teaches us a. an obligation to make an Eved Cana'ani work, and b. that whoever sets an Eved Cana'ani free transgresses an Asei. 1
Kidushin, 22b: It teaches us that, even though an Eved Cana'ani is compared to a Sadeh Achuzah, he does not return to the seller in the Yovel.
Nidah, 47a: It implies that the owner has a mandate to make Avadim Cana'anim work, but not to shame them. 2
Why does the Torah juxtapose "u've'Acheichem" to Le'olam bahem Ta'avodu"?
Why does the Torah insert the words "Ish be'Achiv"?
Rashi: To teach us that the Isur of subjugating an Eved Ivri extends to a leader subjugating the people under his control, and a king subjugating his subjects. 1
Sifra: To incorporate a man not subjugating a woman and vice-versa.
See Torah Temimah, note 247.
Having already stated in Pasuk 43 "Lo Sirdeh vo be'Farech", why does the Torah repeat it here"?
Sifra: To extrapolate from the word "bo" that one may subjugate a free man (who is not an Eved Ivri) to Avodas Perech ? since he agrees to do it. 1
Moshav Zekenim (citing the Pesikta) #1: "Ish be'Achiv" implies a man subjugating a man. "u've'Acheichem" includes a woman, whether she is the victim or the oppressor.
Moshav Zekenim (citing the Pesikta) #2: "Bo" (an Eved Ivri) you may not tell him to do Avodas Parech, but you may tell a free man - one who wants to work for you.
Moshav Zekenim #3 (citing R. Eliezer of Garmaiza): This is a second La'av. 2
The Gemara in Kidushin, 22b learns from the word "Ve'Hisnachaltem Osam li'Veneichem" that Chazakah acquires Avadim Cana'ani, but not others (Avadim Ivrim). But earlier, on Daf 16b, the Gemara learned from the same word that one bequeaths an Eved Cana'ani to one's sons, but not one's [rights in] one's daughter?
Moshav Zekenim: We learn the latter D'rashah from the juxtaposition of "osam" to "li'Veneichem".
The Gemara in Kidushin. 22b learns from a Gezeirah Shavah via "le'Olam" "le'Olam" that an Eved Cana'ani does not return [to the seller] in Yovel, Why do we not say that "le'Olam" means until Yovel, like it means for a Nirtza?
Riva #1: If he was meant to serve until Yovel, the Torah should have omitted "le'Olam", and we would learn from the Hekesh to a field. "le'Olam" teaches us that he serves his master permanently.
Riva #2 and Moshav Zekenim: Also regarding a Nirtza, we would have said that "le'Olam" means permanently, if not for a D'rashah - Refer to 25:10:7:1. But there is no such D'rashah regarding an Eved Cana'ani.
