Previous daf

1)

(a) Rabah establishes the Machlokes Tana'im (Rebbi and the Rabbanan, 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 Rabbanan will agree that the Shichrur is valid).
Will it make any difference whether the sale takes place before the Shichrur or vice-versa?

(b) What does the Tana of one Beraisa say about someone who writes all his property to his two Avadim?

(c) How does Rav Yosef presume to reconcile this Beraisa with another Beraisa which, in a similar case, rules that the two Avadim do not even acquire themselves?

(d) Why will this pose a Kashya on Rabah?

(a) We refute Rav Yosef's Kashya, by establishing both Beraisos according to the Rabanan.
Then on what grounds does the Tana of the second Beraisa rule that they do not acquire themselves?

(b) Could he even be speaking in a case where he gave the two Sh'taros to the two Avadim simultaneously?

(c) How will Rabah then explain ...

1. ... the other Beraisa (where he wrote 'Kulo' in each Sh'tar)?
2. ... the Seifa of the latter Beraisa, which presents the case of 'Chatzi Chatzi', implying that the Reisha speaks when he wrote 'Kulo Kulo'?

(a) Why might it 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)?

(b) How will Rav Yosef answer this Kashya? Why would there be no problem for the Tana to present the case of 'Chatzi Chatzi after having taught us 'Kulo Kulo'.

(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 Sh'tar. How do we learn from Get Ishah that such a gift is not valid?

(d) How do we now explain the Seifa 've'Im Amar Chatzi Chatzi, Lo Kanah'?

(a) On what grounds do we reject a third suggestion, establishing the second Beraisa when he did not hand them the Sh'taros simultaneously, but one after the other (even though both Beraisos speak when he wrote 'Kulo')?

(b) Rav Ashi deduces the reason that the Sh'tar is invalid from the Lashon written in the Sh'tar: 'ha'Omer, Kol Nechasai Nesunin li'P'loni u'Ploni Avadai'.
How does he explain it?

(c) What then, did the master mean when he wrote the Sh'tar?

(a) In the Mishnah in Pe'ah, Rebbi Shimon, commenting on the Tana Kama's statement 'ha'Kosev Kol Nechasav le'Avdo, Yeitzei le'Cheirus. Shiyer Karka Kol she'Hu, Lo Yeitzei le'Cheirus', writes 'Le'olam Hu ben Chorin ad she'Yomar Kol Nechasai Nesunin li'P'loni Avdi Chutz me'Echad me'Ribu she'Bahen'.
If the master left over some land, why does the Eved go free, as long as he did not say 'Chutz me'Echad me'Ribu she'Bahen'?

(b) What does Rafram learn from there that repudiates Rav Ashi's interpretation of the second Beraisa currently under discussion?

(a) If, according to Beis Hillel in our Mishnah (who initally holds that an Eved who is half free serves his master one day, and himself the next), an ox gores this Eved, who receives the damages?

(b) Why, by the same token, does the Eved not 'marry' a Shifchah on the day that he serves his master, and a bas Yisrael on the day that he serves himself?

(c) What does the Tana of a Beraisa say about the case of a goring ox that gored an Eved and killed him.
Who receives the K'nas?

7)

(a) How much is the owner of a goring ox obligated to pay if it kills ...

1. ... an Eved?
2. ... a free man?

(b) Why is the Din here different than in the previous case (where the ox only *damaged* the Chatzi-Eved, Chatzi ben Chorin and), where the payment depended on the day that the accident occurred?

(a) What would be the case of damages where the Keren has not been destroyed?

(b) According to Abaye, the Mazik then pays both Sheves Gedolah and Sheves Ketanah.
What is ...

1. ... Sheves Gedolah?
2. ... Sheves Ketanah?

(c) According to Rava, he pays only Sheves Ketanah.
What problem does this pose on the case that we learned earlier 'Nagcho Shor, Yom shel Rabo, le'Rabo ... '?

(a) Rava therefore amends the case from 'Nagcho Shor', to where it was a person who damaged him.
What alternative answer do we give even without amending the case?

(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 K'nas or not.
What are the two sides of the She'eilah, based on the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Kesef Sheloshim Shekalim Yiten *la'Adonav*"?

(c) How do 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 K'nas to the master?

(d) How do we refute this proof?

(a) What does the Beraisa say about someone who knocked out his Eved's tooth and then blinded him?

(b) What do we try and prove from here, that will resolve the She'eilah?

(c) We refute this proof by establishing the Beraisa like Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Tarfon.
What do Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Tarfon say?

(d) Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Eliezer hold that Shen ve'Ayin does require a Get Shichrur.
What compromise does Rebbi Akiva make quoting ha'Machri'in Lifnei Chachamim?

(a) What are the twenty-four limbs that, if severed by the master, send an Eved out to Cheirus?

(b) Why are these limbs not subject to Tum'as Tzara'as?

(c) We ask whether a freed Eved who still requires a Get Shichrur is permitted to eat Terumah.
What are the two sides of the She'eilah, based on the Pasuk in Emor, which refers to an Eved as "Kinyan Kaspo"?

(a) What does the Mishnah in Yevamos say about a Kohenes whose child became mixed-up with the child of her Eved, concerning ...

1. ... eating Terumah?
2. ... receiving a portion of Terumah at the granary?
3. ... their status (regarding freedom)?

(b) How do we ...

1. ... try to prove our current She'eilah from here?
2. ... refute this proof?

1. ... Rebbi Meir, who holds that it is possible to be Makneh something that is not yet in the world?
2. ... the Rabbanan, who hold that it is *not*?

Next daf