Previous daf

1)

(a) We learn from the double Lashon "ve'Im *Amor Yomar* ha'Eved" - that he needs to declare his intention to remain, twice.

(b) And we learn in this regard from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Lo Eitzei Chofshi" - that it will not suffice to say it twice at the beginning of the six-year term, because he needs to say it shortly before he goes free.
2. ... "Im Amor Yomar *ha'Eved*" - that it will not suffice to say it twice at the end of the six-year term (on the last day), because he needs to say it as long whilst he is still an Eved.

(c) According to our initial understanding of 'T'chilas Sheish' and 'Sof Sheish', the problem with ...

1. ... the 'Havah Amina' that it will suffice to say ' ... Lo Eitzei Chofshi' twice at the beginning of the six-year period is problematic - because at that early stage, how will he be able to say 'Ahavti es Ishti ve'es Banai'.
2. ... saying that it will not do to say it at the end of six years because he must say it as long as he is still an Eved - because even on the last day, he is still called an Eved.

(d) So we interpret 'T'chilas Sheish' and 'Sof Sheish' to mean - any time before the commencement of the last P'rutah's worth of work and any time during that last P'rutah's worth, respectively.

3)

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Ki Aheivcha *ve'es Beisecha*" - that his master, like himself, must have a wife and children before he is permitted to remain for more than six years.
2. ... "Ahavti ... es Ishti ve'es Banai" - that *he* has to have a wife and children too.

(b) And he learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Ki Tov Lo Imach" - that if he loves his master, but his master does not love him, he is not permitted to remain.
2. ... "Ki Aheivcha" - that if his master loves him but he does not live his master, he is not permitted to remain either.

(c) The other mutual condition that must be met for the Eved Ivri to be permitted to stay on is - that the one should not be healthy and the other one, sick (from the Pasuk "Ki Tov Lo Imach").

(d) Rav Bibi bar Abaye's She'eilah on this matter remains unanswered. Based on the contrasting implications of "Imach" on the one hand, and "Ki Tov Lo Imach" on the other, his She'eilah is - whether the Eved is permitted to remain if they are both sick (because on the one hand, it is "Imach", but on the other hand, it is not "Ki Tov Lo Imach").

(a) Rebbi Shimon explains the Pasuk "ve'Yatza me'Imach, Hu u'Vanav Imo" - to mean (not that the children were obligated to work during the six years, but) that the master was obligated to sustain them.

(b) And he makes the same observation regarding the Pasuk "ve'Yatz'ah Ishto Imo". Having taught this by the man's ...

1. ... children, the Torah found it necessary to repeat it by his wife - otherwise we may have thought that she should work and provide for herself (which cannot be expected of the children).
2. ... wife, the Torah found it necessary to repeat it by his children - because we might otherwise have thought that they should go around the houses begging for alms (which cannot be expected of his wife).

5)

(a) The Torah writes "ve'Higisho el ha'Deles" . Had the Torah written "ve'Higish Ozno ba'Deles", we would have thought - that the master first pierces the Eved's ear, then places it next to the door and bores a hole on the other side of the door until it reaches the ear.

(b) We could not have thought that he pierces the door but not the Eved's ear - because the Torah then writes "ve'Ratza Adonav es Ozno".

(c) The master actually - places the Eved's ear to the door and bores through it until the awl reaches the door.

(d) We know that the door must be standing and not lying down - because the Torah writes "ba'Deles O ba'Mezuzah", for the sole purpose of teaching us that the door must be standing (like a door-post, which is only called 'Mezuzah' when it is standing).

1. Raban Yochanan ben Zakai based on the Pasuk "Ki Li B'nei Yisrael Avadim", Darshened - that the reason that, of all limbs, it was the ear that had to be pierced, is because the ear heard at Har Sinai "Ki Li B'nei Yisrael Avadim", yet the owner of the ear ignored the warning, and went and acquired himself a (permanent) master.
2. Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi Darshen based on the same Pasuk - that the reason that, of all the vessels in the home, it had to be the door and the door-post against which the ear was pierced, is because they were witnesses when Hashem passed over them and declared (tradition has it that this Pasuk was said in Egypt, too) "Ki Li B'nei Yisrael Avadim".

(a) An Eved Cana'ani is acquired with "Kesef, Sh'tar and Chazakah (like Karka). The two possible ways in which he can acquire himself, according to the Tana of our Mishnah are - Kesef and Sh'tar.

(b) Rebbi Meir says 'be'Kesef al-Yedei Acheirim, u'vi'Sh'tar al-Yedei Atzmo'. He cannot pay the money that sets him free, himself - because he holds that there is no way that an Eved can acquire anything without his master automatically acquiring it.

(c) The Rabbanan say 'be'Kesef al-Yedei Atzmo u'vi'Sh'Tar al-Yedei Acheirim'. They permit him to hand the money to his master, himself - provided the money is handed to him by others on the express condition that his master does not acquire it.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Hisnachaltem Osam li'Veneichem Achareichem Lareshes Achuzah" - that one acquires Avadim Cana'anim with Chazakah.

(b) One is nevertheless not obligated to return them in the Yovel (like Karka) - because the Torah writes in Behar "Le'olam Bahem Ta'avodu".

(c) The Tana of the Beraisa includes Chalipin in the list of Kinyanim with which one can acquire an Eved Cana'ani, and Shmuel includes Meshichah. The Tana of our Mishnah omits Chalipin - because he only includes those Kinyanim that do not apply to Metaltelin.

(d) Shmuel, who includes Meshichah in the above list, distinguishes between pulling the Eved by force and calling him - inasmuch as the former acquires him, but the latter does not.

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah omitted Meshichah for the same reason as he omitted Chalipin. According to Shmuel, the Tana of the Beraisa, who inserted Chalipin in the list, nevertheless omits Meshichah - because he only inserts that what applies both to Karka and Metaltelin, whereas Meshichah is confined to Metaltelin.

(b) One acquires an animal through ...

1. ... Mesirah - by grasping the animal by its hoofs, its mane, and even by its saddle, the load on the animal's back or the bit in its mouth.
2. ... Meshichah - by causing it to move. The two descriptions given by the Tana to illustrate how it is done are - either by calling it or by hitting it with a stick.

(c) According to the Tana Kama, as soon as the animal has lifted up its forelegs and its hind legs, the buyer acquires it. Rebbi Asi (or Rebbi Acha) says - that it must walk at least its own length before he acquires it.

(d) Although calling an animal is a branch of Meshichah regarding animals - that is because that an animal comes when it is called is a matter of instinct; whereas an Eved, who is after all, a human being, comes, not out of instinct, but because he chooses to, which is not indicative of ownership (the essence of Chazakah). Rava Ashi adds though, that an Eved Katan is like an animal in this regard.

(a) The Tana Kama in the Beraisa lists the various ways in which Chazakah acquires an Eved Cana'ani. Besides untying his new master's shoes, taking his fresh clothes to the bathhouse, undressing him, bathing him and picking him up, he includes - anointing him, scratching him, dressing him and tying his shoes.

(b) When Rebbi Shimon says that Chazakah should not be better than Hagbahah, he is coming to argue with the Tana Kama, who lists the Eved picking up his new master, but not vice-versa. He does not see why, if Chazakah acquires him, Hagbahah should not acquire him, too.

(c)

1. We refute the suggestion that seeing as when the Eved picks up his master, he acquires him, a man should then acquire a Shifchah Cana'anis through Bi'ah - on the grounds that Chazakah only acquires on the condition that the master derives benefit from the Kinyan, but not the Eved.
2. Rav Achye bar Adye from Acha refutes the suggestion that in that case, he ought to at least acquire her through an unnatural Bi'ah, even assuming that she derives no pleasure from such a relationship - on the grounds of the Pasuk in Kedoshim "Mishkevei Ishah", thereby comparing an unnatural Bi'ah to a natural one (in which case, wherever the one does not acquire, the other will not acquire either).

(a) Mar Zutra went to visit Rebbi Yehudah Hindu'ah - a Ger without heirs, who had fallen ill.

(b) To ensure that he would acquire Rebbi Yehudah Hindu'ah's Eved Cana'ani when he died - Mar Zutra instructed him to remove his shoes and take them to the bathhouse for him.

(c) Some say that the Eved was a Gadol, and that Mar Zutra therefore needed to do what he did - in order to prevent him from automatically acquiring himself the moment his master died (because, since he would then be in the process of serving Mar Zutra, Mar Zutra would acquire him before he had a chance to acquire himself).

(d) Others say that he was a Katan, and he did it because he did not hold like Aba Shaul, who maintain that a Katan does not acquire himself automatically (but like the Chachamim, who do not distinguish between a Gadol and a Katan in this matter.