Previous daf

1)

(a) Only the owner needs to add a fifth (twenty-five percent of the amount) when redeeming Ma'aser Sheini, as the Torah writes in Korach, "mi'Ma'asro".

(b) According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, a woman is obligated to add a fifth when redeeming Ma'aser Sheini (which we initially think belongs to her husband). Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar in the name of Rebbi Meir says - that she is not.

(c) The Tana cannot be referring to when ...

1. ... both the Ma'aser and the money belong to her husband - because then she would merely be a Sheli'ach (in which case even Rebbi Meir would agree that she is obligated to add a fifth).
2. ... the Ma'aser belongs to her husband and the money is hers -because then - even the Chachamim would be forced to agree that she is Patur from adding a fifth, seeing as it is not "mi'Ma'asro".

(d) So we try to establish the case when someone else gave her the money on the express condition that she redeems her husband's Ma'aser, and the basis of their Machlokes is - whether whatever a woman acquires belongs to her husband (in which case, since both the Ma'aser and the money are his, she is obligated to add a fifth - the Rabbanan), or that the condition is effective, and the money remains hers (in which case it is not "mi'Ma'asro" and she is Patur from adding a fifth - Rebbi Meir).

(a) Our interpretation of the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim regarding 'be'Kesef al-Yedei Atzmo' creates a problem on our interpretation of the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim here - inasmuch as they appear to have reversed their opinions (e.g. the Rabbanan there hold that her husband does not acquire the money, whereas here they hold that he does).

(b) Abaye answers 'Eipuch', which must mean that we switch the opinions of the current Machlokes and not the previous one - because a Mishnah always overrides a Beraisa.

(a) Rava retains the Machlokes as it stands, and he establishes the Beraisa by Ma'aser that the woman inherited from her father. The basis of their Machlokes is equivalent to an old Machlokes of theirs regarding the status of Ma'aser Sheini - whether Ma'aser belongs to Hashem (is and is therefore Hekdesh) or to the owner (in which case it is Chulin).

(b) We establish the Beraisa by a woman who inherited Ma'aser Sheini from her father, which falls under the category of Nechsei Milug.

(c) Their Machlokes is now as follows ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir holds - that her husband does not obtain any rights in the fruit, seeing as they do not belong to his wife (who only acquires the right to eat it from Hashem's table. Consequently seeing she uses *her* money to redeem it, she is obligated to add a fifth).
2. ... The Rabbanan holds - that the fruit is Chulin, and that her husband therefore obtains the right to eat it like any other fruit. Consequently, she is not obligated to add a fifth.

(a) Besides Shen ve'Ayin, the Tana of the Beraisa inserts in the list of things that enable an Eved Cana'ani to go free - the twenty-four main limbs (should the master cause them to become blemished).

(b) We propose to learn the other twenty-four main limbs - from a 'Mah Matzinu' (otherwise known as a Binyan Av).

(c) The two characteristics that they all share - are that they are revealed (i.e. external) and incurable.

(d) The problem we have with learning a 'Mah Matzinu' from two sources is - that this falls under the category of 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad', where we rule 'Ein Melamdin' (meaning that they are exceptions rather than the rule).

1. ... "Ayin", after having written "Shen" - to teach us that the Eved only goes free for the removal of a tooth, which, like an eye, is irreplaceable (but not for a milk tooth).
2. ... "Shen", after having written "Ayin" - to teach us that he goes free even though the tooth (unlike his eyes, appeared only after he was born).

6)

(a) We counter the suggestion that "Ki Yakeh" and "Shen ve'Ayin" are a 'K'lal u'F'rat', in which case, we would not be able to include anything else - by pointing out that "la'Chofshi Yeshalchenu" is a K'lal, turning it into a 'K'lal u'F'rat u'Ch'lal'.

(b) The other condition inherent in Shen ve'Ayin, that we try to incorporate in the second K'lal ("la'Chofshi Yeshalchenu") is - that the wound negates the use of the limb concerned.

(c) We learned in a Beraisa however - that if the master pulled out his hair or dislocated a bone (even assuming the latter to be permanent), the Eved goes free (despite the fact that it does not affect the use of the limb concerned [disproving our previous contention]).

(d) The Tana ignores that contention - because, the Pasuk "la'Chofshi Yeshalchenu" implies a Ribuy, not just an ordinary K'lal.

(a) Another Beraisa says that a master who struck and wounded his slave's arm, which shriveled as a result, but which will later heal - does not go free.

(b) Even though "la'Chofshi Yeshalchenu" is a Ribuy (rather than a P'rat), he does not go free - because we learn from the fact that the Torah writes "Shen ve'Ayin", that only wounds that are similar in two ways go free.

(a) Rebbi Shimon maintains that a slave who goes free in this way requires a Get Shichrur. He is by no means the only Tana to hold like that - because both Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Akiva agree with him.

(b) According to Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Tarfon - he does not require a Get Shichrur.

(c) The Machri'in Lifnei Chachamim compromise between Shen ve'Ayin, which do not require a Get Shichrur (because they are written explicitly in the Torah) - and the other twenty-four limbs, which do (because they are a 'K'nas Chachamim').

(d) What they really meant when they referred to the twenty-four limbs as a 'K'nas Chachamim' was - that it is a Medrash Chachamim (not explicit in the Torah).

(a) If the master struck the Eved on his ear and deafened him or on his eye and blinded him, he goes free. When the Tana of the Beraisa adds 'ke'Neged Eino ve'Eino Ro'eh, ke'Neged Ozno ve'Eino Shomei'a, Ein Eved Yotzei Bahem le'Cheirus', he means - that if the master struck the wall next to his eye or ear, and blinded or deafened him, he does not go free (because he is only guilty of 'G'rama', causing him to go blind and not of actually blinding him.

(b)

1. The Tana quoted by Rami bar Yechezkel says - that if a rooster smashed a glass jar by crowing into it - the owner of the rooster is obligated to pay.
2. Rav Yosef quoting Bei Rav says - that if a horse that neighed or a donkey that brayed in the house and broke vessels, the owner of the horse or the donkey is obligated to pay.

(c) Rav Ashi answer Rav Sh'man, who asked from these two rulings on the previous Beraisa, which exempts someone who deafened or blinded a person by making a loud noise next to him - by drawing a distinction between animals (who become instinctively blinded and deafened by a loud blast next to their ear, and a human being, who is largely affected by the state of his nerves, over which he has control (Consequently, his going blind or deaf is basically his own fault).

(d) The Beraisa says that someone who causes his friend damage by giving him a shock is Patur according to Torah law, but Chayav by Rabbinical law.

(a) The Tana of a Beraisa says that if a master struck the eye or the tooth of his slave ...

1. ... and weakened their function - the slave goes free, provided he can no longer use the eye or the tooth.
2. ... which were already weak, blinding him or deafening him completely - the slave goes free, provided the eye and the tooth were still functioning before they were struck.

(b) Having taught ...

1. ... the former case, the Tana nevertheless found it necessary to add the latter - because we might otherwise have thought that, since the limb concerned was not fully functional to begin with, the Eved does not go free.
2. ... the latter case, the Tana nevertheless found it necessary to add the former - because we might otherwise have thought that, since he did not become completely blind, he does not go free.

(a)

1. The Tana Kama of another Beraisa says that if an Eved asked his master who was a doctor, to paint his eye or to scrape his tooth, and he ended up by blinding him or by pulling out his tooth completely - the Eved can laugh at the master and goes free.
2. Raban Shimon ben Gamliel learns from the Pasuk "ve'Chi Yakeh Ish es Ein Avdo ... ve'Shichasah" - that since the master did not intend to destroy the limb concerned, the Eved does not go free.

(b) The Rabbanan Darshen "ve'Shichasah" like Rebbi Eliezer, who explains - that if the master, placing his hand into his Shifchah's womb (to help her give birth) blinds her baby, the baby does not go free.

(c) The Rabbanan concede in this case that the Shifchah does not go free - because he did not mean to touch the limb that he wounded at all (and is therefore a case of 'Mis'asek'), whereas in the previous case, where he intended to cure the limb concerned, it is included in "ve'Shichasah, and the Eved goes free.

(d) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel learns the two cases from "Shiches" "Shichasah" (giving us two D'rashos from the same word). The Rabbanan do not consider this to be two D'rashos.

(a) Rav Sheishes rules that if the master removed his slave blind eye from its socket, he goes free - because he has now turned the Eved into a Mechusar Eiver (missing a limb).

(b) We prove this from a Mishnah in Temurah. The Tana learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "li'Retzonchem Tamim Zachar ba'Bakar ba'Kesavim u'va'Izim" - 'Tamus and Zachrus bi'Veheimah, ve'Ein Tamus ve'Zachrus be'Of' (a bird never needs to be without blemish and never needs to be a male).
2. ... "ve'Im *min* ha'Of Korbano" - that only some birds are eligible to be brought as Korbanos, but not all birds (to preclude birds with a missing limb).

(c) Rebbi Chiya bar Ashi Amar Rav permits an Eved whose master severed his extra (sixth) finger. Rav Huna qualifies this ruling - restricting it to when the finger is in line with the other fingers (otherwise, it would not be any different than a growth on the hand, for which an Eved would certainly not go free).