Explanation: Rashi explains that he said that if I will not pay until a certain time, you can come and take collateral from this land, and it will be yours. As long as the Jewish lender does not come and take the collateral, it is in the possession of the Nochri. In the similar case involving a slave (as opposed to a field), the Rabbanan gave a fine to the Jewish borrower. They gave the fine because the time came and he did not pay back, even though the Nochri did not yet take the option to possess the slave.

Question: This is difficult, as the Gemara should have said that both cases are when the time to pay has already came (as it did in the previous answers).

Answer: This answer is coming to answer the question asked on the first answer, which said that the Beraisa regarding a field is discussing when the time has not yet come, and the Beraisa regarding the slave is when it has come. The Gemara asked, if so, the case of the slave is obvious! (Note: Of course he should be let go when he must be transferred to the Nochri. This is the fine established by the Rabbanan!) This answer is therefore answering this question by saying that the case of the slave is when he borrowed and set his slave up as collateral, but the lender did not yet take the borrower up on his offer. One might think that because he did not yet take him as collateral, he should not go free. This is why the Beraisa must say that because the Nochri could technically take him as collateral, he already goes free.

Explanation#1: Rashi explains that "Farhang" means a blackmailer. The Jew sold him his slave in exchange for the extortion money.

Question#1: This is difficult, as it is not fitting to say that this is a sale. Additionally, the term that he could have appeased him and didn't does not imply that the person is a blackmailer.

Question#2: Additionally, the Gemara compares this to someone who is sold for thirty days.

Explanation#2: It seems that a "Farhang" takes his slave against his will. However, he pays him for this. This is why it asks, why should he go free, being that the sale was done against his will? It is similar to the slave being collected due to a debt (where the Jew did nothing to specifically target his slave as the thing to be collected due to the debt)!

The Gemara answers that he should have appeased him. Being that the Farhang is giving money, he would have been appeased with something small. It compares this to selling a slave for thirty days, as after he finishes his work the slave is normally returned to the Jew, and the Jew gives him back his money.

Explanation#1: Rashi explains that even though this shows them some importance towards the idolaters, it is permitted.

Question: This is difficult. We validate documents that go to Nochri courts, and we do not make a difference between Lechatchilah and b'Dieved. (Note: The Maharam explains that according to Rashi this should at least be forbidden Lechatchilah, as it glorifies the name of idolaters.)

Explanation#2: Rabeinu Tam explains that even though this looks like he is willingly upholding the sale (see Tosfos Ha'Rosh), it is permitted in this case.

In Avodah Zarah (13a), the Gemara says that one may go to a fair of idolaters and buy from them an animal and slaves because it is like one is saving his money from them. He can therefore also have documents of the purchase written up in a court of idolaters. There, as well, he upholds the sale in this fashion and word is spread that he is benefiting idolatry. Even so, it is permitted.

Explanation#1: Rashi explains that (this possibility means) we do not really give him such a high fine. It is a term of exaggeration.

Question: This is difficult. If so, what amount did it state beforehand? We still do not know a real amount of how much less it would be than ten times the amount, in order to determine what the real amount is! (Note: How can the Gemara give an exaggerated term when we do not know how much he should really pay!)

Explanation#2: It seems that this phrase "Oh Lav Davka" -- "Or maybe not exactly" means that we would even fine him more than one hundred times his value, until he would redeem the slave. This is as Rashi explained in the second version, similar to the law regarding an animal that we fine him until ten times the amount. This implies that it is not saying an exact amount, and it means even more, as it says here regarding up to one hundred servants. This is what the Gemara means here when it says "Not exactly."

Observation: In Bechoros (34b) regarding someone who makes a nick in the ear of a Bechor (making it unfit to be a Korban), the Gemara says that we cannot prove anything from the case of selling a slave to a Nochri, as selling a slave makes him unable to perform Mitzvos.

If so, it seems like our Gemara could also have said that if you will say that they did not make a fine there (regarding a Bechor), here one might make a fine because he is taking the slave away from keeping the Mitzvos. Similarly, there the Gemara could have said the opposite just as we say here (that making a blemish in a Bechor is a Torah prohibition, as opposed to selling a slave that is a Rabbinic enactment).

Explanation: Rashi explains that the case is that his field was fertilized on Shemitah.

Question: This is difficult, as this is a Rabbinic prohibition. How can the Gemara in Bechoros (34b) extrapolate from here regarding nicking the ear of a Bechor, which is a Torah prohibition? Similarly, here the slave is being taken away from being able to perform the Mitzvos. How can we derive anything from this case to these laws?

Explanation: Rabeinu Chananel explains that this means that he plowed a lot in the field, which is a Torah prohibition. Nedairah means what Rashi explained it means (causing fertilization). Even though it is Rabbinic in nature, it is worse than Niskavtzah (taking thorns out of the field for beautification). The proof is brought from Netaivah.

Question: However, this is still difficulty. How can our Gemara extrapolate a law regarding a slave from this? Perhaps a slave is more stringent, as selling him to a Nochri makes him unable to perform Mitzvos. Perhaps this is even more stringent than a Torah prohibition, as stated in Bechoros (ibid.).

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that regarding Shemitah we should be stringent more than when dealing with other Mitzvos, as people denigrated (the observance of) Shemitah. This is as stated later (54a), that people were suspected to transgress Shemitah. This is why the Gemara brings a good proof from the fact that they did not make a fine for his son.

Implied Question: We do issue a fine regarding a loan document that includes interest, and the implication is that this is forever, even for his son. (Note: Why, in this case, do we include the son?)

Answer: Being that they made the fine, the borrower automatically acquires the fine (meaning he does not have to pay).

Implied Question: There is a case in Bava Metzia (37a) where two people deposited money with someone, one depositing one hundred and one two hundred. Rebbi Yosi rules that everything should remain deposited until Eliyahu Ha'Navi comes. (Note: Why, in this case, do we say that nobody can ever have it?)

Answer: There the fine is established in order that the person making the false claim will admit. If we would allow the money to be returned to his son, he would not admit that he is lying.

Explanation: Rabeinu Chananel explains that this is referring to thorns that are loose in the field. This is also the explanation advanced by the Yerushalmi.

However, if they are attached it is forbidden according to Torah law to detach them. This is as stated in Shabbos (103a), that if someone detaches a type of grass or reed in order to make the land look nice, even if he only detaches a small amount, it is forbidden. Even though the Gemara there says that a person who does so on Shabbos is exempt if he does so in his friend's land (as he does not care if his friend's land looks nice), there is no way to say that this is also the case regarding Shemitah (that he is doing so in his friend's land). This is because regarding transgressing Shemitah there is no exemption based on Melachah she'Ainah Tzerichah l'Gufah.

Question: What is the case? If he will go on his own he has lost his right, as our Gemara says that he cannot force him to leave. This is also as stated in Kesuvos (110b) that not everyone can take someone out. (Note: Even if he did not sell him, he could not take him back to Chutz la'Aretz.)

Answer: The case is that we levy this fine at the time of the sale, lest the buyer actually convince the slave to go with him to Chutz la'Aretz.