Clarification: And it needs to be superfluous from both sides, because if it is superfluous only from one side, there is an opinion in Nidah (Daf 22b) that holds 'Lemeidin u'Mashivin' (One can learn it, but it can be queried).

Clarification (cont.): And one could ask that 'Whereas Metzora requires a twig of cedar, hyssop and a scarlet thread ... ?'

Explanation #1: The Tana Kama - does generally also not hold like Rebbi Nasan.

Halachah, Opinion #1: From here they conclude that the Halachah is not like Rebbi Nasan ...

Proof #1: Since Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan argue over Rebbi Nasan, and Rebbi Eliezer, who is a Shamuti, rules like Rebbi Nasan; and the Halachah is like the Rabbanan.

Introduction to Proof #2: Rabeinu Tam brings an additional proof from the Gemara later in Perek ha'Omer (Daf 60a) in connection with the innkeeper of Rebbi Simla'i, who was a Mamzer, to whom Rebbi Simla'i said 'Had I known you earlier, I would have rendered Tahor your son' ...

Introduction to Proof #2 (cont.): And the Gemara explains that he would have advised him to steal and be sold as an Eved Ivri ...

Proof #2: Now if the master can hand a Shifchah Cana'anis to someone who sells himself, why would he have needed advise hikm to steal? What he ought to have said was 'Go and sell yourself!'

Proof #2 (cont.): So we see that the Halachah is not like Rebbi Eliezer , and that the master foes not hand a MOcher Atzmo a Shifchah Cana'anis ...

Proof #2 (concl.): And just as the Halachah is not like him in this point, so too, is it not like him regarding giving him Ha'anakah (provisions) - and one does not give him Ha'anakah, like the Tana Kama.

Proof #3: And we have another proof from the Gemara later (on Daf 16b), which states 'Who is the author, Tuta'i , who says "To him" , 'but not to his creditor', implying that the Halachah is not like him.

Halachah, Opinion #2: But Rabeinu Tam (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim) hold that the Halachah is like Rebbi Nasan ...

Proof: Because in connection with the Macchlokes Abaye and Rava in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim, Daf 31a), where Rava says that one claims from now onwards' ...

Proof (cont.): Rava is unable to explain Rav Nachman, who says 'Yesomim who claim Karka for the debt that is owed to their father, their creditor can then claim it from them, other than according to Rebbi Nasan ...

Proof (concl.): And we Pasken like Rav Nachman in money-matters, and Rava pushes to establish the ruling like him, and we Pasken like Rav aginst Abaye.

Question: And what Tosfos explained earlier, that sincc the Halachah is not like Rebbi Eliezer regarding 'Rabo Moser lo Shifchah Cana'anis, it is also not like him regarding 'Ma'anikin lo' ...

Answer #1: That is no proof, since it is possible that the Halachah is not like him in the one ruling, but it is like him in the other rulings.

Answer #2: Moreover, the Halachah may well be like him regarding 'Mocher Atzmo, Rabo Moser lo Shifchah Cana'anis as well ...

Implied Question: And the reason that he told him to go and steal was ...

Answer: N ot because he had to, but because by Machruhu Beis-Din they all agree that his master can hand him a Shifchah Cana'anis.

Question: And as for the argumnent that Rebbi Eliezer is a Shamuti ...

Answer: Most Sefarim have the text 'Rebbi Elazar'.

Question: And when the Gemara said 'Tuta'i hi' ...

Answer: It meant that the author is Tuta'i and the Halachah is like him.

Explanation #2: ha'Rav Nesanel however, explains that when it comes to a loan, they all hold like Rebi Nasan ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): And this is how they will explain the Gemara cited above (Tatai) according to Rebbi Eliezer - 'But - "to him", 'and not to his creditor' - because regarding other cases of Sechirus we hold like Rebbi Nasan, that one takes from this one and gives to that one' ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Therefore the Torah writes "Lo" to preclude this case - Ha'anakah, i.e. that he does not give the Ha'anakah to the creditor (of the Eved).

Explanation #2 (concl.): "And the other opnion', the Tana Kama - 'in other cases too', in other cases of S'chirus, he does not hold like Rebbi Nasan, since he bothered bodily, but in the case of a loan, everyone holds of Rebbi Nasan, as Tosfos explained.

Implied Question: Even though we know 'with his consent' from "Im Adonav Yiten lo Ishah" ...

Answer: We would have thought that that comes to teach us the consent of the master.

Amending the Text: ha'Rav Avraham has the text "ke'Sachir ke'Toshav Yih'yreh Imach" (Vayikra, 25) ...

Reason: Since it is from there that the Toras Kohanim (B'har, 7:3) learns it, whereas in the Toras Kohanim learns nothing from "Ki Tov lo Imach" ...

Reason: Which is not a command but a statement of fact.

Question: Perhaps this Pasuk refers to Machruhu Beis-Din, which does not pertain to a woman ...

Source: Because the Torah writes "bi'Genevaso", 've'Lo bi'Genevasah"?

Answer: Nevertheless, the concept of selling pertains to a woman, whereas that of piercing does not.

Question: [Now that the Pasuk refers exclusively to piercing, why need it be inserted, since, if it speaks about a servant who is sold by Beis-Din, it has already been said?] Tosfos Yeshanim.

Clarification: This means that someone who sells himself to a Yisrael can be redeemed with 'Eileh'.

Question: Even if we would not learn "Sachir" "Sachir" to teach us that a Mocher Atzmo to a Yisrael is redeemed with Eileh from a Nimkar le'Akum, why can we not learn from "ne'Chi Sasig", from the extra 'Vav', which comes to add to the previous topic, in which case we will learn that a Mocher Atzmo to a Yisrael is redeemed with 'Eileh' from one who is sold to a Nochri?

Answer: We learn a Kal va'Chomer from Mochruhu Beis-Din, which is not written above by Nimkar le'Akum.

Question: Why would one even think to learn Mochruhu Beis-Din from Nimkar le'Akum with the Gezeirah-Shavah "Sachir" "Sachir", having said that it is a S'vara to punish a Machruhu Beis-Din, becaus he performed a sin?

Answer: Now that the Torah has revealed that he goes free in the Yovel, in spite of the fact that he sinned, as the Gemara explains, he wants to learn via "Sachir" "Sachir" that, if not for the Pasuk, he could be redeemed with 'Eileh'.

Question: Still, how can we learn via "Sachir" "Sachir" from a Nimkar le'Akum that he can be redeemed with 'Eileh' - seeing as it is fitting for a Namkar le'Akum to be redeemed with 'Eileh', so that he should not sin among the Nochrim?

Answer: The S'vara that he will not sin among the Nochrim is not written, and cannot therefore be used to negate.

Question: R. Meir asks that, according to what the Gemara thought, before it knew of the Miy'ut of "Yig'alenu", why did it not learn a Kal va'Chomer that a Machruhu Beis-Din should be redeemed with 'Eileh' ...

Question (cont.): Because if already a Nimkar le'Akum, who is not redeemed with 'six', is redeemed with 'Eileh', a Machruhu Beis-Din, who is redeemed with 'six', ought certainly to be redeemed with 'Eileh'?

Answer: One can counter this with - 'Whereas a Numnkar le'Akum goes out with the death of his master' - which is why he also goes out with 'Eileh' ...

Answer (cont.): 'A Nimkar le'Yisrael does not ... ' - since he continues to serve his son; Therefore he will not go out with 'Eileh'.

Question: The question remains however, that we can learn an Amah Ivriyah with the same Kal va'Chomer - seeing as she serves neither the son nor the daughter ...

Question (cont.): And then we can learn an Eved Ivri who is sold to a Yisrael with a Hekesh of "Ivri" to "Ivriyah"?

Answer: The Ri explains that if not for "Yig'alenu", we would indeed have thought that a Nimkar le'Yisrael also goes out with 'Eileh' ...

Answer (cont.): And what the Gemara means is - 'If someone who is not redeemed with 'Eileh' - i.e. the Torah does nor specifically say that he is - is nevertheless redeemed in 'six', one who is sold to an Akum - by whom the Torah specifically states that he is redeemed with 'Eileh', ought certainly to be redeemed with 'six'.

Support: In similar fashion, the Gemara in Perek ha'Socher es ha'Po'alim (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 88b), where it wants to say that an ox may eat, even from Mechubar (what is attached to the ground), from a Kal va'Chomer from Adam ...

Support (cont.): And if Adam who does not eat from Talush (what is detached0, eats from Mechubar, an ox, who eats from Talush, ought certainly to eat from Mechubar.

Support (cont.): So we see that the Gemara makes a Kal va'Chomer from Adam who cannot eat from Talush, even though in actual fact, he does ...

Support (concl.): And what the Gemara means is that the Torah does not specifically say that he does, as Tosfos explained here.

Question: Let Sadeh prove otherwise - 'If Sadeh Achuzah, which can be redeemed with 'these' but not in six years, so too, a servant who is sold to a Nochri' ...

Support: In the same way as the Gemara later (on Daf 21a) proves Eved from Sadeh and Sadeh from Eved?

Answer: One can refute it in that 'Whereas Sadeh does not go out with the death of the master, which is why he does not go out in six years, whereas an Eved Ivri who is sold to a Nochri, who does go out with the death of the master, also goes out in six years'.

Refutation of Text #1: It seems that this shoujld not be in the text, since this is the simple explanation of the Pasuk.

Refutation of Text #2: Moreover, the Gemara's conclusion does not resolve the question, either according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili or according to Rebbi Akiva.

Refutation of Text #3: Most Sefarim do not in fact include it.

Resolving Refutation: As for those that do, the Ram explains it as follows - 'Does it write "Ela be'Acher (See Masores ha'Shas at the beginning of the Dibur) "? ...

Resolving Refutation (cont.): Seeing as the Pasuk is only speaking about relatives, from where does Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili know that others can redeem him for Shibud (to work with him)? Perhaps relatives can redeem him, but not others - even for Shibud?

Resolving Refutation (concl.): According to that, the question is answered in the Maskana - since the Pasuk is also speaking about people who are not relatives redeeming him, in which case the simple explanation of the Pasuk can too, each Tana according to his opinion.

Clarification: Rashi explains that if we were to take for granted that "be'Eileh" refers to relations, then the Shibud of "ve'Yatza bi'Shenas ha'Yovel would have to refer to others, as Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili explains ...

Reason: Since one could then ask on Rebbi Akiva "Does the Torah write "Ela be'Eileh"?

Clarification (cont.): Therefore they argue over the S'vara - whether "be'Eileh refers to relatives or to others, since 'others' is also written in this Pasuk.

Clarification #1 (concl.): Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili holds that "be'Eileh" refers to relatives, and Rebbi Akiva, to others.

Question: Rabeinu Baruch queries this however, in that, since Rebbi Akiva holds that "be'Eileh" refers to others, regarding going free, why does he establish "be'Eileh" earlier for Shibud?

Question (cont.): On the contrary, he ought to have said "be'Eileh" refers to others to go free?

Answer: He was speaking according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili - to say that 'What you call "be'Eileh" i.e. relatives for Shibud.

Refuted Explanation: The Gemara is not asking what the Pasuk is coming for, since it is needed to teach us that 'The Eved does not leave the Nochri's jurisdiction until the Yovel' ...

Authentic Explanation: It is asking why the Torah sees fit to insert "bi'Shenas ha'Yovel", seeing as it has already written "ad Sh'nas ha'Yovel" (in Vayikra, 25:50)?