Question: Later (on Amud 'Beis') the Gemara Darshens Ha'anakah from "Af la'Amascha Ta'aseh kein". Why do we need two Pesukim?

Answer: Both Pesukim are necessary - because, if not for "la'Amascha", we would not have known Ha'anakah by an Amah Ivriyah from "ve'chi Seshal'chenu", seeing as we do not find Ha'anakah by her at all ...

Answer (cont.): And if not for "ve'chi Seshal'chenu", from "Af la'Amascha" we would only have known Ha'anakah by a girl who goes out in six years, similar to Eved, but not by one who goes out with Simanim.

Halachah: There are some commentaries who maintain that, like an Eved Ivri here, hired Melamdei Tinokos who fall ill after half their time, do not need to complete what they missed.

Halachah (cont.): And they receive their full wages, since they are Anusin (it is not their fault).

Introduction to Question: In Perek ha'Socher es ha'Umnin (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 77a), the Gemara queries Rav who permits a worker to retract even in the middle of the day, from a Beraisa, which permits a laborer, whose close relative died or who contracted a high fever to retract ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): Only because his relative died, but not otherwise? ...

Question: Now if someone who is Anus receives his full wages, what is the Kashya on Rav? Perhaps where a relative died, he is Anus, and takes his full wages, whereas Rav is speaking where he is not Anus, in which case he only gets paid for the time that he worked?

Question (cont.): It is therefore clear that even someone who is Anus only gets paid for the time that he worked, an that if he is not Anus, he has the underhand, and the hirer has the right eitherr to hire other workers with 'his bundle', if he has it, or to trick him ...

Source: As the Gemara says (Ibid., 75a) in connection with 'Someone who hires a laborer to fetch his flax from the location where it is soaked'.

Question (concl.): According to that a. the Gemara's Kashya on Rav is justified, and b. Children's Rebbes who fall ill only receive their wages according to the time that they actually worked ...

Reason #1: And one cannot compare them to Eved Ivri - since the Eved Ivri's body is acquired by his master, in which case in the event that he falls ill for three years, he is not obligated to complete the full term

Reason #1 (cont.): Since he is not obligated to work more he is is able to.

Reason #1 (concl.): A Melamed on the other hand, is not acquired by his employer, and it is he who hired himself out to teach up to a specified date; and if he cannot work the full time, then he only takes according to the time that he worked.

Reason #2: Another distinction between a Melamed and an Eved Ivri is as follows: The reason that an Eved Ivri was ill for three years and worked for three years is not obligated to complete the time is based on the Pasuk in Yeshayah (16) "In three years, like the years of a hired worker" ...

Reason #2 (cont.): Which indicates that the official period of a worker is three years ...

Support: And this is why the Pasuk says in Devarim (15) "Because he worked for you double wages of a hired worker - six years".

Conclusion: Consequently, Rav explains that where he worked for three years - the years if a hired worker, he is not Chayav to complete it , and he receives his full wages, seeing as he worked thre years, which is synonymous with the years of a worker.

Question: Regarding Olas Re'iyah itself, from where do we know that it is a Kol Shehu? Why do we not learn from B'chor that it is five Sela'im?

Answer: Presuably, we learn Kol Shehu from a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai ...

Support: Just as the Yerushalmi says in the first Perek of Maseches Pe'ah - that, according to the opinion in the first Perek of Chagigah (Daf 7a) that, min ha'Torah it is two Kesef, it is Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai.

Question: On the contrary, we ought to learn from the larger amount, since the Torah writes "asher Berach'cha"?

Source: As the Gemara said above - when it asked 'Let us learn "Reikam" "Reikam" from Olas Re'iyah?' To which it answered - 'The Torah writes "asher Berach'cha" '?

Answer: One cannot compare them; Above, where the Torah wrote once "Reikam" with regard to B'chor and on Olas Re'iyaah, we need to learn from the larger amount on account of "asher Berach'cha" ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas here, where it writes one 'Nesinah' by Eved and one by Erchin, one cannot say that "asher Berach'cha" refers to the larger amount - i.e. Erchin, as long as there is a S'vara to learn from Eved - such as 'Tafasta Mu'at Tafasta'.

Proof: When the Gemara learns from Erchin from "asher Berach'cha" to rule out learning from the smallest amount of Erchin

Proof (cont.): When it will ask 'Why not learn from the smallest amount of Erchin, and it answers - 'Because the Torah states "asher Berach'cha" '.

Text (Explanation) #1: We need to explain that it precludes, according to one, money exclusively, and according to the other, mules exclusively ...

Text (Explanation) #2: Whereas according to the Sefarim that have do not have the text 'According to Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov "money is superior business-wise", we will have to say that we preclude mules and all the more so money.

Qustion: Why does the Tana mention "Yekev", seeing as we can preclude them from the K'lal u'Perat mentioned above?

Answer (Text #3): Therefore Tosfos' Rebbe has the text 'It includes according to one, money, and according to the other, mules'.

Explanation: In that case, we do need "Yekev", because if did not mention it, we would include neither money nor mules, since we would have precluded them from "Tzon" and "Goren" ...

Explanation: (cont.): Whereas now that the Torah writes "Tzon, Goren and Yekev"."Yekev is a Miy'ut that follows a Miy'ut, and a 'Miy'ut that follows a Miy'ut comes to include' ...

Explanation: (concl.): According to Rebbi Shimon, it comes to include specifically mules - since they improve bodily; and according to Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, money, which are superior, business-wise.

Clarification: Rashi explains that 'If someone declares Hekdesh his inherited field, he redeems it at the rate of fifty Shekel per Chomer (i.e. Kur) of barley ...

Clarification (cont.): If he does not and the treasurer sells it to somebody else, then, when it goes out from the hand of the purchaser in the Yovel, it is divided up among the Kohanim ...

Clarification (cont.): But if the son of the Makdish buys it from the treasurer, it does not go out to the Kohanim in the Yovel ...

Source: As the Torah writes "And if he sells the field to another man", 'but not to the son'.

Question: Why did the Tana not counter with inheritance, where the son also takes precedence over the brother?

Answer: He only mentions cases where the brother has no rights at all, only the son; whereas by inheritance, the brother too, receives there where there no sons or daughters.

Refuted Reason: The reason cannot be on account of 'B'reirah' - because it now transpires that this is his portion ...

Refutation: Because if it was, then even after it is in his possession, it ought to be permitted.

Clarification: Now it is not Chalipei Avodas Kochavim, since the Chachamim only instituted an inheritance for him be'Heter ...

Reason: Since 'They said (this yes) an they said (that not)'.

Question: Why will he return to his former habits, bearing in mind that the moment he converts, he is like a newborn baby, and if he reverts to his former habits, he will have the Din of a Yisrael apostate?

Answer: He will err to think that he will receive a portion of his father's inheritance] Tosfos Yeshanim.