Answer: The Gemara understands that the opinion of the Beraisa stands even according to the Emes, after the Pasuk writes "Im Ga'ol Yig'al" ...

proof: Otherwise, why does the Tana relate to an opinion which is not upheld? ...

Proof (cont.): It could just as well have cited the Kal va'Chomer from Eved Ivri - 'If already an Eved Ivri, whose Ko'ach is strong, inasmuch as he goes out in the Yovel, yet he cannot borrow and redeem or redeem in halves, as the Gemara will rule shortly ...

Proof (cont.): Then Makdish, whose Ko'ach is weak, in that when Yovel arrives, it cannot be redeemed, but is distributed among the Kohanim, he should certainly not be able to borrow and redeem or redeem in halves'.

Proof (cont.): And there is nothing to ask on this Kal va'Chomer ...

Proof (concl.): It is therefore obvious that the current Yochi'ach applies even according to the Emes, after the Torah writes "Im Ga'ol Yig'al"!

Question: Why in fact, does the Tana not learn from the Kal va'Chomer from Eved Ivri, since it cannot be queried?

Answer: He prefers to learn Sadeh from Sadeh.

Question: Why does the Torah see fit to write "u'Matza K'dei Geulsao" by Sadeh Achuzah to teach us that one cannot redeem it in halves ...

Question (cont.): Why can we not learn it from a Kal va'Chomer from Eved Ivri - 'If an Eved Ivri who is sold to a Nochri, whose Ko'ach is strong inasmuch as he can redeemed immediately, yet he cannot borrow and redeem or redeem in halves, as we shall see shortly ...

Question (concl.): Someone who sells a Sadeh Achuzah, whose Ko'ach is weak regarding redeeming it immediately, as the Torah writes (in Vayikra, 25) "according to the number of years of produce" (Erchin, Daf 29b), should certainly not be permitted to borrow and redeem or redeem in halves'?

Answer: On the contrary, the exact opposite is true - 'If already someone who is Makdish, whose Ko'ach is weak, in that it is divided up among the Kohanim in the Yovel, yet he can borrow and redeem or redeem in halves ...

Answer (cont.): A seller, whose Ko'ach is strong, in that it goes back to the owner in the Yovel, should certainly be permitted to borrow and redeem or redeem in halves.

Rejected Refutation: And if one asks that 'Whereas a Makdish is strong with regard to redeeming it immediately, a seller is weak inasmuch as he cannot ...

Refutation: Nevertheless, we can learn houses in un-walled cities, which one can redeem immediately, with the same Kal va'Chomer, that one may borrow and redeem and refdeem in halves ...

Refutation (cont.): And once we know the Din by houses in an un-walled city, we will learn Sadeh Achuzah from the same Kal va'Chomer ...

Reason: Since both are written in the same Pasuk, when the Torah writes - "It (a house in an un-walled city) is considered like a field of the land".

Answer (cont.): And that is why we need "u'Matza K'dei Ge'ulaso" in connection with someone who sells an inherited field - to teach us that one cannot borrow and redeem it or redeem it in halves ...

Answer (concl.) Since we would otherwise have learned it from Makdish, as Tosfos just explained.

Conclusion: And we now learn houses in un-walled cities from it, that there too, one cannot borrow and redeem or redeem them in halves.

Clarifiction: Let the Pasuk write "Ge'ulah Titnu ba'Aretz" and we will learn from it to fix Sadeh Achuzah as an obligation, and open cities will be included?

Question: How does he know that it does not come to include Eved Ivri?

Answer: He understands that it comes to include something that is connected with the redemption of land ...

Proof: As the Torah writes "u've'Chol Eretz", implying that it comes to include specifically land.

Clarification: Rashi explains that this goes even Rebbi Yehoshua, who considers redeeming a Sadeh Achuzah voluntary, concedes that here it is obligatory ...

Reason: To prevent him from degenerating among the idolaters ...

Refuted Question: One cannot ask here 'What does "be'Chol" then mean?'

Refutation: Since it is not written in connection with that topic.

Question: R. Shmuel from Coucy however, asks that, since we establish it like Rebbi Yehoshua, we can only fix it as an obligation by Eved Ivri exclusively ...

Question (con.): In which case, the inclusion of "be'Chol retz Achuzaschem" is not standard - seeing as it does not include an obligation by houses of a walled city, whereas by Eved Ivri it does ...

Question (concl.): And that being the case, it ought to have rather said 'Batei ha'Chatzerim ve'Eved Ivri ha'Nimkor le'Akum' and to have fixed a Chovah on both of them , like Rebbi Eliezer', in which case the inclusion would have been standard.

Clarification: The three "Yig'alenu" come - one for the basic ruling, one for houses in un-walled cities and for Sadeh Achuzah, which are mentioned in the same Pasuk, and one to Darshen "Yig'alenu", 'la'Zeh ve'Lo le'Acher'.

Implied Question: Even though with regard to a Shifchah, the Gemara did not draw a distinction between the first Bi'ah and the second, in that even the second Bi'ah is permitted, now that Shmuel earlier was proved wrong ...

Answer: That is because it is a Chidush that the Isur of "Lo Yih'yeh Kadesh" is permitted to a Yisrael, in which case, it becomes permitted to a Kohen as well ...

Answer (cont.): But here the fact that she is permitted to a Yisrael is not a Chidush, whereas as far as a Kohen is concerned, she is Asur on account of Zonah ...

Answer (cont.): Because even though she converts against her will, the Torah made her like a proper Giyores, in which case the Isur (of Zonah) remains on him, and we do not find that the Torah permits it.

Implied Question: Even though there is no Ishus by a Kutis, as the Gemara explains in Perek Arba Miysos (Sanhedrin, Daf 52b) ...

Answer: There is however, an Asei, as the Torah writes in Bereishis (2) "And he shall cleave to his wife", 'but not to the wife of his friend'.