Implied Question: Even though they also argue with regard to Mamon ...

Answer: Nevertheless, the Sh'eilah wasasked with regard to Isur.

Halachah: This implies that the Halachah is like Rebi Meir, since Rav holds like him.

Halachah (cont.): And that can only be like the opinion of Rav Sheishes ...

Reason: Because according to Rebbi Elazar in Rebbi Meir, the husband acquires even 'what you put in your mouth', just as 'on condition that you go free' is ineffective.

Halachah (cont.): Rav and Shmuel must therefore hold like Rav Sheishes and not like Rebbi Elazar ...

Halachah (concl.): A clear indication that 'in order that y6ou go free' is effective according to all opinions, just as 'what you place in your mouth is effective even according to Rebbi Meir.

Proof #1: From there it implies, says Rabeinu Tam, that the Halachah is like Rav Sheishes and not like Rebbi Elazar.

Introduction to Proof #2: Anotherv proof that the Halachah is like Rav Sheishes Rabeinu Tam brings from Perek ben Sorer u'Moreh (Sanhedrin, 71a), where the Gemara says that 'A ben Sorer u'Moreh is not Chayav until he eats something that belongs to his father and something that belongs to his mother' ...

Introduction toProof #2 (cont.): And, in answer to the question 'Seeing as whatever a woman owns belongs to her husband, from where does his mother obtain food?', it answers that 'Others gave it to her on condition that her husband has no jurisdiction over it' ...

Proof #2: Now according to Rav Sheishes, this at least goes like the Rabbanan, but according to Rebbi Elazar, it goes neither like Rebbi Meir nor like the Rabbanan?

Introduction to Proof #3: And a further proof he brings from the Gemara in Pesachim (Perek ha'Ishah, Daf 88b) in connection with the case of 'Someone who asks his Eved to Shecht a Pesach on his behalf, and he forgot what (which animal) his master told him ... '

Introduction to Proof #3: And in answer to the Kashya 'Whatever an Eved acquires belongs to his master'? it establishes the case where someone gave him money on condition that his master has no jurisdiction over it.

Proof #: Now this is like Rav Sheishes, because according to Rebbi Elazar,it ought to have established it where he said 'In order that tou will Yotzei the Korban Pesach'.

Refutation: The Ri however, holds that there is no proof that the Halachah is like Rebbi Meir according to Rav SHeishes from the Sugyos in Nedarim and in Perek ben Sorer u'Moreh ...

Refutation (cont.): Which can go even according to Rebbi Elazar - seeing as one draw a distinction between a woman and an Eved ...

Explanation: And say that even according to Rebbi Elazar who says that in the opinion of Rebbi Meir, even if he said ' "On condition that you go free', his master acquires it', it may well be that by a woman,the husband does not ...

Explanation (cont.): Because the two are not equal - Since the hand of the woman being like that of the husband is not the same as the hand of the Eved being like that of the master ...

Proof #1: If a husband gives his wife a present,she acquires it completely, and he does not even eat 'the fruit', as the Gemara states in Chezkas ha'Batim' (Bava Basra, Daf 51b) ...

Proof #1 (cont.): Whereas if a master gives a present to his Eved, the Eved does not acquire it at all.

Proof #2: Another proof that they are different lies in the fact that if others give a gift to an Eved S'tam, the master acquires both the object and 'the fruit'

Reason: Because 'An Eved cannot acquire without his master - means that he does not acquire it at all, and that the master therefore acquires both the gift and 'the fruit'.

Proof #2 (cont.): Whereas if someone gives a woman a gift (S'tam), her husband only gets 'the fruit', but the gift itself is her's ...

Reason: Because 'A woman cannot acquire without her husband' erely means that the husband eats 'the fruit', but the actual object belongs to the woman - One buys with it Karka and the husband eats 'the fruit'.

Implied Question: And even though what a woman finds belongs to her husband completely (Kesuvos, 65b) ...

Answer: One cannot compare a Metzi'ah to a gift.

Introduction to Proof: And this is also impled in the Yerushalmi in Kesuvos (Perek Metzi'as ha'Ishah, 6:1) which explains that what a woman finds belongs to her husband - 'In case she steals from him and claims that she found it'.

Introduction to Proof (cont.): And in answer to the Kashya 'How about a gift?' - why do we not suspect there as well that she will steal and claim that someone gave it to her as a gift? it answers that 'A gift has a Kol' (and her husband would know about it) ...

Proof: And if by a gift, the article too,went to the husband, what would she gain by claiming that it was given to her as a gift?

Conclusion: So we see that by a gift that others give a woman, her husband receives only 'the fruit', but the gift itself goes to her, even though by an Eved, 'the fruit' as well as the gift go to the master.

Question: According to Rabeinu Tam on Rav Sheishes, that 'on condition that you go to freedom with it' is effective even according to Rebbi Meir, why does Rebbi Meir say in our Mishnah 'not with money via himself' ...

Question (cont.): Seeeing as even via himself he willgo out, there where he says 'on condition that you go to freedom with it'?

Answer: In such a case, it would be called 'via others' and not 'via himself' ...

Reason: Since the Eved does not acquire it completely, and it was only given to him on condition that he goes free with it.

Implied Question: And even though, according to Rebbi Elazar, who establishes the Machlokes by 'on condition that you go free with it', it is called 'via himself' ...

Answer: That is because he maintains that the Eved acquires it, and then the master ...

Answer (cont.): But according to Rav Sheishes, who holds that the master does not acquire it, it falls under the category of 'via others' ...

Reason: Since the reason that the master does not acquire it is because the Eved only acquires it in order to go free. Therefore it is called 'via others'.

Question: However according to Rebbi Elazar, who establishes the Machlokes by where he says 'on condition you go out to freedom with it', the question remains ...

Question (cont.): How can we find a case according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Meir, of Kesef 'via himself' ...

Question (cont.): Because, seeing as they only gave him the money in order to go out to freedom with it, it is considered via others, just as we just explained according to Rav Sheishes in Rebbi Meir?

Answer: The Rabbanan are referring to the 'via himself' of Rebbi Meir, who said 'with money, via others, yews,but not via himself'...

Answer (cont.): And Rebbi holds in Rebbi Meir that even if they gave him the money in order to go free, the Eved acquires it and then his master, and therefore he does not go free, and accordingly, it is called 'via himself' ...

Answer (cont.): That is what the Rabbanan are referring to, and when they said 'with money via himself', they meant what you (Rebbi Meir) calls 'via himself' ...

Answer (concl.): Since what you said that he does not go out even if they gave him the money 'on condition that he goes free with it', we say that he does ...

Precedent: Similaly we find in 'ha'Nizakin' (Gitin, Daf 51b), in Shevu'os 42a) and in the second Perek of Kesuvos (Daf 18a),where Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov said 'Sometimes a person swears on his own claim' meaning something which you (his contestants) call his own claim.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains 'with her money' - of Nechsei Milug'; and his Ma'aser' - from his fields.

Explanation #1 (cont.): The Torah writes :Ish mi'Ma'asro", 'and not Ishah from her husband's Ma'aser' ...

Reason: Because a woman is like somebody else.

Question: Rabeinu Tam queries this however, in that it ought not to have mentioned 'Ish' and 'Ishah' at all - just "mi'Ma'asro", but not from somebody else's Ma'aser'?

Explanation (Text) #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore ammends the text to 'Ela be'Zuzi Didah u'Ma'aser Didah' ...

Explanation (Text) #2 (cont.): And what it means is that a man adds a fifth on to his Ma'aser,but not a woman - even where both the money and the Ma'aser belong to her.

Explanation (Text) #2 (concl.): Even if she is widowed or divorced, she does not add a fifth.

Implied Question: And when the Toras Kohanim in Bechukosai learns from the Pasuk "Im Ga'ol Yig'al Ish mi'Ma'asro" 'to include a woman ...

Answer: It includes a woman specifically with regard to the Din of redeeming the Ma'aser, but not to that of adding a fifth.

Reason: Otherwise we would have thought that since the Torah writes by Ma'aser (in Devarim, 14) "In order that you learn", ffrom which the Sifri Darshens 'Howgreat is Ma'aser that it leads to Torah-study', when one remains in Yerushalayim to eat one's Ma'aser ...

Reason (cont.): And we would have thought that, seeing as a woman is not subject to learn, she is not subject to the Dinim of Ma'aser either; hence it is necessary to include her.

Implied Question: And when the Toras Kohanim (in Bechikosai, 12) precludes a Katan from the word "Ish", it could just as well have precluded a woman from the Din of a fifth, as the Gemara says here ...

Answer: Only because it includes her from "Ga'ol Yig'al"in the same Pasuk, it prefers to learn "Ish", ve'Lo Katan', to preclude him completely.

Objection: However, in vain did Rabeinu Tam mentikon "Le'ma'an Tilmad" ...

Objection (cont.): Since he could have said that it needs to include a woman regarding redeeming, since we might otherwise have thought to preclude her from "Ish" completely, just as we precluded a Katan.

Refutation: And Rashi's interpretation 'Her Zuzim' - Nechsei Milug is not correct, because, since it is in his domain, and 'Whatever a woman acquires belongs to her husband' it is considered his.

Support: As the Gemara says with regard to the Ma'aser that comes from her father's house - that the husband acquires it according to the opinion that Ma'aser is Mamon Hedyot (not Hekdesh) ...

Refutation (cont.): In which case she would be doing the Shelichus of her husband.

Alternative Explanation: Therefore, says Tosfos, it is speaking about her money - that someone gave her a Manah on condition that her husband has no jurisdiction over it, regarding which the Gemara ruled earlier that her husband does not 'eat the fruit'.

Implied Question: The reason that our Tana does not mention them is ...

Answer: Because he holds that they require a Get Shichrur.

Clarification: And that is why he says that in other ways, he needs a Get Shichrur.

Question: So what if it is a Merash Chachamim? Are there not many major areas of Torah that 'hang on a hair' and that we learn from a D'rashah?

Answer #1: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains this Get is only mi'de'Rabbanan, since we are afraid that he will otherwise meet him in the street and declare 'You are my Eved!' ...

Answer #1 (cont.): So, since not everybody knows the Medrash, they instituted a Get Shichrur.

Answer #2: Whereas the Riva explains that to be sure, Shein va'Ayin, which are written explicitly in the Pasuk, as on them the Pasuk writes 'You shall set him free", implying completely free ...

Answer #2 (cont.): It is obvious to the Tana that Rebbi Akiva does not learn 'Shilu'ach' 'Shilu'ach' from Ishah, and that one does therefore require a Get Shichrur.

Answer #2 (concl.): Whereas other limbs, which we only learn from the extra word "Yeshal'chenu", we definitely learn 'Shilu'ach' 'Shilu'ach' from Ishah, and they therefore require a Get Shichrur.

Fixing the Text: By the rooster, we read 'Nezek Shalem', and by the horse that neighed Chatzi Nezek' ...

Support: As is evident in Perek Keitzad ha'Regel (Daf 18b - See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim).

Clarification: It now implies that all agree that if he did not intend to touch the eye, he is Patur.

Question: In Perek Keitzad ha'Regel (Daf26b) Rabah said that 'If someone who has a stone in his bosom of which he is not aware, stands up and the stone falls on to another person's eye, in the case of an Eved there is a Machlokes between Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbanan'?

Answer: It is differet here, since there are two points in his favor 1. that he meant to do good, and 2. that he did not aim for his eye at all.

Answer (cont.): Whereas there it is comparable to a case where he blinded him whilst painting his eye, where there is one point in his favor - that he intended to cure him,but one against him - that he meant to deal with the eye.

Implied Question: Even though earlier we learned that 'if his eye was already dim and he blinded him, in the event that he could not work with him already then, he does not go free ...

Implied Question (cont.): Whereas here the fact that he was already blinded implies that could workwith him already then ...

Answer: Nevertheless, here is different, since he now rendered him missing a limb.

Question: It is not comparable to a bird, which to begin with did not have anything that would render it Pasul, because even if its eye was blinded, it would not be Pasul ...

Question (cont.): Unlike an Eved, who initially had something which would enable him to go free].

Question: Why do we need a Pasuk? Seeing as an animal with a missing limb is Pasul for the B'nei No'ach ...

Source: As the Gemara Darshens in the first Perek of Avodah Zarah (Daf 5b) and in the second Perek of Zevachim (Daf 116a) "From all the living from all flesh", 'Bring an animal whose main limbs are alive'.

Answer #1: Had the Torah not written it by a Yisrael, we would have established the Pasuk there by Yisrael and not by B'nei No'ah ...

Answer #1 (cont.): As the Gemara says in Perek Arba Miysos (Sanhedrin, Daf 59a) 'Any Mitzvah that is said to the B'nei No'ach and not repeated on Sinai, is said to Yisrael and not to the B'nei No'ach'.

Answer #2: Alternatively, we would have thought that, since the Torah permits a blemish by birds more than by animals, even a missing limb is permitted by them

Answer #2 (cont.): And the Pasuk (regarding a missing limb) is referring to animals (See Masores ha'Shas).