Previous daf

1)

(a) Our Mishnah lists Shabbos among the Chayvei Sekilah, but only with regard to a Melachah that is Chayav Kareis be'Meizid and Chatas be'Shogeg. This come to exclude (besides the specific Melachah that we will now discuss) - a Melachah that does not involve an act, and that one performed unintentionally ('Mis'asek').

(b) According to Rebbi Akiva, our Mishnah precludes Techumin, which is not subject to Kareis and a Chatas, whereas according to Rebbi Yossi, it precludes - Hav'arah (making a fire [for the same reason, as we learned earlier]).

(c) The Tana goes on to list someone who curses his father or mother among the Chayvei Sekilah - provided he curses them with the Name of Hashem.

(d) Should he curse them with a Kinuy (and not with the Name 'Havayah'), Rebbi Meir nevertheless declares him Chayav Sekilah. The Chachamim (Rebbi Menachem b'Rebbi Yossi) learn from the Pasuk "be'Nokvo *Sheim* Yumas" - that one is not Chayav for cursing them with a Kinuy.

(a) Rebbi Menachem b'Rebbi Yossi argues with the Mishnah (that we learned earlier) that requires 'Shem be'Shem', since that Tana derives it from the same word ("Shem").

(b)

1. The Tana Kama of the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Ish Ish ... Asher Yekalel" - that a woman, a Tumtum and an Androginus are Chayav for cursing their parents, just like a man.
2. Rebbi Yashiyah there learns from "Aviv ve'Imo Killel" - that one is Chayav even for cursing either one's father or one's mother (because he holds that a 'Vav' implies 'and' rather than 'or'), by virtue of the fact that the Torah first juxtaposes "Aviv" next to "Killel", and then next to "Imo".

(c) Based on the fact that the Torah does not write "Yachdav" in the Pasuk (as it does by Kil'ayim) Rebbi Yonasan argues that we already know Rebbi Yashiyah's Din from " ... es Aviv ve'es Imo", since the 'Vav' also implies 'or'.

(d) Consequently, he learns from "Aviv ve'Imo Killel" - that one is Chayav even for cursing one's parents after their death.

(a) The Tana learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Damav Bo"(and "Demeihem Bam") - that Mekalel Aviv ve'Imo is subject to Sekilah.
2. ... "Elohim Lo Sekalel" - the Azharah for cursing a Dayan (and, as we shall now see, one's parents).
3. ... "ve'Nasi be'Amcha Lo Sa'or" - the Azharah for cursing a king (and ... one's parents).

(b) And we know that one is Chayav for cursing a father who is neither a Dayan nor a king - from a 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' from the two of them.

(c) We would not know parents from ...

1. ... a Dayan - because someone who disobey a Dayan's ruling is Chayav Miysah (not so his parents).
2. ... a king - because someone who rebels against him is Chayav Miysah.

(d) We refute this 'Binyan Av mi'Shenei Kesuvim' - on the grounds that in both cases, the special Din is based on their greatness, which is not the case by parents who are neither of the two.

(a) So we bring in the Pasuk "Lo Sekalel Cheresh", and learn from all three. We could not learn parents from Cheresh alone - because we would confine this stringency Cheresh (to prevent people from taking advantage of his lowliness).

(b) The Tzad ha'Shaveh that Nasi, Dayan and Cheresh share, that enables us to learn the prohibition of cursing others in general, and one's parents in particular, from them is - the fact that they are all "be'Amcha".

(c) The problem of learning Aviv ve'Imo from this 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' is - that maybe the Isur applies only to them, because they are all three special (albeit in diverse ways).

(d) And we answer that either Dayan or Nasi is redundant (because had the Torah just written Cheresh and one of them, we would have known the other one from the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh'). Consequently - we are now able to learn Aviv ve'Imo from either one or the other.

(a) We have assumed until now that "Elohim Lo Sekalel" is Chol (referring to the Dayanim). That is the opinion of Rebbi Yishmael in a Beraisa. According to Rebbi Akiva - it is Kodesh, referring to Hashem.

(b) In support of Rebbi Akiva, Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov cites this Pasuk - as an Azharah for Birchas Hashem.

(c) Rebbi Yishmael will learn the Azharah for Birchas Hashem - from Chol (seeing as there is no specific La'av by Kodesh).

(d) According to Rebbi Akiva, we learn the Azharah for Mekalel Aviv ve'Imo from - the extra 'Lamed' in "Lo Sekalel" (since the Torah could have written "Lo Seikal").

(e) He cannot simply learn Chol from Kodesh (like Rebbi Yishmael learns Kodesh from Chol) - because Kodesh is generally stricter than Chol, so that any stringency pertaining to the former, will not necessarily pertain to the latter.

6)

(a) A Na'arah ha'Me'urasah is not Chayav Sekilah unless she is a Na'arah - but not if she is a Bogeres, or a Ketanah whose father betrothed her.

(b) For her to carry a Chiyuv Sekilah, our Mishnah also requires her - to be a virgin and betrothed

(c) If she made Chupah, but did not yet consummate her marriage - she may well still be a Besulah, but she is not a Na'arah, in which case they do not receive Sekilah.

(d) 've'Hi be'Veis Avihah' comes to exclude - a case where her father handed her over to the Sheluchim of the husband, which is akin to Chupah.

(a) The Tana states that if two men committed adultery with a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah, the first one she'Lo ke'Darkah - the first one receives Sekilah, the second one, Chenek, because she is considered a Be'ulah.

(b) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Na'arah" - 've'Lo Bogeres'.
2. ... "Besulah" - 've'Lo Be'ulah'.
3. ... "Me'urasah" - 've'Lo Nesu'ah'.
4. ... "be'Veis Avihah" (written in connection with a Motzi-Shem-Ra) - 'P'rat le'she'Masar ha'Av li'Sheluchei ha'Ba'al'.

(c) Rav Yehudah establishes our Mishnah, which precludes a Ketanah from the Din of Na'arah ha'Me'urasah, like Rebbi Meir. According to the Chachamim - a Ketanah has the same Din as a Na'arah in this regard (and the man will receive Sekilah).

(d) They argue with regard to - whether someone who rapes a Ketanah pays the fifty Shekel K'nas (the Chachamim) or not (the Chachamim).

(a) Rav Acha tries to establish our Mishnah ('Eino Chayav ad she'Tehei Na'arah'), even like the Chachamim - by explaining that Na'arah comes to preclude a Bogeres, but not a Ketanah.

(b) Ravina refutes Rav Acha's suggestion however - by pointing to the Lashon 'Eino Chayav ad ... ', which suggests that she must be a Na'arah and nothing else (like Rebbi Meir).

(c) Rebbi Ya'akov bar Ada asked Rav what the Din would be if someone committed adultery with a Ketanah ha'Me'urasah, according to Rebbi Meir. If he does not exempt him completely - then he will reduce the Bo'el's Din from Sekilah to Chenek.

(d) When, following Rav's reply 'Mistavra mi'Sekilah Mema'et Leih', Rav Ya'akov bar Ada quoted the Pasuk "u'Meisu Gam Sheneihem" - he meant to extrapolate from there that the man and the woman must both be equal (i.e. they must both be punishable before they can be sentenced to death, but not if she is a Ketanah - see Tosfos DH 'Ad').

(a) Shmuel was surprised that Rav remained silent after Rav Ya'akov bar Ada's comment. When he quoted the Pasuk "U'meis ha'Ish Asher Shachav Imah Levado" - he meant to prove that sometimes only one of them is sentenced to death (even though the girl was not raped), like the other side of the She'eilah.

(b) The Pasuk cannot be referring to the case currently under discussion in the Pasuk (of a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah who was raped) - because we already know that from the Pasuk there "ve'la'Na'arah Lo Sa'aseh Davar".

(a) The Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel is also a Machlokes Tana'im. Rebbi Yashiyah, in a Beraisa, holds like Rav, Rebbi Yonasan, like Shmuel. The latter, says Rava, learns from "u'Meisu Gam Sheneihem", 'li'Me'utei Ma'aseh Chidudin'- which means when the man presses his flesh against the woman without actually having relations with her, in which case he derives pleasure from the contact but not her. Others explain 'Ma'aseh Chidudin to mean Ma'aseh Hurdus, who preserved the body of a dead girl in honey for seven years, during which time he had relations with her.

(b) Nevertheless, if he were to perform unnatural relations with her, they would be Chayav (despite the fact that there too, she derives no pleasure from the act) - because the Torah specifically writes "Mishkevi Ishah".

(c) Rebbi Yashiyah actually agrees with Rebbi Yonasan - that the man is Patur for performing Ma'aseh Chidudin, only he does not require a Pasuk, because, he maintains, 'Ma'aseh Chidudin La'av K'lum Hi', and there is no reason to render him Chayav.

(a) Rebbi Yashiyah learns from "Levado" like Rebbi in a Beraisa, who discusses a case where ten men committed adultery with a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah, and (technically) she remains a Besulah (at least until the tenth Bi'ah), which is possible - if the first nine had relations with her she'Lo ke'Darkah, in which case ...

(b) ... Rebbi rules - that only the first one receives Sekilah (after which she is considered a Be'ulah, and) the subsequent nine receive Chenek (as we learned in our Mishnah).

(c) According to the Rabbanan - after a Bi'ah she'Lo ke'Darkah, a woman remains a Besulah (Halachically too), in which case, all ten men receive Sekilah.

(a) Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua explains that Rebbi, interpreting the Pasuk "u'Bas Ish Kohen Ki Seichel Li'zenos ... ba'Eish Tisaref", says 'Techilah', because he holds like Rebbi Yishmael (whom we discussed earlier and) who rules - that it is a bas Kohen Arusah who receives Sereifah (but not a Nesu'ah).

(b) When Rebbi says 'Techilah', he now means - that he holds like Rebbi Yishmael, according to whom the act of adultery was her first Bi'ah (though this will be difficult if she was betrothed with Bi'ah. See also Aruch le'Ner).

(c) And when Rebbi continues 've'Chein Hu Omer, u'Meis ha'Ish Asher Shachav Imah Levado' - he means that just as there (by a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah), the Torah is talking about her first Bi'ah, when it sentences them to Sekilah, so too, here (by a bas Kohen).

(a) Rav Bibi bar Abaye rejects Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua's interpretation of Rebbi however, based on Rav Yosef, who established Rebbi like Rebbi Meir, who says that a bas Kohen who is married to a man who is Pasul, and who commits adultery - receives Chenek.

(b) In that case, when Rebbi said 'Techilah', the bas Kohen may well have been a Nesu'ah, only - it was her first Pasul Bi'ah (to preclude a case where she was married to someone who is Pasul, in which case will have already become a Chalalah and will therefore receive Chenek).

(c) And we now explain 've'Chein ... ' as a mere Si'man. Rebbi cannot have meant it literally - because in the case of the Na'arah ha'Me'urasah, it must also be her first Bi'ah.