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. Which category of Melachah does this come to exclude (besides the specific Melachah that we will now discuss)?

(b) According to Rebbi Akiva, our Mishnah precludes Techumin, which is not subject to Kareis and a Chatas.
Which Melachah does it preclude, according to Rebbi Yossi?

(c) And the Tana goes on to list someone who curses his father or mother. What condition is required for him to be Chayav Sekilah?

(d) Should he curse them with a Kinuy (and not with the Name 'Havayah'), Rebbi Meir nevertheless declares him Chayav Sekilah.
What do the Chachamim learn from the Pasuk in Emor "be'Nokvo *Sheim* Yumas"? Who is 'the Chachamim'?

(a) With which Mishnah (that we learned earlier) does Rebbi Menachem b'Rebbi Yossi argue?

(b) What does ...

1. ... the Tana Kama of the Beraisa learn from the Pasuk in Kedoshim "Ish Ish ... Asher Yekalel"?
2. ... Rebbi Yashiyah there learn from "Aviv ve'Imo Killel" (ibid.)?

(c) What does Rebbi Yonasan say, based on the fact that the Torah does not write "Yachdav" in the Pasuk?

(d) What does he then learn from "Aviv ve'Imo Killel"?

(a) And what does the Tana learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Damav Bo"?
2. ... "Elohim Lo Sekalel"?
3. ... "ve'Nasi be'Amcha Lo Sa'or"?

(b) So how do we know that one is Chayav for cursing a father who is neither a Dayan nor a king?

(c) Why would we not know parents from ...

1. ... a Dayan?
2. ... a king?

(d) On what basis do we refute this Binyan Av mi'Shenei Kesuvim? Why could we not learn the Chiyuv for cursing parents from them?

(a) So we bring in the Pasuk "Lo Sekalel Cheresh", and learn from all three.
Why could we not learn parents from Cheresh alone?

(b) What is 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?

(c) What is the problem with learning Aviv ve'Imo from this 'Tzad ha'Shaveh'?

(d) And we answer that either Dayan or Nasi is redundant.
How does that answer the Kashya? What would we have learned had the Torah just written Cheresh and one of them?

(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.
What does Rebbi Akiva say?

(b) In support of Rebbi Akiva, what does Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov say about this Pasuk?

(c) From where will Rebbi Yishmael then learn the Azharah for Birchas Hashem?

(d) According to Rebbi Akiva, from where will we learn the Azharah for Mekalel Aviv ve'Imo?

(e) Why can he not simply learn Chol from Kodesh (like Rebbi Yishmael learns Kodesh from Chol)?

6)

(a) A Na'arah ha'Me'urasah is not Chayav Sekilah unless she is a Na'arah.
What does this come to exclude?

(b) Which other two conditions does our Mishnah require for a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah to carry a Chiyuv Sekilah?

(c) What will be the Din if she made Chupah, but did not yet consummate her marriage?

(d) What does 've'Hi be'Veis Avihah' come to exclude?

(a) What does the Tana say about a case where two men committed adultery with a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah, the first one she'Lo ke'Darkah? What is the second one Chayav?

(b) What does the Beraisa learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei ...

1. ... "Na'arah"?
2. ... "Besulah"?
3. ... "Me'urasah"?
4. ... "be'Veis Avihah" (written in connection with a Motzi-Shem-Ra)?

(c) Rav Yehudah establishes our Mishnah, which precludes a Ketanah from the Din of Na'arah ha'Me'urasah, like Rebbi Meir.
What do the Chachamim say?

(d) In which case do they argue?

(a) How does Rav Acha try to establish our Mishnah ('Eino Chayav ad she'Tehei Na'arah'), even like the Chachamim?

(b) How does Ravina refute Rav Acha's suggestion?

(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.
What might Rebbi Meir hold, if he does not exempt him completely?

(d) What did Rav Ya'akov bar Ada mean, when following Rav's reply 'Mistavra mi'Sekilah Mema'et Leih', he quoted the Pasuk "u'Meisu Gam Sheneihem"?

(a) Shmuel was surprised that Rav remained silent after Rav Ya'akov bar Ada's comment.
What did he mean to ask when he quoted the Pasuk "U'meis ha'Ish Asher Shachav Imah Levado"? What must the Pasuk be referring to?

(b) Why can it not be referring to the case currently under discussion in the Pasuk (of a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah who was raped)?

(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'.
What is 'Ma'aseh Chidudin'?

(b) By the same token then, why is he not Patur for having unnatural relations with her (seeing as she derives no benefit from it)?

(c) What does Rebbi Yashiyah say about Ma'aseh Chidudin? Why might he agree with Rebbi Yonasan in Halachah?

(a) Rebbi Yashiyah learns from "Levado" like Rebbi in a Beraisa, who discusses a case where ten men commit adultery with a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah, and (technically) she remains a Besulah (at least until the tenth Bi'ah).
How is this possible?

(b) What does Rebbi rule in such a case?

(c) What do the Rabbanan say?

(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).
What does Rebbi Yishmael say with regard to the Din of 'bas Kohen bi'Sereifah'?

(b) What does Rebbi now mean when he says 'Techilah'?

(c) If so, what does Rebbi mean when he continues 've'Chein Hu Omer, u'Meis ha'Ish Asher Shachav Imah Levado'?

(a) Rav Bibi bar Abaye rejects Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua's interpretation of Rebbi, based on Rav Yosef, who establishes Rebbi like Rebbi Meir. What does Rebbi Meir say about a bas Kohen who is married to a man who is Pasul, and who commits adultery?

(b) How will we now explain Rebbi's statement?

(c) And we now explain 've'Chein ... ' as a mere Si'man.
Why do we need to say that? Why can we not interpret it literally?

Next daf