Question: What is Shifchah Charufah?

Answer #1 (R. Yehudah (some texts - R. Akiva)): She is half-Shifchah, and half-free - "v'Hefdeh Lo Nifdasah." (She was redeemed (partially), but not (totally) redeemed);

Answer #2 (R. Yishmael): She is a full Shifchah.

R. Eliezer ben Yakov (some texts - R. Elazar ben Azaryah) says, all the other Arayos are explicit. The only one left is a half-Shifchah, half-free woman.

(Gemara) Question: What is the source that she is lashed but he is not?

Answer (Beraisa): "Bikores Tihyeh" teaches that she is lashed;

Suggestion: Perhaps both are lashed!

Rejection: "Tihyeh" (feminine) teaches that only she is lashed.

Question: What is the source that "Bikores" refers to lashes?

Answer #1 (R. Yitzchak): It means that she will be punished amidst Krai (recital of verses);

(Beraisa): The most important judge reads ("Im Lo Sishmor... v'Hifla Hash-m Es Makosecha"). The next most important counts, and the third says "lash him!"

Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): Bikores (an inquiry) will be made (how many lashes she can survive);

(Mishnah): The estimation of lashes must a number divisible by three.

(Beraisa): He brings a Korban only when she is lashed.

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (Rava) Question: "V'Ish Ki Yishkav Es Ishah Shichvas Zera v'Hi Shifchah Necheref l'Ish v'Hefdeh Lo Nifdasah Oh Chufsah Lo Nitan Lah Bikores Tihyeh Lo Yumsu Ki Lo Chupasah; ("v'Hevi Es Ashamo... )" initially discusses the man. Why does it mention her lashes ("Bikores Tihyeh") before his Korban?

Answer: This teaches that he brings a Korban only when she is lashed.

Suggestion: The Torah exempts him from lashes ("Bikores Tihyeh"), but she should be lashed and bring a Korban!

Rejection: "V'Hevi Es Ashamo" excludes her from a Korban.

(R. Yitzchak): If she was a virgin (before relations with him) he is exempt - "v'Hi Shifchah Necherefes l'Ish".

Question: What is the source that "Necherefes" connotes change? (I.e. her Besulim were broken.)

Answer: We learn from "va'Tishtach Alav ha'Rifos." (Th wheat is crushed. "Hei" and "Ches" are interchangeable,so this is like Charifos.) Alternatively, we learn from "Im Tichtosh Es ha'Evil ba'Machtesh b'Soch ha'Rifos ba'Eli".

(Rav Chisda): "V'Yitnu Yadam Lehotzi Nesheihem va'Ashemim Eil Tzon Al Ashmasam" - all (the exiles that returned with Ezra) had had relations with Shifchos Charufos (and brought Korbanos to atone).

(Beraisa - R. Akiva) Suggestion: Perhaps "v'Hefdeh" teaches that she was fully freed!

Rejection: "Lo Nifdasah" (she was not freed).

Suggestion: Perhaps "Lo Nifdasah" teaches that she was not freed!

Rejection: It says "Hefdeh".

Resolution: She was freed, but not fully. She is half-slave and half-free, Me'ureses to an Eved Ivri (who is permitted to a Shifchah. Usually, "Erusin" means Kidushin. Amora'im (Gitin 43a) argue about whether it does here. All agree that regarding a full Shifchah, there is no Kidushin, and it means "designated".)

R. Yishmael says, she is a full Shifchah Me'ureses to an Eved Ivri.

Question: Why does it say "v'Hefdeh Lo Nifdasah"?

Answer: (She was not freed.) The Torah speaks like people (we need not expound the repetition).

R. Elazar ben Azaryah says, all the other Arayos are explicit. The only one left is a half-slave Me'ureses to an Eved Ivri.

Acherim say, "Lo Yumsu Ki Lo Chupasah" - she is a full Shifchah Me'ureses to an Eved Kena'ani.

Question: Granted, regarding "v'Hefdeh Lo Nifdasah," R. Yishmael holds that the Torah speaks like people;

However, what is his source that she is Me'ureses to an Eved Ivri? (Perhaps she is Me'ureses to an Eved Kena'ani! We do not ask R. Akiva's reason, for only an Eved Ivri is permitted to both the slave and free parts of her.)

Answer: "Ki Lo Chupasah" (she was not freed), but he was free.

Question: R. Elazar ben Azaryah does not argue with R. Akiva!

Answer: R. Elazar addresses R. Yishmael:

Normally, I agree that the Torah speaks like people, but here is different;

Question: "Ki Lo Chupasah" already teaches that she was not freed. Surely, we must expound "v'Hefdeh Lo Nifdasah"!

Answer: It teaches that she is half-free.

Question: Granted, regarding "v'Hefdeh Lo Nifdasah," Acherim hold that the Torah speaks like people;

What is Acherim's source that she is designated to an Eved Kena'ani?

Answer: We do not need "Ki Lo Chupasah" to teach that she was not freed, so we use it to teach that he was not freed.

(Mishnah): Regarding all other Arayos:

If one party was an adult and the other a minor, the minor is exempt;

If one party was awake and the other asleep, the latter is exempt;

If one was Shogeg and the other Mezid, the Shogeg brings a Korban, and the Mezid is Chayav Kares.

(Gemara) Question: May we infer that here that a minor is liable?!

Answer (Rav Yehudah): No. Regarding all other Arayos, the adult is liable, and the minor is exempt;

Regarding Shifchah, also the adult is exempt.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: The Torah equates them. (He brings a Korban only when she is lashed.)

Question: Regarding other Arayos, the sleeping party is exempt. May we infer that here, he or she is liable?!

Answer (Rav Yehudah): No. Regarding all other Arayos, the awake party is liable, and the sleeper is exempt;

Regarding Shifchah, also the awake party is exempt.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: The Torah equates them.

(Tana (a reciter of Beraisos) - Beraisa): One who is Gomer (does a complete act of relations) is considered like one who did Ha'arah. One who intended is considered like one who did not intend. K'Darkah (normal relations) is considered like Lo k'Darkah. One who was awake is considered like one who was sleeping. (This entire Beraisa will be explained.)

Questions (Rav Sheshes): If this refers to Shifchah Charufah, it should not consider Gomer like Ha'arah. Regarding Shifchah, only Gomer is liable!

Why does it consider one who intended (to have relations) like one who did not? The former is liable, the latter is exempt!

It should not consider k'Darkah like Lo k'Darkah. Regarding Shifchah, only k'Darkah is liable!

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: It says "Shichvas Zera" (R. Gershom - she is Mazra'as only k'Darkah).

Why is one who was awake like one who was sleeping?

If the Beraisa discusses other Arayos, it should not say that Gomer is like Ha'arah. Just the contrary, the Chidush is that Ha'arah is like Gomer!

Tana: I will cease to teach the Beraisa. (It is mistaken.)

Answer (Rav Sheshes): It is proper. It refers to Shifchah. It means as follows:

One who is Gomer Lo k'Darkah is exempt, like one who did Ha'arah k'Darkah, for it says "Shichvas Zera";

One who had intent (and had relations) Lo k'Darkah is exempt, like one who did not intend, k'Darkah, for it says "Shichvas Zera";

One who was awake (and had relations) Lo k'Darkah is exempt, like one who was sleeping, k'Darkah, for it says "Shichvas Zera". (This suffices to explain the Beraisa. R. Gershom - the Gemara now gives another explanation, that the Beraisa contrasts Shifchah with other Arayos. Shitah - the continuation shows that Shifchah differs only regarding Ha'arah and Lo k'Darkah, but not regarding intent.)

One who did Ha'arah with intent on a Shifchah is exempt, like one who did not intend regarding other Arayos;

One who was sleeping, k'Darkah is (exempt,) like one who was sleeping regarding other Arayos;

One who was awake, Lo k'Darkah is exempt regarding Shifchah, like one who was sleeping regarding other Arayos.

(Mishnah): If they told Ploni "you ate Chelev", he brings a Chatas;

If one witness says "he ate Chelev" and one witness says "he did not eat", or if a woman says "he ate Chelev" and another woman says "he did not eat", he brings an Asham Taluy. (R. Gershom - a verse teaches that a woman's testimony can obligate Korbanos.)

If one witness says "you ate Chelev" and Ploni says "I did not eat", he is exempt.

R. Meir says, if two witnesses say "you ate Chelev" and he says "I did not eat"; he brings a Chatas;

Two witnesses can (testify about a capital Aveirah and) cause a man to be killed. All the more so they can obligate him to bring a Chatas!

Chachamim: No. Ploni could have said "I ate b'Mezid" and he would be exempt (this will be explained).

If one ate Chelev twice in one He'elem, he is liable only once;

If he ate Chelev, blood, Pigul, and Nosar in one He'elem, he is liable for each one. This is a stringency of different Isurim over (multiple transgressions of) one Isur.

A stringency of one Isur over different Isurim is that if one ate half a k'Zayis, and then another half a k'Zayis in one He'elem --

If they were both the same Isur, he is liable; if they were different Isurim, he is exempt.

(Gemara - Mishnah): If they told Ploni, "you ate Chelev", he brings a Chatas.

Question: How many people told him?

Version #1 - Answer: "They" connotes two.

Question: What does Ploni say?

Answer #1: He is silent.

Inference: If one witness says "you ate Chelev", and Ploni is silent, he is exempt;

Rejection (the middle clause): If one witness says "you ate Chelev" and Ploni says "I did not eat", he is exempt.

Inference: Had he been silent, he would be liable!

Answer #2: Ploni contradicts them. (Even so, he is liable).

Question: Who is the Tana of the Reisha?

Answer: It is R. Meir, who says that (even regarding Korban) one cannot contradict two witnesses, but Chachamim exempt.

Question: Why does the Reisha teach this? The Seifa explicitly teaches this!

Answer: The Seifa explains that R. Meir and Chachamim argue about the Reisha;

This is only if Ploni contradicts the witnesses. (If not, all agree that he is liable.)

Version #2 - Answer (to Question (b)): "They (told Ploni)" can refer to one (witness);

(Mishnah): A man went overseas, and they told his wife that he died. She remarried, and her husband returned. The following fines apply: she may not remain with either man...

Even though there was only one witness, it says "they".

Question: What is the source that there it refers to one witness?

Answer (Seifa): If she remarried without permission of Beis Din, she may return to her first husband.

Without permission means (without the enactment of Beis Din, rather,) according to two witnesses.

Inference: In the Reisha, "with permission of Beis Din" refers to one witness.

Conclusion: Also in our Mishnah, even though there was only one witness, it says "they".

Question: What does Ploni say?

Suggestion: He contradicts the witness.

Rejection: If so, he would be exempt!

(Seifa): If one witness says "you ate Chelev" and Ploni says "I did not eat", he is exempt.

Answer #1: He is silent.

Question: The Reisha can be inferred from the Seifa!

(Seifa): If one witness says "you ate Chelev" and Ploni says "I did not eat"; he is exempt.

Inference: Had he been silent, he would be liable!

Answer #2: Indeed, Ploni does not contradict the witness. The Mishnah means as follows:

If they (one witness) say "you ate Chelev" and Ploni is silent, he brings a Chatas;

This is only if Ploni is silent. If he contradicts the witness, he is exempt.

Question: What is the source that he is liable mid'Oraisa if he does not contradict him?

Answer (Beraisa): "Oh Hoda Elav Chataso (one brings a Chatas if he finds out that he sinned)", but not if witnesses told him.

Suggestion: Perhaps he is exempt even if he does not deny it!

Rejection: " Oh Hoda Elav" obligates in any case.

Question: What is the case?

If two witnesses came and he did not contradict them, we would not need a verse!

Answer: Rather, there is one witness. If Ploni does not contradict him, the witness is believed.