(a)(Continuation of Beraisa) Question: This is only if she married a Kohen (this will be explained). What is the source even if she married a Levi, Yisrael, Nochri, Chalal (one born from Isurei Kehunah) , Mamzer (one born from a Bi'ah of Kares), or Nesin (one of the seven Kena'ani nations)?

(b)Answer: 'U'Vas Ish Kohen" includes even if she is not a Kohenes.

1."Hi" - she is burned, but not the adulterer, and not Zomemim witnesses who testified about her.

(c)R. Eliezer says, "Es Aviha" is burned, but her father-in- law is stoned (this will be explained).

(d)Question: How could the Beraisa suggest that she is burned for Chilul Shabbos? One is stoned for this!

(e)Answer (Rava): The Beraisa is R. Shimon, who says that burning is more severe than stoning;

1.The Torah is stringent about Kohanim. They have extra Mitzvos. One might have thought that a Bas Kohen gets a harsher Misah for Chilul Shabbos than a Yisrael does.

(f)Question: Why would she be punished more severely than her father?

(g)Answer: Male Kohanim may be Mechalel Shabbos to do Avodah, so the Torah is not extra stringent if they Mechalel Shabbos without permission;

1.The Torah teaches that we are not more stringent for a Bas Kohen, even though she is never permitted to Mechalel Shabbos.

(h)Question: How could the Beraisa suggest that even a single girl is burned? It says "Liznos"!

(i)Answer: The Tana holds like R. Eliezer, who says that if two singles have Bi'ah without intent for Kidushin, she becomes a Zonah (and is forbidden to Kohanim, i.e. this is called Zenus).

(j)Question: The Beraisa suggested that perhaps "Aviha" teaches that she is burned only if she was Mezanah with her father. Even a Bas Yisrael is burned for this!

1.(Rava): We learn from Gezeros Shavos "Henah-Henah" and "Zimah-Zimah" (that a man is burned for Bi'ah with his daughter).

(k)Answer: One might have thought that the Torah taught that a Bas Kohen is burned, and we infer that a Bas Yisrael is not burned, i.e. we do not learn from the Gezeros Shavos;

1.The Tana teaches that this is not so.

(l)(Beraisa) Question: This is only if she married a Kohen. What is the source for a Bas Kohen who married a Levi, Yisrael, Nochri, Chalal, Mamzer, or Nesin?

(m)Answer: 'U'Vas Ish Kohen" includes even if she is not a Kohenes.

(n)Question #1: If a Bas Kohen married one of these people, does she cease to be a Kohenes?! (Why would we think that she is not burned?)

(o)Question #2: What suggests that the verse discusses when she married a Kohen?

(p)Answer: One might have thought that "Ki Sechel Liznos" refers to when the Zenus profaned her, but if she was already profaned, she is not burned.

1."U'Vas" teaches that once she had Bi'ah with someone forbidden to her, she is disqualified (permanently from marrying a Kohen or eating Terumah).

2.Even when she was married to a Levi or Yisrael, "v'Shavah" (after she is widowed or divorced, she resumes to eat Terumah)" implies that during the marriage, she was forbidden to eat Terumah.

3.Therefore, one might have thought that (she is not considered a Kohenes, and she) is not burned for Zenus. The Tana teaches that this is not so.

(q)This is not like R. Meir.

1.(Mishnah - R. Meir): If a Bas Kohen was married to a Levi or Yisrael, and she ate Terumah, she pays its value, but does not add a fifth. She is burned (for Zenus):

2.If she was married to someone forbidden, she pays its value and adds a fifth (like a non-Kohen), and she is not burned.

3.Chachamim say, in both cases she does not add a fifth, and she is burned.

4.R. Eliezer says, "Es Aviha" she is burned. 'Es Chameha (her father-in-law)', she is stoned.


(a)Question: What does R. Eliezer mean?

1.Suggestion: She is burned for Bi'ah with her father, and she is stoned for Bi'ah with her father-in-law.

2.Rejection: That applies even to a Bas Yisrael!

(b)Answer: Rather, if she was (an Arusah, who lives) with her father, she is burned (for Zenus). If she was with her father-in-law (Nesu'ah), she is stoned.

(c)Question: Like whom is this?

1.It is unlike Chachamim. They say that an Arusah (Bas Kohen) is stoned, and not burned!

2.It is unlike R. Shimon. He says that also a Nesu'ah is burned!

3.It is unlike R. Yishmael. He says that only an Arusah is burned, but not a Nesu'ah. A Nesu'ah is choked!

(d)Answer #1 (Ravin): Really, it is like Chachamim. It means, any Zenus (i.e. of a Nesu'ah) for which a Bas Yisrael is killed less severely (choking) than for Zenus with her father (burning), a Bas Kohen is burned for it;

1.Any Zenus (i.e. of an Arusah) for which a Bas Yisrael is killed more severely (stoning) than for Zenus with her father (burning), a Bas Kohen is killed like one who was Mezanah with her father-in- law (stoning).

(e)Objection (R. Yirmeyah): The Mishnah does not discuss more or less severe Misos!

(f)Answer #2 (R. Yirmeyah): Really, it is like R. Yishmael;


1.If she was Mezanah while with her father (Mekudeshes) she is burned. If she was (Nesu'ah and was) Mezanah with her father-in-law, she is stoned;

2.If she was Mezanah with anyone else, she is choked.

(g)Objection (Rava): The Mishnah says 'Es Aviha... Es Chameha' - either both refer to the adulterer, or both refer to location!

(h)Answer #3 (Rava): Really, it is like R. Shimon;

1.R. Shimon equates a Nesu'ah to an Arusah. Just like the Misah of an Arusah Bas Kohen (burning) is one level greater than that of a Bas Yisrael (stoning), also the Misah of a Nesu'ah Bas Kohen is (stoning,) one level greater than that (choking) of a Bas Yisrael.

(i)Objection (R. Chanina): R. Shimon explicitly said that a Bas Kohen is burned, whether she is Arusah or Nesu'ah!

(j)Answer #4 (Ravina): Really, it is like Chachamim. We must switch the laws. "Es Aviha" (when she is with her father, i.e. Arusah) she is stoned. When she is 'Es Chameha', she is burned;

1.Version #1 (Rashi): The Tana did not directly say 'Arusah' or 'Nesu'ah', for he uses the expressions of the Torah.

2.Version #2 (Tosfos): The Tana taught it reversed because this is the law of Zenus with them (burning for the father, stoning for the father-in- law).

(k)(Rav Nachman): The Halachah follows Ravin's explanation of the Mishnah.

(l)Objection (Rav Yosef): This (law of Misas Beis Din) has no bearing until Moshi'ach will come (and the Sanhedrin will be restored. People will not sin then!)

(m)Question (Abaye): Also Korbanos will not apply until Moshi'ach comes. Should we not learn this now?!

1.Rather, we study it and receive reward. Likewise, Rav Nachman teaches a Halachah about Misas Beis Din!

(n)Rav Yosef: I asked why Rav Nachman said that the Halachah follows Ravin. Ravina does not argue with him about Halachah, just about how to explain the wording of the Mishnah. (In any case it will not apply until Mashi'ach, and then will be Techiyas ha'Mesim, and R. Eliezer will explain himself!)


(a)Question: What is R. Yishmael's opinion?

(b)Answer (Beraisa - R. Yishmael): 'U'Vas Ish Kohen..." discusses a Na'arah Me'orasah.

1.Suggestion: Perhaps it also discusses a Nesu'ah!

2.Rejection: "Mos Yumas ha'Noef veha'No'afes" refers to all adulterers (and Mos Yumas connotes choking);

i.The Torah taught two exceptions. An Arusah Bas Yisrael is stoned, and a Bas Kohen is burned;

ii.The exception of stoning applies only to an Arusah Bas Yisrael, but not to a Nesu'ah. Likewise, the exception of burning applies only to an Arusah Bas Kohen, but not to a Nesu'ah.

3."Ka'asher Zomam" teaches about Zomemeha (lying witnesses who testified about a Bas Kohen) and the adulterer...

4.Objection: How does this teach about the adulterer?!

5.Correction: It means, her Zomemim receive the Misah of the adulterer - "Ka'asher Zomam La'asos l'Achiv", and not as he plotted to do to his 'sister' (i.e. the Bas Kohen).

(c)R. Akiva says, the Torah teaches that a Bas Kohen is burned, whether she is Arusah or Nesu'ah;

1.Suggestion: Perhaps she is burned even if she is single!

2.Rejection: It says here "Aviha", like it says about a Na'arah Me'orasah;

i.Just like there she has a husband, also here.

3.R. Yishmael: If it must be like it says there, it should only apply to a Na'arah Me'orasah!

4.R. Akiva: I expound the extra 'Vov' to include a Nesu'ah - "u'Vas Kohen."

5.R. Yishmael: Is this a reason to burn? If the verse includes a Nesu'ah, you should also include a single girl. If it excludes a single girl, you should also exclude a Nesu'ah!

6.R. Akiva: The Gezerah Shavah excludes a single girl. "U'Vas" includes a Nesu'ah.

7.R. Yishmael thought that when R. Akiva said that he expounds the extra 'Vov', he retracted from the Gezerah Shavah.

(d)Question: How does R. Yishmael expound "U'Vas"?

(e)Answer: He expounds like the father of Shmuel bar Avin.

1.(Shmuel bar Avin's father): Regarding males, the Torah gave different laws for blemished and unblemished Kohanim;

2.Suggestion: Perhaps we also distinguish among females (a blemished Bas Kohen is like a Bas Yisrael, and she is not burned)!

3.Rejection: "U'Vas" (includes even a blemished Bas Kohen).

(f)R. Akiva knows not to distinguish from "Hem Makrivim v'Hayu Kodesh" (blemished Kohanim are disqualified only for Avodah, but they have Kedushas Kehunah).

1.R. Yishmael holds that one might have thought that this is only for males, but a blemished Bas Kohen has no Kedushah.