1)

(a)We initially assume that Sekilah is more stringent than Sayaf for the same reason that it is more stringent than S'reifah. Why might we have thought otherwise? Which sin constitutes Poshet Yad be'Ikar, yet is punishable by Sayaf (and not Sekilah)?

(b)What leads us to ...

1. ... believe that Ir ha'Nidachas is more stringent than Megadef and Oved-Avodah-Zarah?

2. ... the conclusion that Sekilah is more stringent than Sayaf after all?

(c)From where do we know that the Madichin are sentenced to Sekilah?

1)

(a)We initially assume that Sekilah is more stringent than Sayaf for the same reason that it is more stringent than S'reifah ('she'Kein Nitnah li'Megadef ... '). Nevertheless, we might have thought otherwise - because of Ir ha'Nidachas, which constitutes Poshet Yad be'Ikar too, yet it is punishable by Sayaf (and not Sekilah).

(b)What leads us to ...

1. ... believe that Ir ha'Nidachas is more stringent than Megadef and Oved-Avodah-Zarah is - the fact that the residents property must be destroyed.

2. ... the conclusion that Sekilah is more stringent than Sayaf after all is - the fact that the Madichin themselves (who enticed the residents of the Ir ha'Nidachas to sin) receive Sekilah, and it is obvious that they are worse than the residents themselves.

(c)We know that the Madichin are sentenced to Sekilah - from a Beraisa, which specifically says so.

2)

(a)We initially assume that Sekilah is more stringent than Chenek for the same reason that it is more stringent than S'reifah. On what grounds do we then suggest that perhaps Chenek is at least as stringent as Sekilah (see Tosfos DH 'Adraba')? Which sin might be as stringent as Megadef and Avodah-Zarah?

(b)So we attribute the stringency of Sekilah over Chenek to the fact that a Na'arah ha'me'Urasah receives Sekilah, whereas a Nusu'ah receives only Chenek. On what grounds is an Arusah more stringent than a Nesu'ah?

2)

(a)We initially assume that Sekilah is more stringent than Chenek for the same reason as it is more stringent than S'reifah. On the other hand, we suggest, perhaps Chenek is at least as stringent as Sekilah (see Tosfos DH 'Adraba'), because it is given to someone who strikes his parents (whose honor is compared to that of Hash-m).

(b)So we attribute the stringency of Sekilah over Chenek to the fact that a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah receives Sekilah, whereas a Nusu'ah receives only Chenek. What makes an Arusah more stringent than a Nesu'ah is - the fact that her change of status from a Besulah to a Be'ulah comes about through Z'nus (causing a stain to both her and her family), which Z'nus with a married woman (who is already a Be'ulah, does not do).

3)

(a)Initially, we are unsure which is more stringent, S'reifah or Sayaf. Why might we think that the more stringent of the two is ...

1. ... S'reifah?

2. ... Sayaf?

(b)What do we ultimately conclude from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Avihah" ("es Avihah Hi Mechaleles [by S'reifas bas Kohen]) "Avihah" ("li'Zenos beis Avihah (by a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah])?

(c)And how do we learn that Sereifah is more stringent than Chenek from a Nesu'ah bas Kohen?

(d)Initially, we are unsure which is more stringent, Sayaf or Chenek. What stringency does ...

1. ... Sayaf have over Chenek?

2. ... Chenek have over Sayaf?

(e)So what do we conclude?

3)

(a)Initially, we are unsure which is more stringent, S'reifah or Sayaf (Sayaf). We might think that the more stringent of the two is ...

1. ... S'reifah - because it is given to a bas-Kohen who committed adultery.

2. ... Sayaf - because it is given to the residents of an Ir ha'Nidachas.

(b)We ultimately conclude from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Avihah" ("es Avihah Hi Mechaleles [by S'reifas bas Kohen]) "Avihah" ("li'Zenos beis Avihah [by a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah]) - that just as Sekilah is more stringent than Sayaf, so too, is S'reifah.

(c)And we learn that S'reifah is more stringent than Chenek from a Nesu'ah bas Kohen - who receives S'reifah, instead of the Chenek that a bas Yisrael receives.

(d)Initially, we are unsure which is more stringent, Sayaf or Chenek. The stringency of ...

1. ... Sayaf over Chenek is - the fact that it is given to the residents of Ir ha'Nidachas.

2. ... Chenek have over Sayaf is - the fact that it is given to someone who strikes his father or mother.

(e)We conclude that nevertheless - the former is more stringent, since it constitutes 'Poshet Yado ba'Ikar'.

4)

(a)Rebbi Shimon considers S'reifah more stringent than Sekilah. Does he not agree with the fact that 'Poshet Yado be'Ikar' is the worst sin?

(b)From where does he learn that S'reifah is more stringent than Chenek, in spite of the fact that someone who strikes his father or mother receives Chenek?

(c)What punishment do the Madichei Ir ha'Nadachas receive, according to Rebbi Shimon?

(d)Based on this fact, how do we know that S'reifah is more stringent than Sayaf (despite the fact that Sayaf is given to the residents of Ir ha'Nidachas)?

4)

(a)Rebbi Shimon considers S'reifah more stringent than Sekilah. In principle, he agrees with the fact that 'Poshet Yado be'Ikar' is the worst sin - but maintains that when the Torah sentences a bas Kohen to S'reifah, it incorporates an Arusah, in which case, we have no choice but to declare S'reifah more stringent than Sekilah (since a Na'arah bas Yisrael receives Sekilah).

(b)And he learns that, in spite of the fact that someone who strikes his father or mother receives Chenek, S'reifah is more stringent than Chenek - from the fact that the Torah takes a Nesu'ah bas Kohen from Chenek to Sereifah.

(c)According to Rebbi Shimon, the Madichei Ir ha'Nadachas receive Chenek (a proof that Chenek is more stringent than Sayaf, which is what the residents receive).

(d)Based on this fact, we know that S'reifah is more stringent than Sayaf (despite the fact that Sayaf is given to the residents of Ir ha'Nidachas) - because if, as we proved earlier, S'reifah is more stringent than Chenek, it is certainly more stringent than Sayaf (which as we just proved, is less stringent than Chenek).

50b----------------------------------------50b

5)

(a)We already learned according to the Chachamim, that Sekilah is more stringent than Chenek, from the fact that a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah receives Sekilah, whereas a Nusu'ah receives only Chenek. From which 'Kal va'Chomer' does Rebbi Shimon learn that Sekilah is more stringent than Sayaf?

5)

(a)We already learned according to the Chachamim, that Sekilah is more stringent than Chenek, from the fact that a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah receives Sekilah, whereas a Nusu'ah receives only Chenek. Rebbi Shimon learns that Sekilah is more stringent than Sayaf from a 'Kal va'Chomer' - from the fact that it is more stringent than Chenek (which, in his opinion, is more stringent than Sayaf). That in turn, he knows from the fact that the Madichei Ir ha'Nidachas receive Chenek, whereas the residents receive only Sayaf, as we explained earlier.

6)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan would often say that according to the Rabbanan, a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah bas Kohen who commits adultery remains Chayav Sekilah, whereas according to Rebbi Shimon, she is Chayav S'reifah (as we already learned). What is the basis of their Machlokes?

(b)What does he say in a case where a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah has relations with her father, according to ...

1. ... the Rabbanan?

2. ... Rebbi Shimon?

(c)Why does Rebbi Yochanan need to add this second Machlokes?

6)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan would often say that according to the Rabbanan, a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah bas Kohen who commits adultery remains Chayav Sekilah, whereas according to Rebbi Shimon, she is Chayav Sereifah (as we already learned). The basis of their Machlokes is - whether Sekilah is more stringent than S'reifah (the Rabbanan) or vice-versa (Rebbi Shimon).

(b)In a case where a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah has relations with her father, Rebbi Yochanan says that, according to ...

1. ... the Rabbanan - she receives Sekilah.

2. ... Rebbi Shimon - she receives S'reifah.

(c)Rebbi Yochanan add this second Machlokes - to demonstrate the application of the Machlokes, since it is in the latter case that, according to each Tana, she is Chayav two punishments, of which she receives the more stringent one.

7)

(a)To whom does the Pasuk in Kedoshim "Mos Yumas (Chenek) ha'No'ef ve'ha'No'afes" refer?

(b)What are the two 'K'lalim' (rules) by a bas Kohen to which Rebbi Shimon refers?

(c)What does he mean when he says ...

1. ... 'Ne'emru be'Bas Kohen'? Does he mean to preclude a bas Yisrael?

2. ... 've'Hotzi ha'Kasuv Nesu'ah mi'Chelal Nesu'ah, va'Arusah mi'Chelal Arusah'?

(d)And what does Rebbi Shimon say about the Zom'min of ...

1. ... a Nesu'ah bas Kohen?

2. ... an Arusah bas Kohen?

7)

(a)The Pasuk in Kedoshim "Mos Yumas (Chenek) ha'No'ef ve'ha'No'afes" refers - both to a bas Yisrael and a bas Kohen.

(b)The two 'K'lalim' (rules) by a bas Kohen to which Rebbi Shimon refers are - the above Chiyuv by a Nesu'ah and the second Pasuk in Ki Seitzei which takes an Arusah out of the Din of Nesu'ah, rendering her subject to a Chiyuv Sekilah.

(c)When he says ...

1. ... 'Ne'emru be'Bas Kohen', he means - even a bas Kohen, who initially appears to have the same Din as a bas Yisrael (since the Torah makes no distinction between the two).

2. ... 've'Hotzi ha'Kasuv Nesu'ah mi'Chelal Nesu'ah, va'Arusah mi'Chelal Arusah', he means that - the Torah does indeed give a bas Kohen an independent Din, both as regards a Nesu'ah and as regards an Arusah (who both receive S'reifah, and who, in his opinion, are both more stringent than a bas Yisrael).

(d)And Rebbi Shimon concludes by comparing the Zom'min of ...

1. ... a Nesu'ah bas Kohen - to a Nesu'ah bas Yisrael (who receives Chenek).

2. ... an Arusah bas Kohen - to an Arusah bas Yisrael (who receives Sekilah).

8)

(a)The Torah writes "u'Vas Ish Kohen Ki Seicheil ... , es Avihah Hi Mechaleles, ba'Eish Tisaref". From where does the Beraisa learn that the Pasuk is not referring to a bas Kohen who desecrates Shabbos?

(b)And what does the Tana learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Avihah" "Avihah" (from Na'arah ha'Me'urasah)?

(c)On what grounds do we refute the suggestion that the Torah writes "Avihah" to confine the Din of a bas Kohen to where she committed adultery with her father (but not with anybody else)?

8)

(a)The Torah writes "u'Vas Ish Kohen Ki Seichel ... , es Avihah Hi Mechaleles, ba'Eish Tisaref". The Pasuk cannot refer to a bas Kohen who desecrates Shabbos, says the Berasia - because the Torah adds the word "li'Zenos", thereby confining this ruling to one who commits adultery.

(b)And the Tana learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Avihah" "Avihah" (from Na'arah ha'Me'urasah) that - like a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah, a bas Kohen is only Chayav S'reifah, if she is betrothed, but not if she is single.

(c)We refute the suggestion that the Torah writes "Avihah" to confine the Din of a bas Kohen to where she committed adultery with her father (but not with anybody else) - because "es Avihah Hi Mechaleles" implies that she desecrates him, but he does not desecrate her, clearly indicating that it is with other men, and not with her father, that she committed adultery.

9)

(a)We suggest that perhaps the 'Gezeirah-Shavah', from Na'arah ha'Me'urasah also serves to confine the Din of bas Kohen to a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah exclusively. Which three cases, besides an old woman, would this preclude?

(b)From which extra letter do we then include them?

(c)What do we learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "u'Vas Ish Kohen"?

2. ... "es Avihah *Hi* Mechaleles"?

(d)What happens to the latter two?

9)

(a)We suggest that perhaps the 'Gezeirah-Shavah', from Na'arah ha'Me'urasah also serves to confine the Din of bas Kohen to a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah exclusively, to preclude an old woman - a Na'arah who is married, and a Bogeres who is either betrothed or married.

(b)We include them however - from the extra 'Vav' in "u'Vas Kohen".

(c)We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "u'Vas Ish Kohen" - to include a bas Kohen who is married to a Levi, a Yisrael, a Nochri (see Rashash), a Chalal, a Mamzer or a Nasin, in the Din of bas Kohen.

2. ... "es Avihah *Hi* Mechaleles" - to preclude the Bo'el and her Zom'min from the special Din (of S'reifah) of a bas Kohen.

(d)They, in fact - receive Chenek (as if she was a bas Yisrael [as we learned earlier).

10)

(a)Bearing in mind that a bas Kohen who is married to a Mamzer or a Nasin transgresses a La'av, how can she be considered married?

(b)How can we say that, seeing as we will shortly establish this Beraisa like Rebbi Akiva, who holds that Kidushin do not take effect on Chayvei La'avin?

10)

(a)Despite the fact that a bas Kohen who is married to a Mamzer or a Nasin transgresses a La'av, she is nevertheless considered married - because the Kidushin of Chayvei La'avin is effective (as we learned in Yevamos).

(b)Granted, we will shortly establish this Beraisa like Rebbi Akiva, who holds that Kidushin do not take effect by Chayvei La'avin - but this Beraisa holds like those who establish Rebbi Akiva by La'avin di'She'er (milder cases of incest), such as Anusas Aviv (for which there is no Kareis), but not by other La'avin.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF