Question: That P'gam (defect), which is Chayav Sekilah, is more stringent than that of the murderer, which is only Chayav Sayaf?

Answer (Part 1): This is not a Kashya however, since the Pasuk is not concerned here with the Isur, but on the P'gam, since once the sin has already been performed or where the girl is not particular about the P'gam, one is not permitted to save her with the soul of the pursuer, as is evident from the Sugya.

Answer (Part 2): And it is then obvious that the defect of a murdered person is more substantial than that of a Na'arah Me'urasah who has been raped.

Question: From where do we know that the Torah is particular about the P'gam? Perhaps it is particular about the Isur, since it finds it necessary to preclude Oved Avodas-Kochavim, Mechalel Shabbos and Beheimah (see Maharsha)?

Answer #1: Rashi explains later that the Torah is particular about P'gam, from the very fact that it precludes these Isurim (see Maharsha).

Answer #2: One could also say that the fact that the Torah writes "and there is nobody to save her implies that the Torah is concerned about her shame

Clarification (Part 1): And it turns out to be a Lameid as well ...

Clarification (Part 2): since it comes to teach as well, as we will Darshen later 'Just as we say by a murderer "Yehareg ve'Al Ya'avor ... " '.

Precedent #1: Similarly, the case that we learned in Perek Arba Misos ' "Mishkevei Ishah", that teaches us two locations of adultery by a woman', and where the Gemara also concludes 'Harei Zeh Ba Lelamed ve'Nimtza Lameid'. There too, it means 've'Nimtza Af Lameid' ...

Proof #1: Seeing as the Sugya there learns from there the Din of Ha'ara'ah by a male.

Proof #2: And according to Shmuel, that one is Chayav for relations with a male who is three years old.

Precedent #2: Likewise, when the Gemara at the beginning of the second Perek of Chulin, states in connection with the Pasuk "Tzvi ve'Ayal" - 'Harei Zeh Ba Lelamed ve'Nimtza Lameid', one can also explain itin the same light ('Af Lameid'), since it comes to teach the exemption from Matanos by Pesulei ha'Mukdashin as well, as the Gemara Darshens in Bechoros.

Question: But we already know this from the Pasuk (in connection with Machteres) "ve'Hukah", 'be'Chol Adam', as we Darshened on the previous Amud?

Answer: That D'rashah merely permits anyone to kill him, since, as the Torah specifically states, he has no value; whereas the current D'rashah teaches us that one is obligated to do so.

Explanation #1: The Lashon implies that one saves the pursued with the life of the pursuer.

Refutation: It would not be correct however, to explain it in this way by someone who is pursuing an animal and in similar cases.

Explanation #2: The correct explanation therefore seems to be that one saves the person from sinning with his own life.

Problem: There is a Kashya on this however, from Na'arah Me'urasah, by whom the Gemara writes 'she'Nitein Lehatzilah be'Nafshah'?

Question: Seeing as we learn from here that one saves the victim from the pursuer, why do we need a Pasuk with regard to saving someone who is drowning in a river or who is being dragged away by a wild animal? If one is permitted to kill a fellow Yisrael to save the victim, how much more so is one obligated to save him there?

Rejected Answer: Nor is it logical to say that the obligation is stronger when it is a matter of saving the pursuer from sinning.

Answer: It therefore seems that from our Pasuk we can only learn an Asei, whereas from there one also transgresses the La'av of "Lo Sa'amod al Dam Re'echa".

Implied Question: Our Sugya learns from here 'Aveidas Gufo' (returning a lost person). Whereas in 'Eilu Metzi'os' the Gemara learns from the same Pasuk that 'one should not feed a calf to calves'?

Answer: There the Gemara Darshens "Vahashevoso", whereas here it is Darshening "Lo".

Clarification: It is speaking about Arayos, similar to "Na'arah".

Question: Why do we not already know this ruling from the fact that all the Arayos are compared (via a Hekesh) in Acharei-Mos, as the Gemara explains at the beginning of 'ha'Ba al Yevimto'.

Answer: Nevertheless, since the Torah precludes Beheimah, it is clear that our Sugya does not compare them.

Question: But Beheinah is not compared anyway, seeing as the Gemara in Arba Misos requires a Pasuk to include Ha'ara'ah by Beheimah (so how can we learn from Beheimah on to the other Arayos)?

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the Torah writes "Na'ar" (Mikra) though it is written "Na'arah" (Mesores, and we Darshen both Mikra and Mesores.

Implied Question: Even though we say in Perek Eilu Na'aros with regard to K'nas - that wherever the Torah writes "Na'ar" it implies that a Ketanah is also included?

Answer: Here it could well have written 'Na'arah', since it can anyway not be referring to a Ketanah, only to someone who is subject to punishment.

Explanation #2: It is also possible that the Gemara is referring to the many times "Na'arah" that are written in the Parshah.

Refutation (Part 1): However, the Gemara will shortly imply that it Darshens from only one of them (like Rashi), when it says tha 'because it writes "Na'ar" it also writes "Na'arah".

Refutation (Part 2): This means that since the Pasuk wrote "Na'ar" to preclude Beheimah, it wrote "Na'arah", meaning simply that we are bound to read it "Na'arah" seeing as that is who we are talking about.

Clarification: This is not a real Kashya, seeing as we could counter that the other one proves the opposite.

Precedent: Like we answer in Perek Keitzad Tzolin, regarding Tamid and Pesach that over-ride Shabbos and Tum'ah, and from which we do not learn other Korb'nos Tzibur (since each one has a Chumra that the other one does not).

Explanation #1: Had the Torah written only one of them, we would have used it to exclude Beheimah and Shabbos.

Question: But how can one learn Beheimah and Shabbos from the same Pasuk?

Explanation #2: It therefore preferable to explain that from one Pasuk we would learn Avodah-Zarah and Shabbos.

Question: Why do we need a Pasuk at all to exclude Shabbos, the person saving himself will profane Shabbos if he wounds (or kills the sinner), so what is the logic in allowing him to desecrate Shabbos in order to save someone else from desecrating it?

Implied Answer: Nor can we consider this 'Mekalkel ba'Chaburah' (wounding in a way that is destructive, for which one is not Chayav on Shabbos) ...

Refutation: Because, seeing as the sinner is Chayav Misah, this is considered 'Tikunei Gavra' (a constructive act of rectifying the sinner), as the Gemara asks in 'Echad Dinei Mamonos'.

Answer: We would nevertheless have thought that it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv (to save the sinner), like the opinion of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon.

Implied Question: Why is it that all the cases, with the exception of Shabbos, that are mentioned later in Perek ha'Nisrafin, we do not learn from Avodah-Zarah, even though the Torah uses the word "Chilul"?

Answer: That is because it is only in connection with Shabbos and Avodash-Zarah that the Torah writes Chilul in the location where it mentions Misah.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains when he removes her Besulim.

Question #1 (Part 1): But he pays K'nas even without removing her Besulim, as we learned in the first Perek of Kidushin 'If ten men rape are intimate with a Na'arah Besulah and she is stil a Besulah, Rebbi maintains that the first one receives Sekilah and the rest, Chenek ...

Question #1 (Part 2): And we say there that Rebbi concedes that they all pay K'nas?

Question#2: And in Perek ha'Ba al Yevimto we establish the Pasuk "ve'Lo Sih'yeh le'Ishah" (in connection with a Kohen Gadol who raped a girl) by a woman whom he is able to marry, to preclude an Almanah to a Kohen Gadol, where he had unnatural relations with her (so that her Besulim still remain), yet he is Chayav to pay K'nas?

Explanation #2: The reason that one does pay K'nas for the Techilas Bi'ah must therefore be because of 'Kam leih be'de'Rabah Mineih'; since he is Chayav Misah for Ha'ara'ah, therefore he cannot be Chayav K'nas until the G'mar Bi'ah. However, in a normal case of rape, one becomes obligated to pay K'nas already from the moment he performs Ha'ara'ah.

Explanation #3 (Part 1): Other commentaries explain that Ha'ara'ah is only considered like G'mar Bi'ah with regard to Arayos, Chayvei La'avin and Asei, Yevamah and man and wife ...

Explanation #3 (Part 2): But not with regard to K'nas.

Question: But according to the opinion that defines Ha'arah as Hachnasa Atarah, if the rapist is not is not Chayav for Ha'ara'ah, then seeing as at the G'mar Bi'ah she is not a Besulah, why will ever be Chayav?

Answer: This is not a problem, since we apply the principle that 'be'Hachi Chayveih Rachmana (This is how the Torah declares him Chayav)'.

Proof (Part 1): A proof for this is the fact that we do not learn Ha'ara'ah from Na'arah ha'Me'urasah ...

Proof (Part 2): Where we could ask that if Ha'ara'ah would be Patur, then how could he be Chayav for the G'mar Bi'ah, seeing as she is no longer a Besulah?

Proof (Part 3): We are therefore forced to say 'be'Hachi Chayveih Rachmana'.

Yerushalmi: The Yerushalmi in Kesuvos however, rules that if ten men rape a Na'arah Me'urasah and she is still a Besulah, they must all pay K'nas, implying that one does pay K'nas for Ha'ara'ah.

Clarification: The Mishnah, which confines the Din of K'nas to a Na'arah; is not entirely like R. Yehudah,who extends it to a Ketanah as well (as is evident in Perek Eilu Na'aros).

Question (Part 1): How can the Gemara establish the case by Mefutah (a girl who was seduced), seeing as the Seifa rules that 'Eishes Achiv is subject to K'nas'. Now this must be speaking about a Na'arah who was betrothed and divorced (otherwise it would be a case of Chayvei Misos, who are Patur from K'nas, as we learned in the Mishnah in Kesuvos).

Question (Part 2): And the Knas of a Na'arah who was betrothed and divorced goes to the Na'arah herself, as R. Akiva rules in the Seifa.

Question (Part 3): And if it is speaking about a Mefutah, a Mefutah is automatically Mochel (foregoes) the K'nas?

Suggested Answer: And the reason that our Mishnah cannot hold like R. Akiva in the Beraisa, who maintains that a Na'arah who was betrothed and divorced receives K'nas, and that the K'nas belongs to her father, is ...

Refutation (Part 1): Because the Seifa rules that 'Someone who is intimate with his daughter, is Patur from K'nas, because he is Chayav Misah - and this too is speaking about a Na'arah who was betrothed and divorced.

Refutation (Part 2): And if the K'nas would go to her father even if someone else would have had relations with her, then even if he would not be Chayav Misah, he would not be Chayav to pay?

Suggested answer: Nor can one answer that the Tana needs to teach us there where she did not manage to go to Beis-Din before she became a Bogeres ...

Refutation: Because how is going to Beis-Din applicable there where the K'nas belongs to the father?

Answer (Explanation #1): It therefore appears that even by a Mefutah, he will be Chayav to pay the K'nas to her, there where she specifically states at the time that he was intimate with her that she is not Mochel the K'nas.

Yerushalmi (Explanation #2): The Yerushalmi however asks the Kashya. And it establishes the case where she did not manage to go to Beis-Din before her father died (See Maharam).

Proof (Part 1): One can however, prove that our Mishnah cannot hold like R. Akiva in the Beraisa (See Maharam).

Proof (Part 2): This is because Rav Papa holds in 'Eilu Na'aros' that it is a Chidush that Torah has initiated by K'nas, and the Gemara there explains that those who hold that it is a Chidush holds like R. Akiva in the Mishnah ...

Yerushalmi (Explanation #3 [Part 1]): In theYerushalmi in Perek Na'aros, in connection with the Mishnah regarding a Yesomah who became betrothed and then divorced, there is a Machlokes Amora'im ...

Yerushalmi (Part 2): One opinion holds that a Mefateh is Patur from Boshes and P'gam, but Chayav K'nas, because the girl cannot be Mochel. In which case it is possible to establish Rav Papa in our Sugya like that opinion.

Yerushalmi (Part 3): And the opinion that holds there that the Mefateh is Patur from everything, will hold like one of the other answers in our Sugya.