1)

(a)The Beraisa learns from the fact that the Pasuk "Bikores Tih'yeh" (in connection with Shifchah Charufah) is written ...

1. ... in the feminine form that - the Shifchah Charufah receives Malkos.

2. ... in the singular that - the man does not.

(b)Rebbi Yitzchak learns from the word "Bikores" (which he Darshens as "bi'Keri'ah") that - she is punished with Malkos (since it in that connection that the Torah mentions the Mitzvah of reading out, as we will see shortly).

(c)Rav Ashi Darshens the word as Bikur Tih'yeh - meaning examination, since the Beis-Din examines each candidate for Malkos, to verify that he is fit to receive Malkos, and if so, how many he can take.

(d)Rebbi Yitzchak's D'rashah is based on a Beraisa, which teaches us that the senior Dayan reads the Parshah - the second Dayan counts the Malkos, and the third one instructs the whipper to deliver the next stroke.

2)

(a)The Beraisa rules in a case where the Shifchah does not receive Malkos that - the man does not bring a Korban.

(b)The Tana is talking about a girl who is Patur from Malkos - because she is under bas-Mitzvah.

(c)Rava learn this from the fact that the Pasuk places "Bikores Tih'yeh" in the middle of the Pasuk that deals with the Halachah pertaining to the man ("ve'Ish ki Yishkav es Ishah ... " on one side, and "ve'Heivi es Ashamo la'Hashem" on the other) - to compare the man to the Shifchah Charufah (since "Bikores Tih'yeh" refers to her, as we already explained), to teach us that if she is Patur, then he is Patur too, and vice-versa.

(d)And from "ve'Heivi es Ashamo la'Hashem" (which is written specifically in the masculine) we learn that - the woman is not Chayav to bring a Korban as well.

3)

(a)Rebbi Yitzchak qualifies the Din of Shifchah Charufah - confining it to where the Shifchah is a Be'ulah (who previously had relations with a man). Otherwise, they will not be Chayav.

(b)And he bases this on his interpretation of "Necherefes le'Ish", which he learns from the Pasuk "va'Tishtach alav ha'Rifos" - which means ground grain (grain that has been changed).

(c)Likewise, the Shifchah's status must have been changed (through Bi'ah, which Chazal also sometimes refer to as threshing).

(d)Commenting on the Pasuk in Ezra "va'Yitnu Yadam Lehotzi Nesheihem va'Asheimim Eil Tzon al Ashmasam, Rav Chisda comments that they all had relations with a Shifchah Charufah - which he extrapolates from the reference to "Asham" in the Pasuk (which, as we learned in our Mishnah, is confined to having relations with a Shifchah Charufah).

4)

(a)We already learned in our Mishnah how Rebbi Akiva interprets "ve'Hafdeh Lo Nifdasah". In the Beraisa, he interprets "Necherefes le'Ish" to mean that - she is betrothed to an Eved Ivri (since a regular Yisrael is forbidden to her).

(b)Rebbi Yishmael interprets ...

1. ... "Necherefes le'Ish" - in the same way as Rebbi Akiva just interpreted it.

2. ... the double Lashon of the words "ve'Hafdeh Lo Nifdasah" - according to the principle Dibrah Torah ki'Leshon B'nei Adam (in which case, it does not come to teach us anything).

3. ... "ki Lo Chufashah" (in the feminine) to teach us that - the man is free (that she is a Shifchah Cana'anis, but not he, in which case he must be an Eved Ivri).

(c)Besides the opinion of Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah (which we will discuss shortly), the Beraisa also cites the opinion of Acherim, who basically concurs with Rebbi Yishmael - but who disagrees with him with regard to which kind of Eved she is betrothed (as we will see shortly).

5)

(a)Both our Mishnah and the Beraisa cite the opinion of Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, who concurs with Rebbi Akiva. In fact - he was actually speaking to Rebbi Yishmael, and what he said was that, although he agreed in principle that Dibrah Torah ki'Leshon B'nei Adam, in this case he concurred with Rebbi Akiva, because having said "ki Lo Chufashah", the Torah adds "ve'Hafdeh Lo Nifdasah" which otherwise appears superfluous) to teach us that it is speaking about a Chatzi Eved ve'Chatzi ben Chorin (like Rebbi Akiva).

(b)Acherim explains "ve'Hafdeh Lo Nifdasah" like Rebbi Yishmael - and he explains "ki Lo Chufashah", which is otherwise superfluous, Im Eino Inyan with regard to an Eved Cana'ani, who has not yet been set free.

6)

(a)Our Mishnah discusses Arayos. The Tana there says that if one of the adulterers is ...

1. ... a Gadol and the other, a Katan - then the former is Chayav, and the latter, Patur, and that the same will apply to where one of them is ...

2. ... awake and the other one, asleep, or one ...

3. ... a Meizid and the other one, a Shogeg.

(b)The problem with the initial understanding equating a Shifchah Charufah with other Arayos in this regard is - since when is a Katan and someone who is asleep subject to punishments?

(c)To refute the Kashya, Rav Yehudah (Amar Rav) therefore rules that - by Shifchah Charufah, wherever one of them is Patur (where he/she is a Katan or asleep), the other one is Patur too ...

(d)... as we learned earlier.

7)

(a)When a Beraisa expert cited a Beraisa in his presence, comparing a full Bi'ah to Ha'ara'ah, an intentional act to an unintentional one, a normal Bi'ah to an abnormal one and one performed awake to one performed asleep, Rav Sheishes objected, because if the Tana is referring to ...

1. ... Shifchah Charufah - it is obvious that Bi'ah, Miskaven, ke'Darkah and Ni'ur are Chayav, whereas Ha'ara'ah, Eino Miskaven, she'Lo ke'Darkah and Yashen are all Patur (as we already learned earlier).

2. ... Arayos - because the Tana should then have inverted the four phrases to read 'Asu Me'areh ke'Gomer, Eino Miskaven ke'Miskaven ... '.

(b)The source for the leniency with regard to the four above cases of Shifchah Charufah is - "Shichvas Zera", which the Torah mentions there, implying that the Bi'ah must be one that can lead to a baby being born (which all four cases are not).

(c)The Torah specifically forbids Ha'ara'ah by Arayos, which either means - when the genital limbs touch (Neshikah) or the initial penetration (Hachnasas Atarah), depending on a Machlokes in Sanhedrin.

(d)We learn from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "Mishkevei Ishah" that - there are two Mishkavos for which one is Chayav by Arayos (rendering one Chayav for an unnatural Bi'ah just like a natural one).

8)

(a)The Beraisa-expert reacted to Rav Sheishes' objection - by suggesting that he should perhaps erase the Beraisa.

(b)Rav Sheishes responded however, by amending the Beraisa, to read 'Asu Gomer she'Lo ke'Darkah be'Shifchah Charufah ke'Ma'areh ke'Darkah'. He amended ...

1. ... 'Miskaven ke'she'Ein Miskaven' to - 'Miskaven be'she'Lo ke'Darkah be'Shifchah ... ke'Eino Miskaven ke'Darkah'.

2. ... 'Ni'ur ke'Yashen' to - 'Ni'ur she'Lo ke'Darkah be'Shifchah ke'Yashen ke'Darkah'.

(c)And finally, he compared ...`

1. ... Niskaven she'Lo ke'Darkah and Me'areh by Shifchah Charufah to - Ein Miskaven by Arayos (see Tosfos DH 'ke'she'Ein Miskaven')

2. ... Yashen ke'Darkah by Shifchah to - Yashen ke'Darkah by Arayos.

3. ... Ni'ur she'Lo ke'Darkah by Shifchah to - Yashen by Arayos.

(d)The Beraisa is now comparing the Din of Shifchah Charufah regarding ...

1. ... Niskaven u'Me'arah - to Ein Miskaven ...

2. ... Yashen ke'Darkah - to Yashen, and ...

3. ... Ni'ur she'Lo ke'Darkah - to Yashen, by other Arayos

(e)The source of all the above leniencies by Shifchah Charufah - is the Pasuk "Shichvas-Zera", as we already learned.

9)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that if they told Reuven that he ate Cheilev, he is Chayav a Chatas. If one witness testifies that he ate Cheilev and ...

1. ... one claims that he didn't - he is obligated to bring an Asham Taluy (even if the witnesses are women). If however ...

2. ... he denies having done so - he is Patur.

(b)Rebbi Meir rules that if it his word against that of two witnesses, then he is Chayav to bring a Chatas - because 'If two witnesses can bring him to the death penalty (where they testify that he murdered someone), then they can certainly bring him to a Chiyuv Chatas'.

(c)The Chachamim counter that - a Chatas is different, since, if he wants to lie, he can always argue that he ate the Cheilev on purpose (see Tosfos 12a DH 'Im Yirtzeh Lomar') and be Patur from a Chatas.

10)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that someone who eats Cheilev twice in one Ha'alamah - is Chayav only one Korban, whereas if he eats Cheilev, Dam, Pigul and Nosar - he will have to bring four.

(b)One species is more stringent than many species, on the other hand in that - if one eats two half-k'Zeisim of Cheilev in one Ha'alamah, he is Chayav, but he is Patur if he eats half a k'Zayis of each of two different species.

11)

(a)The Reisha of our Mishnah 'Amru lo Achalta Cheilev' implies that two witnesses told him so. Assuming that he remained silent, we can extrapolate from there that - silence in the face of one witness is not considered an admission, and that he is therefore Patur from a Korban.

(b)On the other hand, from the Metzi'asa 'Eid Echad Amar Achalta Cheilev, ve'Hu Amar Lo Achalti, Patur', we can extrapolate that - if he remained silent in the face of one witness, he would be Chayav a Chatas ...

(c)... a contradiction to the previous statement.

(d)If we therefore establish the Reisha where he contradicts the two witnesses and says that he did not eat Cheilev, the author will be - Rebbi Meir, who holds that one cannot contradict two witnesses (even in a case of a Chiyuv Chatas) ...

(e)... and the Seifa 'Shenayim Omrim Achalta Cheilev ... ' is coming to teach us that - the Reisha is the opinion of Rebbi Meir, and that the Rabbanan disagree with him.

12)

(a)The second Lashon learns from the Mishnah in Yevamos (in connection with a woman whose husband went overseas 'u'Va'u ve'Amru lah Meis Ba'alech ve'Nis'eis ... Teitzei mi'Zeh u'mi'Zeh' that - 'Amru lo' sometimes refers to one witness ...

(b)... and we prove this from the Seifa 'Niseis she'Lo bi'Reshus, Muteres Lachzor lo'. To reconcile the Reisha with the Seifa, we are forced to establish the Seifa by two witnesses (who permitted the woman to get married, rendering her an Oneis when her husband returned). Whereas the Reisha speaks by one witness (and it is the Beis-Din who permitted her to remarry [but at her own risk]).

(c)Even though 'Amru lo' in the Reisha of our Mishnah too, means one witness, we are forced to say that he remains silent - in order not to clash with the Seifa, which believes him when he contradicts one witness.

(d)The problem with this is that - we already know it from the Metzi'asa, which believes him when he contradicts the one witness, implying that if he remained silent, he would be Chayav.

13)

(a)So we establish the Reisha where he remains silent, and to answer the previous Kashya - we interpret the Metzi'asa as a continuation of the Reisha, as if the Tana was saying that he is only Chayav in the Reisha when he is silent, but when he contradicts the witness, he is believed (leaving nothing to extrapolate from the Seifa).

(b)The Beraisa extrapolates from the Pasuk in Vayikra "O Hoda eilav Chataso" that - one only brings a Chatas if he knows himself that he sinned, but not if has to be told by others.

(c)When the Tana says "O Hoda eilav" 'mi'Kol Makom', he means that - the previous D'rashah does not preclude a case where he hears it from others and remains silent (only if he contradicts them)

(d)This must be talking about one witness and not two - because if two witnesses inform a person that he sinned and he remains silent, it does not require a Pasuk to teach us that he is Chayav a Korban.

(e)We have now proved that - one witness obligates a person to bring a Korban even if he remains silent (provided he does not deny having sinned).