Question: We already know this from "Do not take ransom" (it applies to murder, in which exile atones for Shogeg)!

Answer #1 (Rami bar Chama): One might have thought this applies only to one who killed through an upward motion, since if done b'Shogeg there is no atonement (exile);

But if one killed through a downward motion, since if done b'Shogeg there is an atonement, one would think he does pay ransom and not die! "Every Cherem" teaches that this is not so.

Objection (Rava): We know this from Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah!

(Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah): Just like one who hits an animal pays, whether he was Shogeg or Meizid, whether or not he was aiming for this animal, and whether he hit with an upward or downward motion, also one who strikes a man is exempt (from paying) in every case.

Answer #2 (Rami bar Chama): Rather, we need it ("V'Chol Cherem..." or "Do not take ransom") to teach about one who blinds a person's eye and kills him with a different blow at the same time. He does not pay money in addition to being executed;

"If there is no fatality" only teaches about when he blinded and killed him in one blow.

Objection (Rava): Also this is known from another teaching of Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah!

(Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah): "(One pays) an eye for an eye", not an eye and a life for an eye".

Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): One night have thought that fines are Chidushim (special), and even one who is executed pays them. "Any Cherem" teaches that this is not so.

Question: According to Rabah, who says that one who is executed pays a fine, what does the verse teach?

Answer: Rabah holds like the Tana who disagrees with R. Chananya ben Akavya (Sof 37b. The verse teaches that there is no Erech for one sentenced to die.)

(Mishnah - R. Yosi ha'Glili): If a Na'arah was divorced from Eirusin, she does not receive a fine;

R. Akiva says, she herself collects a fine (not her father).

(Gemara) Question: What is the reason for R. Yosi ha'Glili?

Answer: "Who was not Mekudeshes" implies that had she been Mekudeshes, there would be no fine;

R. Akiva infers, if she was never Mekudeshes her father receives the fine. If she was Mekudeshes, she receives the fine.

Question: If so, he should likewise expound "Na'arah" and "Besulah" to teach that a Bogeres or a non-virgin receives the fine herself!

There, we say that there is no fine at all. We should say the same here!

Answer: R. Akiva expounds "Who was not Mekudeshes" like the following Beraisa:

(Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Glili): "Who was not Mekudeshes" - if she was divorced from Eirusin, she receives no fine;

R. Akiva says, her father receives the fine.

This is reasonable. Her father receives money given to her for Kidushin, and the fine of one who rapes or seduces her;

Just like he gets her Kidushin money even if she was previously divorced from Eirusin, also the fine!

Question: If so, what do we learn from "Who was not Mekudeshes"?

Answer: It is extra for a Gezeirah Shavah. These words are said regarding a rapist and regarding a seducer to equate them:

Just like a rapist pays 50 units of currency, also a seducer;

Just like the currency a seducer pays is Shekalim, also a rapist.

Question: Why does R. Akiva say that "Who was not Mekudeshes" is extra for a Gezeirah Shavah, and "Besulah" excludes a non-virgin?

Perhaps "Besulah" is extra for a Gezeirah Shavah, and "Who was not Mekudeshes" excludes a girl who was divorced from Eirusin!

Answer: It is better to say that one who was divorced from Eirusin receives a fine, since she is a Na'arah Besulah.

Question: Just the opposite! It is better to say that "Besulah" is extra for the Gezeirah Shavah (and a non-virgin receives a fine), since she was not Mekudeshes!

Answer: The previous way is better. Since there was no physical change, she still receives a fine.

Question: How does R. Yosi ha'Glili know that both fines are 50, and both are Shekalim?

Answer: "Kesef YiSHKoL k'Mohar ha'Besulos" - this (fine of a seducer) should be like Mohar of virgins (50, like it says regarding a rapist), and Mohar of virgins should be like this (Shekalim).

Question: R. Akiva in the Beraisa disagrees with R. Akiva in the Mishnah!

Answer: The Tana'im of the Mishnah and Beraisa argue about what is R. Akiva's opinion.

We understand R. Akiva in the Mishnah. "Who was not Mekudeshes" is extra for a Gezeirah Shavah, but it is not uprooted from its simple meaning.

Question: R. Akiva in the Beraisa totally uproots these words from their simple meaning (he says that having been Mekudeshes does not affect the fine)!

Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): This teaches that if she was Mekudeshes when she was seduced, there is no fine.

Question: This is obvious, for one who seduces her is stoned!

Answer: One might have thought that a fine is a Chidush, and even one who is killed pays it.

Question: Rabah says that that is really true. How can he answer the objection?

Answer: He holds like R. Akiva in the Mishnah.

(Beraisa): The fine goes to her father;

Some say that it goes to her.

Question: Why should it go to her?

Answer (Rav Chisda): The case is, she was Mekudeshes and was divorced. The first Tana is like R. Akiva of the Beraisa. The latter is like R. Akiva of the Mishnah.

(Abaye): If she died (before the rapist was brought to trial) there is no fine - "He will give to the father of the Na'arah", not to the father of the deceased.

This law was obvious to Abaye, but Rava was unsure about it.

Question (Rava): Does a girl receive the law of a Bogeres after death?

If (a fine was owed to her and) she gets the law of a Bogeres, the fine passes to her child;

If she doesn't, her father receives the fine.