Answer #2 (Rav Papa): In Beraisa #2 R. Yehudah says that he is Lokeh, i.e. suffers monetarily, only if he had Bi'ah.

Question: Would the Tana call paying money 'Lokeh'?

Answer: Yes!

(Mishnah): If one says 'I pledge half my Erech to Hekdesh', he pays half his Erech;

R. Yosi bar Yehudah says, he is Lokeh and pays his full Erech.

Question: Why is he lashed?

Answer (Rav Papa): He is stricken by having to pay his full Erech;

This is a decree due to one who pledges the Erech of half of himself.

Since he cannot live without half of himself, he must pay his full Erech.

(Beraisa): "He will be punished" - monetarily; "They will afflict him" - with lashes.

Question: We understand that the punishment is monetary, like the verse continues "Me'ah Kesef";

How do we know that 'affliction' is lashes?

Answer (R. Avahu): We learn "They will afflict" from "They will afflict" (regarding Ben Sorer u'Moreh), which we learn through "Ben-Ben" from "Im Bin Hakos ha'Rasha".

Question: What is the Lav against Motzi Shem Ra?

Answer #1 (R. Elazar): "Lo Selech Rachil (do not go around like a talebearer.)"

Answer #2 (R. Nasan): "Guard yourself from every evil matter".

R. Elazar did not learn like R. Nasan, for he uses that verse like R. Pinchas ben Ya'ir:

(R. Pinchas ben Ya'ir): "Guard yourself from every evil matter" - do not have thoughts (of women) by day, which lead to Tum'ah (nocturnal emissions) at night.

R. Nasan did not learn like R. Elazar, for he uses "Lo Selech Rachil" to teach that Beis Din should not be Rach (soft) to one litigant and harsh to the other.

(Beraisa): If witnesses testified for him without his request, he is not lashed and does not pay. She and the Edim Zomemim are stoned.

Objection: We cannot say that she and the witnesses are stoned!

Correction: She or the Edim Zomemim are stoned.

Inference: Had he requested the witnesses to testify for him, he would be punished even if he did not hire them. This is unlike R. Yehudah:

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah): He is not liable unless he hired witnesses.

Question: What is R. Yehudah's reason?

Answer (R. Avahu): It says "Sam (putting)" regarding Motzi Shem Ra, just like regarding usury;

Just like there it refers to money, also here.

Questions (R. Yirmiyah): What is the law if he hired them for land, for less than a Perutah, or both witnesses for one Perutah?

Questions (Rav Ashi): What is the law if he divorces and remarries her and is Motzi Shem Ra on the first marriage? What is the law if a Yavam is Motzi Shem Ra on his brother's marriage?

Answer (to the last question - Beraisa - R. Yonah): "I gave my daughter to this man" - to this man, not to a Yavam.

Question: What is the argument of R. Elazar ben Yakov and Chachamim?

Answer (Beraisa): Motzi Shem Ra is when a man says, I found that your daughter is not a virgin. If witnesses say that she was Mezanah while married to him, her Kesuvah is 100.

Objection: If she had adultery, why does she have a Kesuvah? She is stoned!

Correction: If witnesses say that she had adultery, she is stoned. If they say that she was Mezanah before Kidushin, her Kesuvah is 100.

If his accusation was false, he is lashed and pays 100 Sela'im, whether or not he had Bi'ah with her;

R. Elazar ben Yakov says, this (lashes and a fine) is only if he had Bi'ah with her.

Question: According to R. Elazar ben Yakov we understand "U'Va Eleha (this connotes Bi'ah)" and "I drew close to her";

Question: How do Chachamim explain these verses?

Answer: "He came" with accusations; "I drew close" with words.

Question: According to R. Elazar ben Yakov we understand "I did not find Besulim in your daughter";

How do Chachamim explain this?

Answer: "I did not find witnesses who uphold the virginity of your daughter (through Hazamah of the witnesses who say that she was Mezanah)."

Question: According to R. Elazar ben Yakov we understand "U'Forsu (they will spread) the sheet (on which they had Bi'ah, to check for Dam Besulim)";

How do Chachamim explain this?

Answer (R. Avahu): "They will clarify (the accusations) he put on her."

Tana'im argue about how to explain "U'Forsu" like these two opinions.

(Beraisa): "They will spread the sheet" - the witnesses for each side come, and they make the matter as clear as a new sheet;

R. Elazar ben Yakov says, the verse literally refers to the sheet.

(R. Yitzchak bar Rav Yakov): Even though the Torah never distinguishes between Bi'ah k'Darkah and Lo k'Darkah regarding lashes or punishments, it distinguishes regarding Motzi Shem Ra. He is punished only if he had Bi'ah (even) Lo k'Darkah, and claims that she was Mezanah k'Darkah.

Question: R. Yitzchak is not like either Tana!

Chachamim obligate even if he didn't have Bi'ah with her!

R. Elazar ben Yakov requires that also he had Bi'ah with her k'Darkah (to be able to claim that there were no Besulim)!

Correction (Rav Kahana): He is punished only if he had Bi'ah k'Darkah with her and claims that she was Mezanah k'Darkah.

(Mishnah): A father has the right to be Mekadesh his daughter (and keep the money) through money, a document, or Bi'ah;

He receives her Metzi'os and her earnings;

He can annul her vows;

He can receive a Get (document of divorce) from her husband (during Eirusin);

He does not eat the Peiros (produce) of her property in her lifetime;

If she does Nisu'in, her husband has a privilege above what a father has; he eats the Peiros of her property in her lifetime.

Her husband is obligated to feed, redeem and bury her;

R. Yehudah says, even the poorest Yisrael must get two flutists and a woman to arouse the wailing.

(Gemara) Question: What is the source that he receives the Kidushin money?

Answer (Rav Yehudah): "She will leave free; there is no money" - the master (of a Yisraelis slave who goes free when she becomes a Na'arah) does not receive money, but another 'master' receives money, i.e. her father (when she becomes Mekudeshes and leaves him).

Question: Perhaps she receives the money!

Answer: The father is Mekadesh her - "I gave my daughter to this man." Surely she does not keep the money!

Question: Perhaps this applies only to a minor, who has no Yad (power of acquisition) to receive Kidushin. A Na'arah has a Yad to receive Kidushin, perhaps she can Mekadesh herself and keep the money!

Answer #1: "Bi'N'ureha Beis Aviha" teaches that all revenue of a Na'arah goes to her father.

Objection: Rav Huna learned that her earnings go to her father from "When a man will sell his daughter to be a slave" - just like a slave's earnings go to her master, a girl's earnings go to her father;

Question: Why couldn't he learn from "Bi'N'ureha Beis Aviha"?

Answer: We must say that "Bi'N'ureha Beis Aviha" teaches only about vows.

Suggestion: We should say that her father gets her Kidushin money, just like he can annul her vows!

Rejection: We do not learn monetary laws from non-monetary laws.

Suggestion: He receives the fine of one who rapes or seduces her. We should learn from this!

Rejection: We do not learn about Mamon from fines.

Suggestion: He receives the payments (of Mamon) for embarrassment and blemish. We should learn from them!

Rejection: Those are different, since they affect him. (They decreased the amount of Kidushin money he can receive for her.)

Answer #2: When a slave leaves her master, no money goes to the master she leaves - the implication is that in a similar case (Kidushin), money goes to the master she leaves - her father.

Objection: These are not comparable! A slave entirely leaves her master, but an Arusah doesn't leave her father until Nisu'in!

Answer: She (partially) leaves his jurisdiction regarding vows;

(Mishnah): The father and husband of a Na'arah Me'orasah jointly annul her vows.

(Mishnah): The father can be Mekadesh her via a document or Bi'ah.

"She will be (Mekudeshes) to another man" equates all methods of Kidushin.