1)

(a)Rav Chisda points out that the ruling obligating whoever rapes a Nidah to pay Kenas is unanimous - because Mah Nafshach a. Kidushin takes effect on her, and b. she is fit to be retained.

(b)However, this precludes the opinion of Rebbi Nechunya ben ha'Kanah, who holds - that just like someone who burns someone's haystack on Shabbos, is Patur from paying because he is Chayav Misas Beis-Din, so too, is he Patur from paying on Yom Kippur, because he is Chayav Kares.

(c)By the same token - he will exempt someone who rapes a Nidah from paying Kenas.

2)

(a)Abaye gives Rebbi Nechunya ben ha'Kanah's source as the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Ason" (in Mishpatim, in connection with a man a man inadvertently strikes a pregnant woman, killing the baby) "Ason" (said by Yakov as a reason for initially not allowing Binyamin to go down to Egypt with his brothers). We initially ...

1. ... interpret "Ason" in the latter case - with reference to exposure to heat or cold (which we attribute to the Hand of Hash-m).

2. ... answer Rav Ada bar Ahavah's query as to how we know that Yakov was referring to heat and cold (which we think are 'b'Yedei Shamayim'), and not to lions and robbers - in that it stands to reason that Yakov was surely expressing concern over all dangers that might befall Binyamin, including those that were 'b'Yedei Shamayim'.

(b)The Tana of the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Mishlei "Tzinim Pachim b'Derech Ikeish, Shomer Nafsho Yirchak Meihem" - that heat and cold are in the hands of the person himself, and that they are sometimes the result of one's own carelessness.

(c)We query the contention that (lions and) robbers are in the hands of man - by citing a Beraisa which includes lions and robbers among the Divine punishments (as we shall see shortly).

(d)Rav Yosef and Rebbi Chiya quoting a Beraisa, say - that even though the four deaths of Beis-Din are no longer practiced by Beis-Din, those who are guilty of one of them, still receives the equivalent punishment at the Hand of Hash-m.

3)

(a)Nowadays, one of the punishments that replace ...

1. ... stoning, is falling from a roof, the second is - being bowled over and killed by a wild animal.

2. ... burning (death by boiling lead poured down one's throat) is falling into a fire, the second, is - being bitten by a snake.

3. ... killing by the sword is execution (at the hand of the ruling power), the second is - falling prey to armed robbers.

4. ... strangulation, is drowning, the second is - croup (choking).

(b)We answer the dual Kashyos that we asked earlier regarding the contention that illnesses that result from cold and heat are considered bi'Y'dei Shamayim, and (lions and) robbers, bi'Y'dei Adam - by inverting them: it is lions and robbers that are bi'Y'dei Shamayim, and heat and cold that is b'Yedei Adam.

4)

(a)Rava bases Rebbi Nechunya ben ha'Kanah's Din on the Pasuk "v'Im Ha'aleim Ya'alimu Am ha'Aretz es Eineihem min ha'Ish ha'Hu ... v'Hichrati Oso" (in connection with Molech) - which is comparing punishments at the Hand of Hash-m to those at the hand of Beis-Din ('My punishment, just like your punishment, exempts the accused from any monetary obligations that ensue from the same action').

(b)The difference between Abaye and Rava's sources for Rebbi Nechunya ben ha'Kanah is with regard to a Zar who eats Terumah - since he is Chayav Misah b'Yedei Shamayim (and will therefore be Patur from paying, from the Derashah of "Ason", but not Kares (like someone who worships Molech, in which case, he will be Chayav to pay).

5)

(a)According to Rav Chisda, someone who steals Chelev and eats it (even according to Rebbi Nechunya ben ha'Kanah) - is Chayav to pay, because his obligation to pay (which fall due the moment he steals it) preceded the Chiyuv Misah (which comes only after he has eaten it).

(b)This poses a Kashya on Abaye in the previous question, who exempts a Zar who eats Terumah from paying, according to Rebbi Nechunya ben ha'Kanah. Why do we not say there too - that his obligation to pay preceded his Chiyuv Kares (for the same reason)?

(c)We refute the answer that Abaye is speaking when the Zar's friend stuck the Terumah into his mouth - on the grounds that, there too, he acquires the food as soon as he chews it, whereas the Chiyuv Kares comes only after he has swallowed it.

(d)We try to answer that Kashya - by establishing the case when his friend actually stuck the food right into the back of his throat, where we think that the Kinyan and the Isur Misah would have occurred simultaneously.

6)

(a)We also refute the current answer, on the grounds that there too - if he is able to return the food, he should return it, failing which, he will be Chayav for destroying Terumah, whereas the Chiyuv Misah comes only after he swallows it. If, on the other hand, he is unable to return it, why should he be Chayav Misah, seeing as he is an Ones?

(b)We ultimately answer that Abaye and Rava are speaking when he is able to return the Terumah 'al-Yedei ha'D'chak' - meaning that the food is no longer fit to be returned to the owner, in which case he will not be Chayav for having stolen it; and the Chiyuv Misah and the obligation to pay for having benefitted from the Terumah after swallowing it come simultaneously.

7)

(a)Rav Papa avoids having to say that his friend pushed the food right to into the back of his throat - by changing the case from solid food to liquid (which becomes disgusting and 'unreturnable' the moment it is placed into his mouth.

(b)Rav Ashi avoids the problem of theft altogether, by establishing the case when the Zar ate his own Terumah - and tore someone else's clothes at the same time. Rav Ashi holds that even though the Misah and the damage are unrelated ('Misah la'Zeh u'Mamon la'Zeh'), we still apply the principle of 'Kam Lei bi'de'Rabah Minei' (the punishment for the larger crime exempts the recipient from being punished for the lesser one).