1)

(a)We just learned from "Kol Cherem" to include even the less stringent Misos (she'Nitnu Shigegasan l'Kaparah) in the prohibition of accepting money to spare them from death. We refute that Derashah however - in that the original Pasuk of "v'Lo Sikchu Kofer ... " prohibiting buying one's way out of a Chiyuv Misah, is talking murder (which is a case of Nitnu Shigegasan l'Kaparah').

(b)To answer the question, Rami bar Chana qualifies the Pasuk "v'Lo Sikchu Kofer ... ". According to him, the Pasuk ...

1. ... is speaking about - someone who killed by means of an upward stroke, who does not have an atonement b'Shogeg; whereas ...

2. ... "Kol Cherem" then comes to incorporate - someone who killed using a downward stroke in the prohibition.

(c)Rava refutes this explanation however, on the basis of the Hekesh of Bei Chizkiyah - who learns from the Hekesh 'Makeh Adam' to 'Makeh Behemah' to exempt one from paying (whenever there is a Chiyuv Misah), irrespective of whether he was Shogeg or Mezid, intentional or unintentional, a downward stroke or an upward one.

(d)Despite the Hekesh, we nevertheless need the Pasuk "v'Lo Yiheyeh Ason" - because we would otherwise learn from the Hekesh that someone who kills a person (just like someone who kills a n animal) is always Chayav to pay; whereas now, the Hekesh is confined to a case where the woman is not killed.

2)

(a)Rami bar Chama now tries to learn from "Kol Cherem", that he is Patur even if for example, he blinded him with one hand, and killed him simultaneously with the other (because from "v'Lo Yiheyeh Ason" we would only know to exempt someone who, for example, blinded someone's eye and killed him with the same stroke).

(b)Once again however, Rava refutes this explanation by citing another Tana d'Bei Chizkiyah - who learns this same ruling from the Pasuk "Ayin Tachas Ayin", from which he extrapolated "Ayin Tachas Ayin", 'v'Lo Ayin v'Nefesh Tachas Ayin'.

(c)So Rav Ashi learns from "Kol Cherem" that someone who is Chayav Misah is even Patur from paying Kenas ('Lo Miktil u'Meshalem' [although we already know it by Mamon]). Otherwise we would have said that, seeing as Kenas is a Chidush, we will even say 'Miktil u'Meshalem'.

(d)Rav Ashi's answer will not work according to Rabah - who indeed says 'Miktil u'Meshalem' (for the very reason that we just cited [as we learned earlier]).

(e)Rabah learns from "Kol Cherem Asher Yochoram min ha'Adam, Lo Yipadeh" - that there is no Erech for someone who has been sentenced to death (like the Tana Kama of Rebbi Chananya ben Akavya).

3)

(a)Rebbi Yosi ha'Gelili in our Mishnah, who exempts someone who rapes a girl who was betrothed but is now divorced from Kenas - will establish the first Mishnah in the Perek, which obligates someone who rapes the wife of his brother or of his father's brother (who must be divorced or widowed, as we explained there) to pay Kenas, like Rebbi Akiva, who holds that - a girl who was betrothed and who is now divorced is subject to Kenas, and the Kenas goes to her.

(b)Rebbi Yosi ha'Gelili learns from the Pasuk in Ki Setzei (in connection with Kenas) "Asher Lo Orasah" - 'Ha Orasah, Ein Lah Kenas' (that a betrothed girl is not subject to Kenas).

(c)Rebbi Akiva extrapolates from the Pasuk - "Asher Lo Orasah" - 'l'Avihah', Ha Orasah, l'Atzmah' (that once a girl is betrothed, the Kenas goes to her.

4)

(a)We Darshen from the word there ...

1. ... "Na'arah" - 'v'Lo Bogeres' (that a Bogeres is not subject to Kenas at all).

2. ... "Besulah" - 'v'Lo Be'ulah' (that a Be'ulah is not subject to a Kenas at all).

(b)This Derashah dispenses with the Derashah that we just made to explain Rebbi Akiva - because, according to him, we ought then to have made the same Derashah from "Na'arah" and Besulah" (that a Bogeres and a Be'ulah are subject to Kenas [which is obviously not feasible] and that the Kenas goes to them).

(c)Rebbi Akiva finally learns from "Asher Lo Orasah" - that the Kenas of a girl who was betrothed and is now divorced goes to her father.

(d)According to Rebbi Yosi ha'Gelili - she is not subject to Kenas (like we learned in our Mishnah).

5)

(a)Rebbi Akiva learns his current Derashah - by comparing the money of her Kenas to that of her Kidushin, inasmuch as just as the latter goes to her father, even after she has been betrothed and divorced, so too does the money of her Kenas.

(b)And from the words "Asher Lo Orasah" he learns a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (from Mefutah, where the same expression appears) - to learn fifty (Shekalim) by Ones from Mefateh, and (fifty) Shekalim by Mefutah from Ones.

6)

(a)We have just used "Asher Lo Orasah" for a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (so that a Na'arah who was betrothed and is now divorced remains subject to Kenas) according to Rebbi Akiva, and precluded a Be'ulah from the word "Besulah". We cannot do the opposite (to learn the same 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from "Besulah" "Besulah", so that a Be'ulah remains subject to Kenas), and to preclude a Na'arah who was betrothed and is now divorced from "Asher Lo Orasah" - because it is more logical to preclude a Be'ulah (whose body has undergone a change) from Kenas than an Arusah who is divorced (who remains physically unchanged).

(b)Rebbi Yosi ha'Gelili (who disagrees with Rebbi Akiva's Gezeirah-Shavah'), learns that the fine by both an Ones and a Mefutah is fifty Shekalim) from the Pasuk in Mishpatim (written in connection with Mefutah) "Kesef Yishkol k'Mohar ha'Besulos" (referring to the Kesubah), from which we extrapolate 'she'Yehei Zeh k'Mohar ha'Besulos, u'Mohar ha'Besulos Lah' (meaning that we compare Mefutah to Kesubah [assuming that Kesubah is d'Oraisa]).

7)

(a)The problem with the opinion of R. Akiva (regarding his opinion in regarding the Kenas of an Arusah she'Nisgarshah) is - that his ruling in the Beraisa (that she is subject to Kenas and that it goes to her father) contradicts his ruing in our Mishnah (that it goes to her).

(b)His opinion in our Mishnah initially appears to be more sound than the one in the Beraisa - because the Gezeirah Shavah that he Darshens does not clash with the plain meaning of the Pasuk (which implies that the Kenas of an Arusah who is divorced goes to herself); whereas, in the Beraisa, it does.

8)

(a)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak resolves this latter problem - by treating the word as if the Torah had written "Asher Lo Arusah" (implying that had she been betrothed, the Kenas would have gone to her (and not if she would have been betrothed and divorced).

(b)We need a Pasuk for Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak's Derashah, because, in spite of the fact that the man who raped her is already Chayav Misah (and one cannot receive two punishments) - we would otherwise have thought that, seeing as Kenas is a Chidush, we would say 'Miktil u'Meshalem'.

(c)Rabah, who does indeed hold 'Miktil u'Meshalem' - must hold like Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah.

9)

(a)Despite the fact that, both in the Mishnah and in the Beraisa, Rebbi Akiva uses the Pasuk "Asher Lo Orasah" for its inference, he nevertheless learns a Gezeirah-Shavah from it - because it doesn't matter if a Gezeirah-Shavah is Mufneh just from one side (or even if it is not Mufneh at all -see Maharsha).

10)

(a)The Tana Kama of another Beraisa says (ostensibly, with reference to a Na'arah) 'Kenasah l'Avihah. Yesh Omrim says - 'Kenasah l'Atzmah'.

(b)The problem with the Beraisa the way it stands is that according to Yesh Omrim - on what basis does the Kenas of a Na'arah go to herself?

(c)Rav Chisda resolves the problem - by establishing it with reference to an Arusah she'Nisgarshah.

(d)The basis of their Machlokes is equivalent to that of Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah and Rebbi Akiva in the Beraisa (as we explained earlier).

11)

(a)Abaye learns from the Pasuk in Ki Setzei "v'Nasan la'Avi ha'Na'arah" - 'v'Lo l'Avi Mesah' (that if the Na'arah died after having been raped, the rapist is Patur from paying Kenas.

(b)Rava is uncertain about this particular point ('Yesh Beger b'Kever O Ein Beger b'Kever [and his Safek will be clarified later in the Sugya]).

(c)We initially think that if we rule ...

1. ... 'Yesh Beger ba'Kever' - her child who will receive the Kenas

2. ... 'Ein Beger ba'Kever' - then it is her father who will receive it.

(d)We object to this interpretation however - on the grounds that a Na'arah cannot become pregnant and give birth whilst she is still a Na'arah (in other words, a Na'arah cannot possibly give birth).