1)

(a)Despite the fact that we have already learned in a previous Mishnah the three obligations of a seducer and the four of a rapist, the Tana finds it necessary to repeat them here - to teach us the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Shimon.

(b)The Chidush cannot be the fact that it is the girl's father who receives the money - since that too, is obvious, because, were the money to go to the girl herself, why would a seducer be obligated to pay at all (seeing as by virtue of her accepting his advances, she is, in effect, foregoing payment).

2)

(a)If, after swearing his innocence, a man admits that he did rape or seduce the claimant's daughter - according to the Tana Kama, he incurs payment of the principle, an additional fifth and a Korban Asham.

(b)The Tana Kama disagrees with Rebbi Shimon, in whose opinion he is Patur because a person does not pay Kenas by his own admission - due to the fact that we are talking here not about Kenas, but about Boshes and Pegam (as will be explained later).

(c)Abaye asked Rabah what the Din will be if the same man admits that he did rape or seduce the claimant's daughter, but after the father claimed that he did so, and that he had already been pronounced guilty by the Beis-Din, who had sentenced him to pay Kenas. His She'eilah is - whether Rebbi Shimon will agree that, in this case, seeing as Beis-Din had already obligated him to pay, the money has now become Mamon, in which case, his admission exempts him from paying, as well as from a Korban Shevu'ah, or whether it still retains its initial status of Kenas in this regard.

(d)Rabah replied that it is Mamon, and he is Patur from a Korban Shevu'ah.

3)

(a)Based on the Pasuk in Vayikra "v'Kichesh b'Pakidon O bi'Sesumes Yad ... O Matza Aveidah v'Kichesh Bah ... ", Rebbi Shimon in the Mishnah in Shevuos learns - that a man who admits that he raped a girl, or that his ox gored the claimant's slave, or regarding a master who admits that his master knocked out his eye or his tooth, after they had all sworn to the contrary), is Patur from a Korban Shevu'ah.

(b)Presuming that Rebbi Shimon is speaking when the man had already been taken to Beis-Din - this presents Rabah (who holds that such a case is considered Mamon, and he is Chayav) with a Kashya.

(c)Rabah answers that the Beraisa speaks when Lo Amad ba'Din (he had not yet been taken to Beis Din) and it is a straightforward case of Kenas. We query this however, from the Reisha of the Beraisa, which clearly speaks when he had. The author of the Reisha - is the Rabanan.

(d)The Rabanan learn from "u'Ma'alah Ma'al" - that even cases of Kenas, such as Kefel and four or five times of theft, Ones, Mefateh and Motzi-Shem-Ra are Chayav a Korban Shevu'ah. The Tana can only be speaking about a case of Amad ba'Din, because otherwise, he would not be Chayav Kefel.

4)

(a)Rabah could have resolved the difficulty by establishing the entire Beraisa according to Rebbi Shimon - the Reisha in a case of Amad ba'Din; the Seifa, of Lo Amad ba'Din.

(b)He chose not to do so however, on the grounds that that would be a forced answer - because then the Tana should have written either 'Rebbi Shimon Omer' at the beginning of the Beraisa, or 'Divrei Rebbi Shimon' at the end (as an indication that Rebbi Shimon is indeed the sole author of the Beraisa).

5)

(a)So Rabah establishes the Beraisa by Amad ba'Din, the Reisha, according to the Rabanan, the Seifa, according to Rebbi Shimon (like we thought at first), and he is Patur from a Korban Shevu'ah, because it is not similar to the case of "v'Kichesh" (Mamon from its inception). He considers it Mamon - with regard to her father's heirs inheriting it from her father in the event of his death.

(b)If, after Beis-Din have found the man guilty, the girl did not manage to claim the money before becoming a Bogeres - Rebbi Shimon says that the money belongs to the girl herself.

(c)This poses a Kashya on Rabah, who holds that once Beis Din have issued a ruling, the money becomes Mamon - in which case, it ought to go to her brothers (who now inherit it from her father) and not to her.

(d)Rav Yosef and Rabah himself were unable to answer the Kashya as long as Rabah was Rosh Yeshiva - a period of twenty-two years. Then Rabah died, and Rav Yosef, who succeeded him, resolved it.

6)

(a)Rav Yosef answered the Kashya by quoting the Pasuk "v'Nasan ha'Ish ha'Shochev Imah la'Avi ha'Na'arah ... " - from which we learn that when it comes to Kenas and Mefateh, the money only becomes the father's (even regarding inheritance) once he has received it ...

(b)... and when Rabah said that it is Mamon for his heirs to inherit it - he was referring to all other Kenasos besides Ones and Mefateh.

(c)It is also considered Mamon - inasmuch as if the culprit admits of his own volition, he is Chayav to pay.

(d)According to Rav Yosef's explanation, in the case of an ox that gored an Eved Kena'ani (which is also a Kenas) and where the Torah writes "Kesef Sheloshim Shekalim Yiten la'Adonav" we do not make the same Derashah as we made by Ones and Mefateh, to say that until the master receives the money, it remains a Kenas (even after Ha'amadah ba'Din) - because whereas "v'Nasan" lends itself to a Derashah, "Yitein" does not.

7)

(a)Despite the fact that the source that renders Ones and Mefateh unique, inasmuch as it remains Kenas until the money is actually claimed, is "v'Nasan" (as Rav Yosef just explained), Rebbi Shimon in the Beraisa needs to quote the Pasuk "v'Kichesh" giving it the same Din as other K'nasos - in a case where the girl became a Bogeres and died before Ha'amadah ba'Din.

(b)The reason that this case is different than a case when the father died before the money was been claimed is - because, according to Rebbi Shimon (who holds that when the girl becomes a Bogeres after Ha'amadah ba'Din, the money belongs to her), the father inherits the money from her. And, unlike money that goes directly to the father, the money that he inherits is pure Mamon (because whatever she receives is not subject to the Derashah of "v'Nasan"). Consequently, we require the Pasuk "v'Kichesh" to exempt the culprit from Korban Shevu'ah, like all other cases of Kenas after Beis-Din have issued their ruling.

(c)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak explains - that when the Tana states 'Yatzu Eilu she'Hen Kenas', he means that they are basically Kenas (because that is how they began), even though that is no longer true.

8)

(a)We learned in the Mishnah in Shevuos 'Rebbi Shimon Poter (mi'Korban Shevu'ah), she'Eino Meshalem Kenas Al Pi Atzmo' - from which we can infer that in a case where one would pay by one's own admission, he would indeed be Chayav a Korban Shevu'ah.

(b)In fact, Rebbi Shimon exempts Ones and Mefateh from a Korban Shevu'ah altogether (as he explicitly says in the Beraisa), and when, in the Mishnah in Shevuos, he exempts it only because 'she'Eino Meshalem Kenas al-pi Atzmo' - he means to query the Rabanan, to ask them whether they will not at least agree with him in such a case.

(c)The Rabanan however, decline to do so - on the grounds that, in their opinion, it is not Kenas that the father is claiming (unless he actually says so) but Boshes and Pegam, which, of course, is pure Mamon, in which case the rapist is subject to a Korban Shevu'ah.

(d)According to ...

1. ... Rebbi Shimon, a person would be certain to claim Kenas, rather than Boshes and Pegam - because he would not claim an unspecified sum of money, when he can claim a fixed amount.

2. ... the Rabanan, he would be certain to claim Boshes and Pegam, rather than Kenas - because he would not claim a sum of money that the defendant can simply deny and become exempt, if he can claim a sum which he will be obligated to pay.