1)

(a)Shilo quoted a Beraisa listing three Dinim in connection with a Na'arah Me'orasah. If witnesses testify after she has married, that she committed adultery when she was betrothed, she is sentenced to Sekilah at the entrance of her father's house - announcing to her parents 'See the fruits of your Chinuch; because it was in this house that this disgusting deed occurred!'

(b)In the event that the testimony that she committed adultery took place before she married - she is put to death at the gate of the Beis-Din of the city.

(c)In the event that she committed adultery after she became a Bogeres (irrespective of whether the witnesses testified before the marriage or after it) - she is sentenced to Chenek and not to Sekilah ...

(d)... because when the physical change takes place inside her, her Din changes correspondingly.

2)

(a)The Beraisa rules that a man who claims, after his wife became a Bogeres, that she committed adultery whilst she was a Na'arah Me'orasah, should he not be able to substantiate his claim - neither receives Malkus nor pays a hundred Shekalim

(b)When the Tana says 'Hi v'Zomemehah Makdimin l'Veis ha'Sekilah' - he means either she (if the testimony stands) or the witnesses (should they turn out to be Zomemim) are sentenced to stoning.

(c)This Beraisa poses a Kashya on Shilo's Beraisa - who holds that if the witnesses testify after she has become a Bogeres, she receives Chenek and not Sekilah.

(d)Rava answers that Motzi Shem Ra is different because it is a Chidush - inasmuch as even though he slanders her after they are married, at a time when adultery then would result in Chenek and not Sekilah, she is nevertheless sentenced to Sekilah, as though no change had taken place. Consequently, Bagrus (in the case of Motzi Shem Ra) will not cause her Din to change either.

3)

(a)Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua refutes Rava's distinction between Motzi Shem Ra and adultery (in the case of Motzi Shem Ra) - on the grounds that, even though marriage will not change her Din, perhaps a physical change such as Bagrus, will.

(b)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak therefore concludes - that the two conflicting Beraisos (whether 'Ishtani Gufa' causes her to adopt the Din of a married woman [to reduce her Din from Sekilah to Chenek] or not) do indeed argue (as we shall now see from the Mishnah in Horayos)), and that there is no difference between the cases of adultery and Motzi Shem Ra.

(c)The Mishnah in Horayos discusses a Hedyot (an ordinary person or Kohen) who were Chayav a Chatas before becoming appointed king or Kohen Gadol. A Hedyot (an ordinary person) who sins, brings a she-sheep or a she-goat as a Korban Chatas. If the sinner is ...

1. ... a king - he brings a he-goat.

2. ... a Kohen Gadol - he brings a bull.

4)

(a)According to the Tana Kama, a king or a Kohen Gadol who sinned before his appointment brings the Korban of a Hedyot. According to Rebbi Shimon, if he discovered that he sinned only after his appointment - he is Patur from bringing a Korban at all.

(b)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak tries to connect the Machlokes Tana'im with regard to 'Ishtani Gufa' (that we just cited) with this Machlokes. The Tana of Shilo, who holds 'Ishtani Gufa' changes her Halachah, follows the opinion of Rebbi Shimon (who appears to hold likewise) - whereas the Tana of the second Beraisa holds like the Tana Kama.

(c)We reject this contention however, on the grounds that - if Rebbi Shimon were to hold like the Tana of Shilo (that 'Ishtani Gufa' causes her Din to change), then he should have ruled that the king and the Kohen Gadol bring their respective Korbanos (rather than no Korban at all).

(d)His reasoning by Korban Chatas must therefore be - that he goes after the knowledge as well as the sin (both must be either when he is a Hedyot or when he is a king or a Kohen Gadol).

5)

(a)To resolve the contradiction between the two conflicting Beraisos, Rebbi Yochanan instructed the Beraisa expert to amend Shilo's Beraisa 'Sarchah v'li'be'Sof Bagrah, Teidon b'Chenek') to read ' ... Teidan bi'Sekilah'.

(b)Rebbi Ila'a counters the Kashya from the Pasuk "Na'arah ha'Me'orasah" (which appears to preclude a Bogeres from Sekilah) with the Pasuk "v'Hotzi'u es ha'Na'arah" - which is superfluous, and from which he extrapolates 'ha'Na'arah" she'Hayesah K'var' (the girl who was once a Na'arah, even though she has already become a Bogeres).

(c)Rebbi Chananya exclaimed 'Rachmana Litzlan me'Hai Da'ata'! - because he could not understand why Rebbi Ila'a's Din should not extend to the husband, to make him pay a hundred Shekalim and to receive Malkus, despite the fact that she is now a Bogeres.

(d)Rebbi Ila'a countered that - with the words 'Adraba; 'Rachmana Litzlan me'Hai Da'ata'!

(e)Rebbi Yitzchak bar Avin or Rebbi Yitzchak bar Aba ascribes Rebbi Ila'a's distinction to the fact that - whereas the girl's sentence is based on her immoral act (which took place before her physical change), the man's is based on his slander, which took place after it.

6)

(a)We have already learned that a Na'arah ha'Me'orasah is stoned to death at the gate of her father's house, in the event of the witnesses testifying after she was already married. In the event that ...

1. ... she has no father or father's house - she is stoned at the gate of the town where she sinned.

2. ... most of the town's residents are Nochrim - then she is stoned at the gate of the Beis-Din where she was sentenced.

(b)If someone served idols, the Torah writes "v'Hotzeisa es ha'Ish ha'Hu ... el She'arecha". We learn from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from "Ki Yimatzei b'Kirbecha b'Achad She'arecha" - that he is stoned at the gate of the town where he served idols and not at the gate of the town where he was sentenced.

(c)We also learn from the word " ... el She'arecha" - that this does not apply in a city where the majority of its residents are Nochrim, though this we learn from the suffix "She'are*cha*".

(d)The above Derashah concerns Avodah-Zarah. With regard to Na'arah ha'Me'orasah, the Torah writes "el Pesach Beis Avihah" and it also writes in Bamidbar (in connection with the Mishkan) "Masach Pesach Sha'ar he'Chatzer". Rebbi Avahu now learns from there that if a Na'arah ha'Me'orasah has no father or father's house, that she is stoned at the gate of the city where she sinned (see Tosfos DH 'Soklin') - a. by considering as if the word "Sha'ar" was written next to "Pesach" by Na'arah ha'Me'orasah, just like it is specifically written next to it in the Pasuk in Bamidbar, and b. by learning a 'Gezeirah Shavah' 'She'arecha" "She'arecha" from someone who served idols.

7)

(a)The Tana Kama in a Beraisa states that a husband who slanders his newly-married wife receives Malkus and has to pay a hundred Shekalim in any event - whether the marriage was consummated (and he claims that he discovered that she was not a Besulah), or not (and his claim is based entirely on the evidence of witnesses). Rebbi Yehudah agrees with this regarding Malkus. With regard to paying - he says that only if the marriage was consummated does he have to pay, otherwise not.

(b)According to this Lashon, it is only Rebbi Yehudah who holds like Rebbi Eliezer ban Yakov (whose opinion will be cited later). Despite the fact that, in their opinion, the Parashah of Motzi Shem Ra was only said when the marriage was consummated, the husband will nevertheless receive Malkus even if the marriage was not consummated - because he contravened the Lav of "Lo Selech Rachil b'Amecha" (see Tosfos DH 'Rebbi Yehudah").

(c)Nor is there a problem with the fact that he receives Malkus for a 'Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh' - since that is the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah throughout Shas.

8)

(a)The second Lashon establishes both opinions like Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov, and the Tana Kama speaks specifically when the marriage was consummated. Rebbi Yehudah says - like he said according to the first Lashon: namely, that he receives Malkus in any event.

(b)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak reconciles Rebbi Yehudah (in both Leshonos) with another Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehudah says 'Ba'al Lokeh; Lo Ba'al, Eino Lokeh' - by establishing the first Beraisa by Malkus mid'Rabanan (and not mid'Oraisa, like we thought until now).

(c)Rav Papa disagrees with Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak. Re-establishing the first Beraisa like we initially understood it, he explains 'Lo Ba'al, Eino Lokeh' in the second Beraisa - to mean that he is not fined monetarily, since the fine is restricted to where the marriage was consummated (as we explained earlier).

(d)And it is perfectly appropriate to refer to Mamon as 'Lokeh' - as we shall now see from a Beraisa.

9)

(a)According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, if someone says 'Chatzi Erki Alai', he is obligated to pay half his Erech. According to Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah - he must pay his full Erech.

(b)Rav Papa explains Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah's statement 'Lokeh v'Nosen Erech Shalem' - to mean, not that he receives Malkus, but that he is 'hit' financially to make him pay full damages.

(c)Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah's reason is - because we decree 'Chatzi Erki' on account of 'Erech Chetzyi', where he is obligated min ha'Din, to pay his full Erech.

(d)Someone who says 'Erech Chetzyi Alai' has to pay his full Erech - because the statement automatically incorporates some limbs upon which his life depends, and someone who undertakes to pay the Erech of even one such limb, is obligated to pay his complete Erech.